What motivates a person to buy a lottery ticket? A large jackpot, of course. I've spent some happy moments whiling away journeys dividing it all up between my own personal good causes (not all myself, really).
But where the rest of the money goes has always been a bit unclear as far as most of the ticket buyers are concerned. Lottery money has made an unprecedented impact on the arts, heritage, sport and local communities, but certain sections of the media have whipped up anger about 'undeserving' recipients of 'good cause' money, often highlighting projects involving asylum seekers, for example.
Fury over these relatively few projects gives the impression that trendy liberalism has taken over the lottery at the expense of 'ordinary' ticket buyers.
So it's no surprise that government proposals now focus on ways to give the public more of a say on who gets lottery good cause money, something welcomed and being acted on by all the good causes, particularly the Big Lottery Fund (BLF).
One idea is public voting on lottery projects. It's not yet clear how this could be applied to other lottery distributors, but the BLF is leading the way with the People's Millions, which was launched in June. The initiative will give away more than £66m over the next three years to projects decided on by the regional votes of local people.
This first votes will take place from 31 October to 4 November after ITV regional news programmes have profiled shortlisted projects.
I am uncomfortable with voting systems for lottery projects for two reasons. Firstly, project funding is a lot more complicated than it first appears. Secondly, I am concerned with the 'beauty contest' approach to funding that voting encourages.
The BBC programme Restoration, where the public voted on their favourite building to win money for its renovation, ran for two series in 2003 and 2004. It was a ratings winner for BBC2, with 2.3 million votes cast in 2003. It raised the profile of the beauty of buildings and the dangers they face, with communities coming together to fight their corner.
But the 2003 winner, the Victoria Baths in Manchester, or rather its Turkish baths, has found that because of the complex nature of the site, the prize money and a completion date are years away. The public vote has waved no magic wand and, through no fault of those involved, some may feel expectations have been unfairly raised.
Voting systems also worry charities, which feel that the beauty contest scenario means 'unpopular' causes will lose out. In any contest between good cause themes, many museum and arts professionals fear that more populist sports projects may win the lion's share, or that the 'why not give it to hospitals?' mantra will return.
Handled poorly, crude voting systems may erode hard-won lottery goodwill without resolving either lottery players' involvement or the tricky problem of funding needs.
The killer fact is that lottery money is not public or government money. It belongs to those who play the lottery, and they should be more involved in decision-making and more aware of how the money is spent. But this will need more sophisticated ways of interrupting those jackpot daydreams than simple popularity contests.
Judy Aitken is the policy officer of the Museums Association
But where the rest of the money goes has always been a bit unclear as far as most of the ticket buyers are concerned. Lottery money has made an unprecedented impact on the arts, heritage, sport and local communities, but certain sections of the media have whipped up anger about 'undeserving' recipients of 'good cause' money, often highlighting projects involving asylum seekers, for example.
Fury over these relatively few projects gives the impression that trendy liberalism has taken over the lottery at the expense of 'ordinary' ticket buyers.
So it's no surprise that government proposals now focus on ways to give the public more of a say on who gets lottery good cause money, something welcomed and being acted on by all the good causes, particularly the Big Lottery Fund (BLF).
One idea is public voting on lottery projects. It's not yet clear how this could be applied to other lottery distributors, but the BLF is leading the way with the People's Millions, which was launched in June. The initiative will give away more than £66m over the next three years to projects decided on by the regional votes of local people.
This first votes will take place from 31 October to 4 November after ITV regional news programmes have profiled shortlisted projects.
I am uncomfortable with voting systems for lottery projects for two reasons. Firstly, project funding is a lot more complicated than it first appears. Secondly, I am concerned with the 'beauty contest' approach to funding that voting encourages.
The BBC programme Restoration, where the public voted on their favourite building to win money for its renovation, ran for two series in 2003 and 2004. It was a ratings winner for BBC2, with 2.3 million votes cast in 2003. It raised the profile of the beauty of buildings and the dangers they face, with communities coming together to fight their corner.
But the 2003 winner, the Victoria Baths in Manchester, or rather its Turkish baths, has found that because of the complex nature of the site, the prize money and a completion date are years away. The public vote has waved no magic wand and, through no fault of those involved, some may feel expectations have been unfairly raised.
Voting systems also worry charities, which feel that the beauty contest scenario means 'unpopular' causes will lose out. In any contest between good cause themes, many museum and arts professionals fear that more populist sports projects may win the lion's share, or that the 'why not give it to hospitals?' mantra will return.
Handled poorly, crude voting systems may erode hard-won lottery goodwill without resolving either lottery players' involvement or the tricky problem of funding needs.
The killer fact is that lottery money is not public or government money. It belongs to those who play the lottery, and they should be more involved in decision-making and more aware of how the money is spent. But this will need more sophisticated ways of interrupting those jackpot daydreams than simple popularity contests.
Judy Aitken is the policy officer of the Museums Association
