Will this be "Independence Day" from the Tories?
i assume he meant that the person placing the bet has to give a name, and it's clear that the name of the subject of the bet is the same?
The "bookie" was no doubt an employee behind a counter who wouldn't have known him from peter or paul, or , it was done online which would be automatically placed.
Now, i'm not saying it won't be paid. But technically, they can refuse to pay out if they feel there are any gregerious factors at play
Can he? The bookie who took the bet must have known (a) the identity of the person betting, and (b) the identity of the candidate on whom the bet was placed. In other words, he knew that the candidate was betting against himself in his own race. If he took the bet knowing that, on what basis can he later disclaim the bet?
The Jockey Club has rules that penalise a jockey for betting (either way) on a race in which he is riding. Other sporting regulatory bodies have similar rules for other professional sportsmen.
But politicians are not sportsmen, and they are not subject to the rules of any of these bodies. All they (and the Gambling Commisision) have to worry about is s. 42 of the Gambling Act, which makes it an offence to cheat, attempt to cheat, or assist another person to cheat, at gambling.
The fact that a bet creates an incentive to underperform is probably not enough to show that the person who placed the bet was cheating. (Or, at any rate, nobody has ever been convicted of cheating on this basis.) You'd need some evidence to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the candidate did intentionally underperform, and that he placed the bet knowing that he would do this, which I think would be very difficult to establish.
Most cheating convictions involve cases where one party had undisclosed inside knowledge that the other party doesn't know he has (e.g. betting on the second favourite when you know that the favourite has suffered an injury or illness) or where one party is doing something in the game that is considered to give an unfair advantage (e.g. card-counting in a casino).
The Tory insiders who bet on the date of the election when they had inside knowledge about the PM's intentions as to the date of the election are in real trouble. But both Tory and Labour candidates who bet on their own races are probably in the clear, unless investigation shows that they had undisclosed inside knowledge of something that was likely to have a material effect on the race.
Yep, it would be a difficult one but i'll tell you one thing, the bookie who took the bet can turn around and say i'm not paying you. Not legally bound to anyway.
You can argue it, certaintly. But this is a criminal offence ("cheating at gambling") and, to secure a conviction, you'd have to show not just that he could theoretically have been trying not to win but that he did in fact try not to win, which would be hard to prove. If he says "I genuinely hoped to win but I recognised that, despite my very best efforts, I might not win — the voters are a capricious shower — and I placed the bet to mitigate my financial risk in the event that I did lose", how would the prosecution disprove that?
In Sport, you cannot bet on yourself to lose as you can play a factor on the outcome of the result. I'd assume, in politics, it must be the same (can't find any examples)
Let's say he puts a bet on his competitor(s), there are many things he could say/do to pretty much discount himself from winning.
I'd recommend not doing it anyway.
Would you not be able to argue that it's something like a snooker player betting against themselves?
I.e. it's insider information if he knows he's not trying as hard as he should be to win the seat.
He had a video on his twitter (now gone) opening with "its the honour and privilege of my life to be running as a labour candidate in the election". It closed with "we badly need to improve standards in public life". Train wreck all round.
He'll be spending time and money trying to get elected. If he is elected, he'll see that expenditure as a sound investment. But, if he isn't, he's got nothing for all that time and money.
So he's trying to reduce his risk. By betting against himself, at least if he doesn't win the election he recovers some of what he spent trying to win it.
What he's doing will not look good to the punter on the street, who generally places a bet on the outcome he expects and/or hopes for, so will see this as bizarre. But as a risk mitigation technique, it's not wholly irrational.
(It's also not illegal, unless he has inside information, not available to the public or to bookmakers, that makes it more likely that he will lose the seat — e.g. if he knows that a sex scandal involving him and a goat is about to break. Of course, he very easily could have information of that kind, but equally he might not.)
Agreed on that.
I just cant figure out what Craig was at there. Publicity stunt Labour election run (by all accounts running for whats usually a strong Tory seat) to promote his lobbying company with a side bet to get his donation back? Cant get my head round it. Seems like a ridiculous scenario.
Depends.
If Sunak himself loses his seat (which is possible, but I think less than a 50% possibility) then he doesn't have to resign; the party leadership is automatically vacant. And he no longer has a seat in the Commons, or indeed any public office at all. He can run for the hills the same day, if he likes.
If he doesn't lose his seat, but his party is thrashed (which is a rusted-on certainty at this point) then he'll be expected to resign the leadership pretty well immediately, and he will. Nobody will criticise him for resigning (but they will criticise him for virtually everything else). But he will still be an MP, and I think he is on record as having said that, if elected, he will serve his term. He probably won't serve his term but, equally, he won't resign immediately; he'll be a backbench MP with a low profile. His (few) defenders will say that he's being the dignified elder statesman, serving quietly but not interfering in the affairs of a party he no longer leads, and not trying to draw the limelight from his unfortunate successor as party leader. Everyone else will say that he's an irrelevance and/or an embarrassment and that he is wise to seek no attention. He'll be a singularly inactive MP. At some point in the next parliament he'll probably resign his seat, but he'll try to do that at a time when the resultant bye-election won't be an embarrassment for the Tories — i.e. he'll wait a bit until the shine has gone off the Labour victory and people are starting to get a bit restive about the fact that a party with a massive majority hasn't used its massive majority to cure cancer, solve world hunger and put a chicken in every pot.
Next week is likely to be something to behold. I very rarely look forward to a political event like this.
Now I'm wondering how many seconds after a Tory defeat will Sunak wait before handing in his resignation and running for the hills. I get the impression of a guy who knows what's coming and is only going through the motions of an election campagn until the point where he can more naturally run away.
At least Starmer did the right thing and returned his donation and cut ties with him the moment this came out. Compare this to Sunak who did nothing when it came out about Tory party members placing bets.
Numerous GE related gambling scandals in the last 24 hours. 1 labour candidate donated 100k to the labour party in May 2023. Then hes a labour candidate for the general election. Placed a bet against himself and has been caught. Statement from him on twitter saying he intended giving his winnings to charity. Labour have cut ties and returned his 100k donation.
Runs a political lobbying company called PMLR that employs 100+ people. His profile on the company website:
Kevin is an expert in political communications, crisis management, and corporate communications.
What in the name of f*ck was he at with that bet? Insanity.
Nope the British public are by far the biggest losers.
Think Northern Ireland were clearly the biggest loosers….
Watching the clips, Stephen Flynn of the SNP seemed to have an excellent night. Slated Brexit and spoke up in favour of immigration and get very big rounds of applause each time.
A bit early for the sauce
Mordaunt just showing that holding a sword is a poor qualification for leading a major political party.
Angela Rayner and Daisy Cooper coming across quite well. Same for Stephen Flynn. Farage just spouting his usual racist and climate denier guff.
Farage is the clear winner of the BBC debate thus far.
The Green Party and Liberal Democrats representatives are particularly bad.
Watching Sky News earlier they were justifying this with their anti Farage rhetoric. Pure gutter journalism who are fanning the flames for a more serious attack to happen.
Stramer was very nervous and seemed to want to avoid saying anything. He could have taken Sunak to task a few times, most notably hitting back on the 2k tax rise figure Sunak made up, but seemed not to want to get into a debate. I can only assume he didn't want to offer up any chance of a gotcha moment. But it is strange that a man so used to the cut and thrust of PMQs seemed so reticent.
On the other side, Sunak came across really badly IMO. He talked over both Starmer and the moderator, and seemed to lack any sort of connection with the audience questions (I know it's all contrived anyway but make the effort).
So I would agree with the slight win for Sunak. Starmer needs to be more robust. In these debates he could come across as the PM, not simply run as just trying to avoid mistakes. He doesn't have to of course, with the lead they have, but it would be relatviely easy and would be the knock out blow.
Labour seem intent on believing the polls and just getting through the next few weeks and get the election over with.
Is there another 1v1 debate?
That's when he talked about getting waiting lists down when they have actually gone up and he said that they are down from when they were up.
Total bolloxology
Didn't see much of the debate, why would you put yourself through that?
Starmer looked nervous, Sunak came across as a twat, basically. Starmer definitely won with the audience from the bits I saw - they were literally laughing at Sunak at one point - but looks like the media have decided that Sunak won it.
I didn't see the debate live, only clips on Sky News later. Starmer needs to chill a bit, and put on a bemused look at Sunak when Sunak tries to talk over him next time. Could he also lose the tie……
ITV debate was tonight
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/live/election-debate-live-sunak-starmer-itv-uk-tv-150418300.html
That's what they want though. If Brexit demonstrated one thing, it's that bigoted boomers only care about moulding the country based on their prejudices and to hell with the rest of us.
The two of them are king sized chancers. No way is Johnson a towering intellectual…..he's one of the worst and most inarticulate interviewees I've ever heard.
I'd like to think the British people have copped on to his shite talk at this stage.
The other spoofer, the biggest of the lot is still underground, no doubt will show his stupid blonde locks at some stage in the future…..But when is anybodies guess
