I think Kevin Craig should be taught a jolly good lesson by the electors by being elected so he loses his bet.
From what I can see the guy was running to win. And looked to have a decent chance to do so. He wasn't even specifically acting to lose. "For profit". Having stuck 100 large into the party wanting it to win.
Have never done it, but is this a classic covering bet?
Did I hear the other day that in that famous 1981 Headingly test, before my time, that on the penultimate day some of the Australians bet on England to win?
Not sure that would pass muster nowadays!
Yup. DK Lillee and RW Marsh
As I was leaving the Headingley ground in 1981 the odds were 250-1 against an England win. I said to my brother that the odds were ridiculous and i would have a £5 bet on England on the way out of the ground. As we neared the exit gate turned out the bookies were at the other end of the ground. We couldn’t be arsed to walk there - end of story!
Meanwhile, the Lib Dem candidate was forced to deny allegations that he'd only got the nomination because he'd given Ed Davey his last Rolo and a lend of his second best biro.
A Conservative politician has become the fifth party figure to be investigated by the gambling watchdog for allegedly placing a suspicious bet on the general election date, as the developing scandal continued to overshadow Rishi Sunak’s campaign.
The Gambling Commission has informed Russell George, a Tory member of the Welsh parliament who represents the same constituency as Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide Craig Williams, that he is part of its inquiry.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
We are reading the room. Which room as you in as it isn't the main room.
Have just watched Sophy Ridge on Sky. Ex Tory Cabinet Minister on the show and all she wanted to talk about was just how much of a tit Sunak had made of himself vs Starmer who acted swiftly.
Genuine question. This room you are reading. Is it one where you think this is it, this is the black swan event which will finally save the Tories?
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
It may have a bit of cut through and might at most hurt Labour a tiny bit.
But it’s not like Gamblegate has ever really been on the level of Partygate or even D-Day gate.
The tone of your original post makes it sound like you’re saying Labour could drop 14 or 15 points off the back of this, which is a patently ridiculous notion.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Here’s a piece on that 500/1 bet placed by two Aussies that they would lose the 1981 test match.
It’s probably an unsavoury topic because it’s one of the greatest turnarounds in English sporting history but there would have been some eyebrows raised nowadays I think.
Just Not Cricket: The Day Australia Bet On Themselves to Lose the Ashes
Why are you talking about this like it’s new? It’s one of the most discussed events in English sporting history; including the batting and the drinking on the flight over. There’s not a lot left to say.
Oh just interesting to those of us who weren’t alive or old enough to watch cricket at the time! In the light of recent match fixing scandals and the idea that this Labour candidate has somehow match fixed (see above)
Just a curious situation which nowadays would have probably raised more than eyebrows.
But clearly suggesting the stunning 1981 England Headingley victory was anything other than a Botham-Willis triumph is to touch a sacred cow.
Or an unnecessary insult to some great players who are now dead. Yes it’s now outlawed. No it wasn’t then. And if you knew those players you wouldn’t suggest they threw a match; nor could they have, given the match situation and the hatful of wickets Willis took, in the way he took them.
What we really need now is for the SNP candidate in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East to have placed bets on the Tories/Lib Dems to win the seat.
lol - I can emphatically confirm that my only bet is on myself to win. And at 66/1 it’s hardly me cheating the system to make money…
Isn’t what you have just confessed to, identical to what the Labour candidate has been sacked for?
Why on earth would you bet on yourself? What’s the point?
I am so disappointed in you 🥺
The Labour candidate was betting against himself - that's the difference. It gives him an incentive to throw the result.
And the fact that he's not saying how much it was for suggests that it was for a substantial amount.
“The Labour candidate was betting against himself - that's the difference. It gives him an incentive to throw the result.”
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. What sort of people do that?
He should be jailed and struck off.
Do we all agree placing huge amount on yourself to lose is far more disgusting than the Conservative Party bets?
If it wasn’t for the furore over the Tory bets, this Labour sleaze would never have come to light would it?
How much more Labour sleaze not come to light, still out there? 😠
I'm not sure it's the same as Michael Tabor walking up to Star Sports pitch at Ascot and having £50k on the Juddmonte horse in a race where he has a runner.
As I've said, the stupidity was having the bet publicly - if you want to bet against yourself, don't do it yourself.
Oh Stodge. You are dealing only in the stupidity and incompetence of getting caught - not the perception of sleaze and corruption of betting on other runners when you are in a race yourself.
It’s not okay to sneakily get away with it, as you suggest becuase the “it” part of it is wrong, not just morally, but what about other punters bets, when someone has bet heavily on themselves to lose, and is throwing it. It’s fraud.
I know, as a conservative (of some sort), you are desperate to whip this into some kind of anti-Labour frenzy to drive millions of voters back to the blue team.
Seriously?
Kevin Craig has been a fool and Starmer has moved quickly - the Conservatives will probably hold the seat after this. Is it some sort of election game-changer? Hardly.
Tomorrow's debate is of far greater significance to the outcome than this minor squall.
Tomorrow’s debate is a last opportunity for Sunak and I expect he might go a bit OTT and angry. His handlers will need to be trying to keep him calm. His best hope is that Starmer does something catastrophic.
He could do worse than pop half a valium an hour beforehand. Better for him to be too relaxed than risk getting wound up.
The Tories best hope right now is that Starmer drops the ming vase, or that Farage shoots his mouth off again. Sunak's proven that his attempts to change the narrative don't work, and he's probably wise to have stopped trying over the past week and a half.
The debate doesn’t matter. The election is over. Starmer has won. Nothing that gets said in the debate will shift the dial to that degree. Look at the debates so far - nothing enlightening is gleaned from them, they are squabbling matches that generate far more heat than light.
The only thing the Tories can practically do now with a week left is keep banging the supermajority drum and hope that that, with a little bit of leakage from Reform and Labour voter complacency, will see them benefitting from differential turnout and save them a good chunk of seats. 200 looks unattainable now. 140-180 might be achievable.
What we really need now is for the SNP candidate in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East to have placed bets on the Tories/Lib Dems to win the seat.
lol - I can emphatically confirm that my only bet is on myself to win. And at 66/1 it’s hardly me cheating the system to make money…
Isn’t what you have just confessed to, identical to what the Labour candidate has been sacked for?
Why on earth would you bet on yourself? What’s the point?
I am so disappointed in you 🥺
The Labour candidate was betting against himself - that's the difference. It gives him an incentive to throw the result.
And the fact that he's not saying how much it was for suggests that it was for a substantial amount.
“The Labour candidate was betting against himself - that's the difference. It gives him an incentive to throw the result.”
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. What sort of people do that?
He should be jailed and struck off.
Do we all agree placing huge amount on yourself to lose is far more disgusting than the Conservative Party bets?
If it wasn’t for the furore over the Tory bets, this Labour sleaze would never have come to light would it?
How much more Labour sleaze not come to light, still out there? 😠
I'm not sure it's the same as Michael Tabor walking up to Star Sports pitch at Ascot and having £50k on the Juddmonte horse in a race where he has a runner.
As I've said, the stupidity was having the bet publicly - if you want to bet against yourself, don't do it yourself.
Oh Stodge. You are dealing only in the stupidity and incompetence of getting caught - not the perception of sleaze and corruption of betting on other runners when you are in a race yourself.
It’s not okay to sneakily get away with it, as you suggest becuase the “it” part of it is wrong, not just morally, but what about other punters bets, when someone has bet heavily on themselves to lose, and is throwing it. It’s fraud.
Owners can bet. Jockeys cannot. Craig is analogously a jockey.
The jockey is 50,000 voters. The candidates are a mixture of the horses and the winning post.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
It's a bit of a mess and one can't avoid the impression the Gambling Commission is stretching a bit to create a precedent and make itself look useful. Of course, politically what these people did is bloody stupid whether or not it is illegal.
Here’s a piece on that 500/1 bet placed by two Aussies that they would lose the 1981 test match.
It’s probably an unsavoury topic because it’s one of the greatest turnarounds in English sporting history but there would have been some eyebrows raised nowadays I think.
Just Not Cricket: The Day Australia Bet On Themselves to Lose the Ashes
Why are you talking about this like it’s new? It’s one of the most discussed events in English sporting history; including the batting and the drinking on the flight over. There’s not a lot left to say.
Oh just interesting to those of us who weren’t alive or old enough to watch cricket at the time! In the light of recent match fixing scandals and the idea that this Labour candidate has somehow match fixed (see above)
Just a curious situation which nowadays would have probably raised more than eyebrows.
But clearly suggesting the stunning 1981 England Headingley victory was anything other than a Botham-Willis triumph is to touch a sacred cow.
Or an unnecessary insult to some great players who are now dead. Yes it’s now outlawed. No it wasn’t then. And if you knew those players you wouldn’t suggest they threw a match; nor could they have, given the match situation and the hatful of wickets Willis took, in the way he took them.
Accusing people of cheating is not cool.
Jesus wept.
I only mentioned the story!! Haven’t accused anyone of anything. Merely pointed out that if it happened today it would more than raise eyebrows. It’s an ‘uncomfortable' story, isn’t it in an otherwise sensational win? Hence your over-reaction.
Just because we let Australia into Eurovision we don't need an Ozzie pundit at the euros.
We've had an Aussie James Bond and an Aussie represent the UK at Eurovision.
We let standards slip decades ago.
Steady. There’s a couple I was very happy to see play for England….
Lot of Saffers too. Love it when they're interviewed and say, "I've always dreamed of scoring a century for England at Trent Bridge, ever since I was a young boy chucking a cricket ball around the Veldt, using springbok horns for stumps..."
Well it is interesting isn’t it? You can’t bet that you’ll lose but you can bet you will win? What about betting you will draw, or what about placing other candidates to come 2nd, 3rd etc.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
It may have a bit of cut through and might at most hurt Labour a tiny bit.
But it’s not like Gamblegate has ever really been on the level of Partygate or even D-Day gate.
The tone of your original post makes it sound like you’re saying Labour could drop 14 or 15 points off the back of this, which is a patently ridiculous notion.
Four days ago the consensus on here was that gamblegate was the one cut-through story of the election.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
It's a bit of a mess and one can't avoid the impression the Gambling Commission is stretching a bit to create a precedent and make itself look useful. Of course, politically what these people did is bloody stupid whether or not it is illegal.
The trouble for the Gambling Commission is they lack an exit strategy if that's their game. If they come out in a couple of months and say, "Yeah, we've looked into umpteen people and it turns out all of this stuff was perfectly legal all along" they look like chumps who didn't know the law in the area they are regulating. And my view is that is exactly what will happen.
Here’s a piece on that 500/1 bet placed by two Aussies that they would lose the 1981 test match.
It’s probably an unsavoury topic because it’s one of the greatest turnarounds in English sporting history but there would have been some eyebrows raised nowadays I think.
Just Not Cricket: The Day Australia Bet On Themselves to Lose the Ashes
Why are you talking about this like it’s new? It’s one of the most discussed events in English sporting history; including the batting and the drinking on the flight over. There’s not a lot left to say.
Oh just interesting to those of us who weren’t alive or old enough to watch cricket at the time! In the light of recent match fixing scandals and the idea that this Labour candidate has somehow match fixed (see above)
Just a curious situation which nowadays would have probably raised more than eyebrows.
But clearly suggesting the stunning 1981 England Headingley victory was anything other than a Botham-Willis triumph is to touch a sacred cow.
Or an unnecessary insult to some great players who are now dead. Yes it’s now outlawed. No it wasn’t then. And if you knew those players you wouldn’t suggest they threw a match; nor could they have, given the match situation and the hatful of wickets Willis took, in the way he took them.
Accusing people of cheating is not cool.
Jesus wept.
I only mentioned the story!! Haven’t accused anyone of anything. Merely pointed out that if it happened today it would more than raise eyebrows. It’s an ‘uncomfortable' story, isn’t it in an otherwise sensational win? Hence your over-reaction.
A lie. You wrote: “But clearly suggesting the stunning 1981 England Headingley victory was anything other than a Botham-Willis triumph is to touch a sacred cow”.
Clear implication of cheating.
At least defend your words when you write them. Even the Russian trolls do that.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
For me, it's fine to use information that other people could find out even if they had to put in some amount of (legal) effort to get it. So betting based on a personal conversation with a coach or a trainer, or overheard on a pub or on a train - none of that sounds like a problem.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
In between those, you have the case of someone who bets on the basis of private information they're trusted with as part of their job, but doesn't have any influence over it. Some of the other Tories might fall into this category. That's more of a grey area - to me, it feels more like an HR issue than a legal one. But it's still a fucking stupid thing for people in the public eye to have done.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
It's a bit of a mess and one can't avoid the impression the Gambling Commission is stretching a bit to create a precedent and make itself look useful. Of course, politically what these people did is bloody stupid whether or not it is illegal.
The obvious line to draw is between confidential advance information of a future fact (company secretary knows a takeover bid is being made public tomorrow); and the stuff of expert knowledge, research, professional insight, mathematical computations, the stable insight, about things which are none the less future contingents. This is doing what a bookie can do. You are entitled to be better than the market/bookie at his own job. (I never am. I will never be prosecuted. Insufficient evidence. Look at the losses.)
Well it is interesting isn’t it? You can’t bet that you’ll lose but you can bet you will win? What about betting you will draw, or what about placing other candidates to come 2nd, 3rd etc.
It’s going to muddy the waters this.
Big old can of worms. Which probably just means no movement except in declining turnout
Lol. I’ve obviously touched a bit of a raw nerve with the old English cricket fans. Apologies
No offence was intended about the glorious win. Just an interesting comparison about the idea of betting that you will lose.
I find the reaction to your comments odd. You are not saying the players threw the match, just contrasting the response then to the response now. That’s hardly unreasonable
Even at the time, I remember this and I vividly remember watching the Willis 8 for while at Butlins in Minehead on holiday, precious few people thought they threw the game.
Irony is a few weeks later at Edgbaston they had another great result and a Beefy spell of 5 for 1. That was a time when Botham was known for his cricket and not a pic on twitter.
Here’s a piece on that 500/1 bet placed by two Aussies that they would lose the 1981 test match.
It’s probably an unsavoury topic because it’s one of the greatest turnarounds in English sporting history but there would have been some eyebrows raised nowadays I think.
Just Not Cricket: The Day Australia Bet On Themselves to Lose the Ashes
Why are you talking about this like it’s new? It’s one of the most discussed events in English sporting history; including the batting and the drinking on the flight over. There’s not a lot left to say.
Oh just interesting to those of us who weren’t alive or old enough to watch cricket at the time! In the light of recent match fixing scandals and the idea that this Labour candidate has somehow match fixed (see above)
Just a curious situation which nowadays would have probably raised more than eyebrows.
But clearly suggesting the stunning 1981 England Headingley victory was anything other than a Botham-Willis triumph is to touch a sacred cow.
Or an unnecessary insult to some great players who are now dead. Yes it’s now outlawed. No it wasn’t then. And if you knew those players you wouldn’t suggest they threw a match; nor could they have, given the match situation and the hatful of wickets Willis took, in the way he took them.
Accusing people of cheating is not cool.
Jesus wept.
I only mentioned the story!! Haven’t accused anyone of anything. Merely pointed out that if it happened today it would more than raise eyebrows. It’s an ‘uncomfortable' story, isn’t it in an otherwise sensational win? Hence your over-reaction.
A lie. You wrote: “But clearly suggesting the stunning 1981 England Headingley victory was anything other than a Botham-Willis triumph is to touch a sacred cow”.
Clear implication of cheating.
At least defend your words when you write them. Even the Russian trolls do that.
The only reason I’m writing that line is the swivel-eyed reaction to the story. Clearly a sacred cow.
Lol. I’ve obviously touched a bit of a raw nerve with the old English cricket fans. Apologies
No offence was intended about the glorious win. Just an interesting comparison about the idea of betting that you will lose.
I find the reaction to your comments odd. You are not saying the players threw the match, just contrasting the response then to the response now. That’s hardly unreasonable
Even at the time, I remember this and I vividly remember watching the Willis 8 for while at Butlins in Minehead on holiday, precious few people thought they threw the game.
Irony is a few weeks later at Edgbaston they had another great result and a Beefy spell of 5 for 1. That was a time when Botham was known for his cricket and not a pic on twitter.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
Stop your ramping.
You threatening me? With what?
And for what? “Labour joins Tories in scandal” I’m pointing to a major news outlet saying it. Absolutely. You tell Sky news, and all the rest of the media tonight, and tomorrow, to stop ramping this Labour sleaze story, making it appear something more than it is.
And if you insist voters will understand it’s all far more subtle and minor, than a sleazy £100,000 figure that will now be in every headline for days, I’m entitled to disagree with you? Not that it truly is £100,000 of sleaze Starmer is embroiled in, but how voters, 70% which cannot even name their MP and 90% cannot tell you what a back bencher is, might understand all this much differently than you do.
I’m done no ramping here. I’m only waking everyone up to the obvious ramping, and its impact on this election, that will now come like a storm.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
Stop your ramping.
You threatening me? With what?
And for what? “Labour joins Tories in scandal” I’m pointing to a major news outlet saying it. Absolutely. You tell Sky news, and all the rest of the media tonight, and tomorrow, to stop ramping this Labour sleaze story, making it appear something more than it is.
And if you insist voters will understand it’s all far more subtle and minor, than a sleazy £100,000 figure that will now be in every headline for days, I’m entitled to disagree with you? Not that it truly is £100,000 of sleaze Starmer is embroiled in, but how voters, 70% which cannot even name their MP and 90% cannot tell you what a back bencher is, might understand all this much differently than you do.
I’m done no ramping here. I’m only waking everyone up to the obvious ramping, and its impact on this election, that will now come like a storm.
Where I accused an MP of match fixing, and others of insider trading, MexPet might be right, you might wish to delete that to protect the site.
Well it is interesting isn’t it? You can’t bet that you’ll lose but you can bet you will win? What about betting you will draw, or what about placing other candidates to come 2nd, 3rd etc.
It’s going to muddy the waters this.
Not particularly.
Betting that something will happen (like a July 4 election) because you have sniffed the air: OK.
Betting that something will happen because you have specific inside information: not OK. Same as any insider dealing.
Betting that you will do well: OK. Rakish, but OK. Far from the worst thing Clement Freud did.
Betting that you won't do well: dumb. And we don't want dumb MPs, thanks.
What Kevin Craig did was dumb rather than malign. But he's fessed up quickly and taken his punishment like a man, which is a refreshing change.
One might almost say that you have to be drunk as a Lord to do something so stupid. I wouldn't be shocked if, after a decent interval, they made him one.
Well it is interesting isn’t it? You can’t bet that you’ll lose but you can bet you will win? What about betting you will draw, or what about placing other candidates to come 2nd, 3rd etc.
It’s going to muddy the waters this.
Peston is, as ever, being almost unbelieavble stupid. [Truly, it's hard to understand how he's held down a career.] The point is that the Labour candidate bet against himself. There is no harm in politics or sport in betting on yourself. But betting against yourself gives you an incentive not to wim and muddies the competition.
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
Stop your ramping.
You threatening me? With what?
And for what? “Labour joins Tories in scandal” I’m pointing to a major news outlet saying it. Absolutely. You tell Sky news, and all the rest of the media tonight, and tomorrow, to stop ramping this Labour sleaze story, making it appear something more than it is.
And if you insist voters will understand it’s all far more subtle and minor, than a sleazy £100,000 figure that will now be in every headline for days, I’m entitled to disagree with you? Not that it truly is £100,000 of sleaze Starmer is embroiled in, but how voters, 70% which cannot even name their MP and 90% cannot tell you what a back bencher is, might understand all this much differently than you do.
I’m done no ramping here. I’m only waking everyone up to the obvious ramping, and its impact on this election, that will now come like a storm.
I am threatening you with piss taking.
As others have pointed you said Labour's VAT on private schools would have similar results.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
The Inner Circle who have just been told the date of the election, betting on that date is wholly different to candidates having a cheeky punt on themselves. There is no jeopardy in the former, but there is in the latter.
The Labour guy is somewhat different in so much as he "could" attempt to "throw" the election for a winning bet, but I suspect that is stretching the point more than it deserves.
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
It's a bit of a mess and one can't avoid the impression the Gambling Commission is stretching a bit to create a precedent and make itself look useful. Of course, politically what these people did is bloody stupid whether or not it is illegal.
The obvious line to draw is between confidential advance information of a future fact (company secretary knows a takeover bid is being made public tomorrow); and the stuff of expert knowledge, research, professional insight, mathematical computations, the stable insight, about things which are none the less future contingents. This is doing what a bookie can do. You are entitled to be better than the market/bookie at his own job. (I never am. I will never be prosecuted. Insufficient evidence. Look at the losses.)
The company secretary point isn't really valid because there ARE offences of insider trading in securities. The point is to ensure an orderly financial market as it's important for raising finance etc. The law in betting is not and never has been the same as trading in securities, so analogies fail on that basis.
In terms of your broader point on confidential information, what is confidential in this context? What if you're talking to a football manager down the pub and he says his star striker is crocked and he's worried about Saturday? Or a horse trainer tells you about a new horse who has never run before (so no form) but is miles better than the 20-1 on offer? None of this is public, and indeed the person may explicitly not want you to spread it about. But placing a bet isn't spreading it about.
Bookmakers have other ways to protect themselves like betting limits - and they use them extensively. This is all creation of huge grey areas for no benefit.
Tory member of the Welsh Parliament Russell George investigated by Gambling Commission regarding bets on the timing of the General Election…
I am getting increasingly pissed off that Rishi did not tip me the wink with half of the rest of the country. It seems to be getting personal. Has my criticism on PB been taken to heart?
There's an interesting question here for anyone who bets.
When the story originally broke, some people here were saying quite confidently that betting based on "inside information" was not illegal, unlike insider share trading.
Now it seems to be accepted that potentially it can be cheating, and therefore illegal. But does that mean that anyone who bets while taking account of information not in the public domain is cheating? And if not, where do you draw the line?
I don't think it's accepted, so much as commentariat gossips in the media want it to be true. And even if it is accepted, it shouldn't be. So there is no line to be drawn.
I said the other day a lot of (political) journalists do not understand gambling.
I've pointed out that is possible to have made a profit on a May election and you didn't need to even bet a single penny on a May election, you could for example lay an October/November election.
I have a free bet on over 3.5 goals in tonight's match.
My question is how this differs from over 3 goals?
They essentially do it that way as it's just a bit easier in terms of how it reads on screen etc to say "Over 3.5/Under 3.5" than "Over 3/Less than or equal to 3". That's just the convention for a range of over/under bets.
It avoids ambiguity. If it is possible to read something ambiguously someone will. (Like 00.00 hours on Tuesday, or the sometimes found 12 am or 12 pm.)
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Read the room. The Tory betting scandal is now jointly owned by Labour.
Labours USP as being different, is now dead.
Stop your ramping.
You threatening me? With what?
And for what? “Labour joins Tories in scandal” I’m pointing to a major news outlet saying it. Absolutely. You tell Sky news, and all the rest of the media tonight, and tomorrow, to stop ramping this Labour sleaze story, making it appear something more than it is.
And if you insist voters will understand it’s all far more subtle and minor, than a sleazy £100,000 figure that will now be in every headline for days, I’m entitled to disagree with you? Not that it truly is £100,000 of sleaze Starmer is embroiled in, but how voters, 70% which cannot even name their MP and 90% cannot tell you what a back bencher is, might understand all this much differently than you do.
I’m done no ramping here. I’m only waking everyone up to the obvious ramping, and its impact on this election, that will now come like a storm.
I suspect the Lab betting scandal will have about as much impact as the other seventeen turning points that MoonRabbit has previously identified. The key point is that Lab figures were not betting on something they knew was going to happen. This is only comparable if the Lab figure is deliberatly throwing his seat. Anyone with any nous is aware of that.
However, the media are quite right to cover this. Will it mitigate the Con problems? Possibly but the real damage for them was that this was just another brick in the corrupt wall. The issue for Lab is whataboutism. That won't help the Cons but could rally Reform. After all the expenses scandle was a huge boost for UKIP back in the day. Ironic given what a load of grifters they were and are.
If you want honest politicians maybe move to Salisbury and vote for King Arthur Pendragon
I have a free bet on over 3.5 goals in tonight's match.
My question is how this differs from over 3 goals?
They essentially do it that way as it's just a bit easier in terms of how it reads on screen etc to say "Over 3.5/Under 3.5" than "Over 3/Less than or equal to 3". That's just the convention for a range of over/under bets.
It avoids ambiguity. If it is possible to read something ambiguously someone will. (Like 00.00 hours on Tuesday, or the sometimes found 12 am or 12 pm.)
Yes, partly. Although it's also just easier to read.
"Do you think there will be more than 3 goals in tonight's match or fewer than 4?" is entirely unambiguous and the categories are mutually exclusive. But it's a little hard to parse - you need to get your head around it.
What we really need now is for the SNP candidate in Aberdeenshire North & Moray East to have placed bets on the Tories/Lib Dems to win the seat.
lol - I can emphatically confirm that my only bet is on myself to win. And at 66/1 it’s hardly me cheating the system to make money…
Isn’t what you have just confessed to, identical to what the Labour candidate has been sacked for?
Why on earth would you bet on yourself? What’s the point?
I am so disappointed in you 🥺
The Labour candidate was betting against himself - that's the difference. It gives him an incentive to throw the result.
And the fact that he's not saying how much it was for suggests that it was for a substantial amount.
“The Labour candidate was betting against himself - that's the difference. It gives him an incentive to throw the result.”
Disgusting. Utterly disgusting. What sort of people do that?
He should be jailed and struck off.
Do we all agree placing huge amount on yourself to lose is far more disgusting than the Conservative Party bets?
If it wasn’t for the furore over the Tory bets, this Labour sleaze would never have come to light would it?
How much more Labour sleaze not come to light, still out there? 😠
There's Starmer's curry and Rayner's house. Isn't that enough to be getting on with?
You don’t understand just how HUGE this moment is in this election campaign.
The only thing that was going to put Labour a Wapping 14 or 15 points clear of Tories on July 4th was the hope they would be different than the sleaze and incompetence we have seen in recent years, that was Labours USP for double digit leads, admit it was THE decisive perceived difference between them and the Tories in this election.
BUT, ITS GONE. That USP and reason for voting Labour has gone, it’s no more, it cannot possibly come back before polling day.
Labour candidate in election betting scandal is a huge moment in this election campaign.
I'll take your word for it. In a post Boris Johnson world, scandals aren't what they were.
The Tory bets if proved are insider trading. The Labour betting sleaze in this election is MATCH FIXING. Infinitely a more serious crime.
No, it could be insider trading. I had this conversation with David Herdson a few days ago:
I don't need hypotheticals: I've seen pre-close of poll postal vote returns in the past which I could have used to place bets. I didn't.
(Yes, it would be very illegal to do so but that wouldn't stop some people; it would be hard to prove cause and event)
I thought that all the postal votes were taken to the count on election night and were aggregated for the first time then and there ... and then added to the other votes cast in person on the day. If that is not the case and they are pre-counted, what exactly is the point in having the two sealed envelope procedure?
Ilford North poster update. This afternoon I returned to that constituency and spotted a very large Leanne Mohamad poster on a flat's balcony, and an MPV with her name on top that might belong to a supporter or be serving as her battlebus. Still no posters seen for Labour or Conservative so presumably they think Wes Streeting has it in the bag.
Prominent Nigel Farage/Reform Ltd. cheerleader & weapons grade weirdo @johnmappin (far left here, ironically enough) appears to have been hanging out with Vladimir Putin’s Ambassador to the U.K. in the *very* recent past…
More evidence that Keir Starmer should not attempt thinking on his feet.
I think Keir Starmer comes across as a quite nasty piece of work over this. Not a good look for him at all.
Imo both Starmer and Moon Rabbit have it wrong and the more embarrassing story is not the bet but the one Topping posted at the start of this thread about donations.
Tory member of the Welsh Parliament Russell George investigated by Gambling Commission regarding bets on the timing of the General Election…
I am getting increasingly pissed off that Rishi did not tip me the wink with half of the rest of the country. It seems to be getting personal. Has my criticism on PB been taken to heart?
He told me, but as he’s a Tory, I didn’t believe him.
Ilford North poster update. This afternoon I returned to that constituency and spotted a very large Leanne Mohamad poster on a flat's balcony, and an MPV with her name on top that might belong to a supporter or be serving as her battlebus. Still no posters seen for Labour or Conservative so presumably they think Wes Streeting has it in the bag.
Is it the same balcony I saw in Barkingside High Street today? Saw a fixed wooden poster in someone's garden on Horns Road, south of Barkingside.
The only Labour poster I saw was just further up Horns Road, closer to Barkingside.
Everyone bets, politicians kneejerk, and it will lead to a clampdown and reckoning with betting more broadly.
That's a more serious point with affordability checks and restrictions on bookmaker advertising.
For a long time, some have complained about the proliferation of bookmakers in High Streets - there could be moves to restrict the numbers or even to restrict opening hours (in East Ham it's 8am to 10pm for some shops so if you fancy betting on the 8.12am dog race at Youghal be my guest). The other outside is FOBTs and their continued domination of many betting shops.
Ilford North poster update. This afternoon I returned to that constituency and spotted a very large Leanne Mohamad poster on a flat's balcony, and an MPV with her name on top that might belong to a supporter or be serving as her battlebus. Still no posters seen for Labour or Conservative so presumably they think Wes Streeting has it in the bag.
Is it the same balcony I saw in Barkingside High Street today? Saw a fixed wooden poster in someone's garden on Horns Road, south of Barkingside.
The only Labour poster I saw was just further up Horns Road, closer to Barkingside.
More evidence that Keir Starmer should not attempt thinking on his feet.
I think Keir Starmer comes across as a quite nasty piece of work over this. Not a good look for him at all.
Imo both Starmer and Moon Rabbit have it wrong and the more embarrassing story is not the bet but the one Topping posted at the start of this thread about donations.
Yes hence handing back the 100 grand like it had piss on it
A Conservative cabinet minister claimed that he won more than £2,000 betting on a July general election.
Shortly after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack told the BBC he had made £2,100 after betting on June and July election dates. He claimed one of the bets was placed at odds of 25/1.
Last week, Mr Jack told the BBC the comments were “a joke… I was pulling your leg”.
Today, the Scottish Secretary said in a statement he “did not place any bets on the date of the general election during May”.
Well, today's statement, by including the qualification "during May", seems a reasonably clear indication that he did place a bet on the date of the election at some time.
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
These are definitively fine players. And they look like the world’s 47th best team
There is another possibility, which is that our very heavy and irregularly spaced league programme does not allow players to recover properly between matches.
Comments
Just 9 days 2 hours 17 mins until...
Sorry I mean just 17 mins to kick off!
No offence was intended about the glorious win. Just an interesting comparison about the idea of betting that you will lose.
Have just watched Sophy Ridge on Sky. Ex Tory Cabinet Minister on the show and all she wanted to talk about was just how much of a tit Sunak had made of himself vs Starmer who acted swiftly.
Genuine question. This room you are reading. Is it one where you think this is it, this is the black swan event which will finally save the Tories?
But it’s not like Gamblegate has ever really been on the level of Partygate or even D-Day gate.
The tone of your original post makes it sound like you’re saying Labour could drop 14 or 15 points off the back of this, which is a patently ridiculous notion.
Accusing people of cheating is not cool.
We let standards slip decades ago.
The only thing the Tories can practically do now with a week left is keep banging the supermajority drum and hope that that, with a little bit of leakage from Reform and Labour voter complacency, will see them benefitting from differential turnout and save them a good chunk of seats. 200 looks unattainable now. 140-180 might be achievable.
I only mentioned the story!! Haven’t accused anyone of anything. Merely pointed out that if it happened today it would more than raise eyebrows. It’s an ‘uncomfortable' story, isn’t it in an otherwise sensational win? Hence your over-reaction.
Yes, indeed
It’s going to muddy the waters this.
Clear implication of cheating.
At least defend your words when you write them. Even the Russian trolls do that.
On the other hand, betting on something you can potentially influence seems clearly wrong. So the Campaign Director, or the C-level person in charge of data are both going to have a huge input into the timing of the election, and so shouldn't have been betting on it.
In between those, you have the case of someone who bets on the basis of private information they're trusted with as part of their job, but doesn't have any influence over it. Some of the other Tories might fall into this category. That's more of a grey area - to me, it feels more like an HR issue than a legal one. But it's still a fucking stupid thing for people in the public eye to have done.
(Purely my inexpert personal opinion)
Even at the time, I remember this and I vividly remember watching the Willis 8 for while at Butlins in Minehead on holiday, precious few people thought they threw the game.
Irony is a few weeks later at Edgbaston they had another great result and a Beefy spell of 5 for 1. That was a time when Botham was known for his cricket and not a pic on twitter.
🚨AND ANOTHER…
Tory member of the Welsh Parliament Russell George investigated by Gambling Commission regarding bets on the timing of the General Election…
Really strange over-reaction by you.
Chill and move on.
And for what? “Labour joins Tories in scandal” I’m pointing to a major news outlet saying it. Absolutely. You tell Sky news, and all the rest of the media tonight, and tomorrow, to stop ramping this Labour sleaze story, making it appear something more than it is.
And if you insist voters will understand it’s all far more subtle and minor, than a sleazy £100,000 figure that will now be in every headline for days, I’m entitled to disagree with you? Not that it truly is £100,000 of sleaze Starmer is embroiled in, but how voters, 70% which cannot even name their MP and 90% cannot tell you what a back bencher is, might understand all this much differently than you do.
I’m done no ramping here. I’m only waking everyone up to the obvious ramping, and its impact on this election, that will now come like a storm.
Labour are involved and suddenly the media are worried about 'moral panic'. Lol
Betting that something will happen (like a July 4 election) because you have sniffed the air: OK.
Betting that something will happen because you have specific inside information: not OK. Same as any insider dealing.
Betting that you will do well: OK. Rakish, but OK. Far from the worst thing Clement Freud did.
Betting that you won't do well: dumb. And we don't want dumb MPs, thanks.
What Kevin Craig did was dumb rather than malign. But he's fessed up quickly and taken his punishment like a man, which is a refreshing change.
One might almost say that you have to be drunk as a Lord to do something so stupid. I wouldn't be shocked if, after a decent interval, they made him one.
The point is that the Labour candidate bet against himself.
There is no harm in politics or sport in betting on yourself. But betting against yourself gives you an incentive not to wim and muddies the competition.
As others have pointed you said Labour's VAT on private schools would have similar results.
I could dig out other examples.
The Inner Circle who have just been told the date of the election, betting on that date is wholly different to candidates having a cheeky punt on themselves. There is no jeopardy in the former, but there is in the latter.
The Labour guy is somewhat different in so much as he "could" attempt to "throw" the election for a winning bet, but I suspect that is stretching the point more than it deserves.
Peston getting way ahead of himself here.
In terms of your broader point on confidential information, what is confidential in this context? What if you're talking to a football manager down the pub and he says his star striker is crocked and he's worried about Saturday? Or a horse trainer tells you about a new horse who has never run before (so no form) but is miles better than the 20-1 on offer? None of this is public, and indeed the person may explicitly not want you to spread it about. But placing a bet isn't spreading it about.
Bookmakers have other ways to protect themselves like betting limits - and they use them extensively. This is all creation of huge grey areas for no benefit.
I've pointed out that is possible to have made a profit on a May election and you didn't need to even bet a single penny on a May election, you could for example lay an October/November election.
Everyone bets, politicians kneejerk, and it will lead to a clampdown and reckoning with betting more broadly.
However, the media are quite right to cover this. Will it mitigate the Con problems? Possibly but the real damage for them was that this was just another brick in the corrupt wall. The issue for Lab is whataboutism. That won't help the Cons but could rally Reform. After all the expenses scandle was a huge boost for UKIP back in the day. Ironic given what a load of grifters they were and are.
If you want honest politicians maybe move to Salisbury and vote for King Arthur Pendragon
https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/1805643007951089951
"Do you think there will be more than 3 goals in tonight's match or fewer than 4?" is entirely unambiguous and the categories are mutually exclusive. But it's a little hard to parse - you need to get your head around it.
Oh, you were talking about the football.
If that is not the case and they are pre-counted, what exactly is the point in having the two sealed envelope procedure?
We haven’t got a hope
My boss drove from Ashington to Edinburgh to fly out t9 be there and is catching several trains back.
I like the guy but what a fucking mug.
Any polls later?
Prominent Nigel Farage/Reform Ltd. cheerleader & weapons grade weirdo
@johnmappin
(far left here, ironically enough) appears to have been hanging out with Vladimir Putin’s Ambassador to the U.K. in the *very* recent past…
https://x.com/mrjamesob/status/1805666739726000560
These are definitively fine players. And they look like the world’s 47th best team
The only Labour poster I saw was just further up Horns Road, closer to Barkingside.
For a long time, some have complained about the proliferation of bookmakers in High Streets - there could be moves to restrict the numbers or even to restrict opening hours (in East Ham it's 8am to 10pm for some shops so if you fancy betting on the 8.12am dog race at Youghal be my guest). The other outside is FOBTs and their continued domination of many betting shops.
Although I suspect he is a right barsteward.
You don't get to within a week of being Prime Minister for a Party whose USP is to lose elections by not being a right barsteward.
https://x.com/oilysailor/status/1805682197308825709
So where does that leave his claim last week that he had been joking when he told the BBC earlier about his winnings?
The web is a bit tangled. It looks as though he placed bets, but not immediately before the date of the election was announced. If so, I wonder if he denied it on his own initiative,
Are not iffy bets a matter for the bookies concerned and, if they make a valid complaint, the police/courts trying fraud.
Why does there have to be a well paid quango at taxpayers expense?