Political Betting: Hypocrisy and double standards.

[Beerpig]

So Craig Williams, a close aid of the PM bet £100 at 5/1 on the election being in July.
In view of his position in the government, the obvious inference is that the bet, placed three days before the announcement was more than a hunch.
Doesn't look great vis-à-vis possible inside knowledge but so what?
Is not as if he bet his house on it.
If he was a serious manipulator he would have had a lot more than that on it and had others to place the bets for him. of All he is guilty of is having first run on the market - unlike a footballer betting on and participating in the betting event, he didn't influence and couldn't be seen to influence the event, he just bet on it.

I would like to think that before those in high office condemn him, they look closer to home at the financial institutions and select few who get wind of the BOE interest movements before these are announced and make a heck of a lot more than £500 on it.

Daft thing to do with the election so close because it distracts from the main issues and when he resigns- which he will- is another own goal for the conservative party. FWIIW I think he should resign, not for placing the bet himself but for his incompetence is not having the foresight to see how opponents of his employers would use it against them.
You have to wonder just how thick some of these highly placed/paid SPADS are.
And that, perhaps, is the greater problem.

[didds]

shrtug.

if it was shares whose share price had increased 6 fold in the same time frame based on a govt initiative it would be insider trading, no matter what the amounts.

[kempiejon]

I'd hope if I had such info I'd have put much more than £100 and in a way that could not be laid at my door. I had not previously been aware that section 42 of he gambling act might make such a thing illegal. However if he denies it can they prove it? What will the gambling commission do, shut his Ladbroke's account? Quite a few bookies accused me of improper activities and closed my accounts. By improper I mean taking their money.
We can all see it was clearly stupid and I'm not surprised Mr Williams just though no one would notice and it'd be a bit of fun. Muppetry for sure but I'd expect nothing less from the political classes. Until I hear he has the PMs full confidence I doubt he'll resign.

What a grin https://e3.365dm.com/24/06/1600x900/sky ... 0613045408

[scotia]

What a grin https://e3.365dm.com/24/06/1600x900/sky ... 0613045408

Isn't he a clever boy

[terminal7]

So Craig Williams, a close aid of the PM bet £100 at 5/1 on the election being in July.
In view of his position in the government, the obvious inference is that the bet, placed three days before the announcement was more than a hunch.
Doesn't look great vis-à-vis possible inside knowledge but so what?
Is not as if he bet his house on it.
If he was a serious manipulator he would have had a lot more than that on it and had others to place the bets for him. of All he is guilty of is having first run on the market - unlike a footballer betting on and participating in the betting event, he didn't influence and couldn't be seen to influence the event, he just bet on it.

I would like to think that before those in high office condemn him, they look closer to home at the financial institutions and select few who get wind of the BOE interest movements before these are announced and make a heck of a lot more than £500 on it.

Daft thing to do with the election so close because it distracts from the main issues and when he resigns- which he will- is another own goal for the conservative party. FWIIW I think he should resign, not for placing the bet himself but for his incompetence is not having the foresight to see how opponents of his employers would use it against them.
You have to wonder just how thick some of these highly placed/paid SPADS are.
And that, perhaps, is the greater problem.

I suspect this a maximum bet he would have been offered by Ladbrokes. Also the Betfair market would be fairly illiquid for such a wager and bookies would never accept a 4 figure bet in such a market.

T7

[JohnB]

He's not a SPAD, he's an MP, and should be held to higher standards of accountability. And now he's standing in the election his immediate boss called 3 days after he bet on it. Either Rishi did not consult his PPS, so he's viewed as being useless, or he's a crook. Either way his inability to forsee the political capital made by his rivals means he's not fit to be a politician. But he can't resign, and its took late to withdraw. The seat did look safe, but LD's held it 20 years ago, perhaps they can again, especially if there's a by-election after his conviction for fraud.

The withdrawal notice must be submitted by the deadline for withdrawals (i.e. by 4pm, 19 working days before the poll).

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... ithdrawing

[Clitheroekid]

What puzzles me is how the GC got involved at all? I can't believe that such a small bet would have been flagged up at Ladbrokes, so did someone report him?

And if they did, it's difficult to understand why the GC would make such a big deal about it, unless they're been leant on by someone in high office - or more accurately soon to be in high office - with hints about how a new Government might be considering restrictions on gambling ...

But the real hypocrisy to me is betting firms reporting someone for such a trivial matter when they are guilty of ruining so many people's lives by firstly getting them addicted and then profiting from that addiction. It's a bit like a crack cocaine dealer reporting someone for dropping litter.

[UncleEbenezer]

What puzzles me is how the GC got involved at all? I can't believe that such a small bet would have been flagged up at Ladbrokes, so did someone report him?

At a guess, because word of it reached the press and became a story.

How it reached the press? Probably he mentioned it in conversation at some point. Maybe in the presence of a reporter. Or a political opponent (from any party or none). Or just someone who thought it was in the public interest to tell.

[Gerry557]

What puzzles me is how the GC got involved at all? I can't believe that such a small bet would have been flagged up at Ladbrokes, so did someone report him?

And if they did, it's difficult to understand why the GC would make such a big deal about it, unless they're been leant on by someone in high office - or more accurately soon to be in high office - with hints about how a new Government might be considering restrictions on gambling ...

But the real hypocrisy to me is betting firms reporting someone for such a trivial matter when they are guilty of ruining so many people's lives by firstly getting them addicted and then profiting from that addiction. It's a bit like a crack cocaine dealer reporting someone for dropping litter.

I read that it was the bookies that contacted the party initially.

[terminal7]

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=43686#p668849

As I mentioned on another thread (see link), it is evident that Craig Williams has several accounts with bookies. There is a distinct possibility that he had a number of bets on forecasting the month of the GE a few days prior to RS's announcement. Furthermore all accounts with bookies are 'vetted' by the individual bookies as part of their responsibility regarding punter affordability as directed by the GC. Bookies have been fined by the GC very large amounts (ie millions) for failing to curb 'irresponsible' wagering. Just look at GC site under topics such as financial risk checks etc. Hence the bookies run 'frictionless' credit checks on the majority of their account holders. Thus they would immediately know that an MP with an account is wagering on an outcome that the MP may have inside knowledge. Whether the bookies wish to report this info to the GC - I suspect that it is their prerogative (not 100% sure). However for a bookie - this knowledge is golden. Effectively they are receiving information that is unknown to virtually all potential punters and can offer odds accordingly. It is well known in the trade that certain bookies in the past offered free bets to trainers/owners as an indirect way of establishing whether a horse was 'on' for a particular race.

You maybe aware that a white paper containing proposals to reform the 2005 Gambling Act was introduced by the Conservative government last April. This has gone through consultation and an open debate in Parliament 2 months ago that I attended. The Labour party have included their views in their Manifesto.

As regards CW - he is naïve and/or stupid not to have realised that he would be 'named' by one of several parties that would benefit from his indiscretion becoming public.

T7

[terminal7]

According to BBC, Sunak protection officer been suspended and later arrested over alleged bets about the timing of the general election. Hmm did he accompany Sunak to see the King on the morning prior to the announcement? Clearly as naïve and/or dumb as Craig Williams.

T7

[Hallucigenia]

And in yet another example of Tory incompetence/luck, the latest arrest comes hours after they launch a casino-themed ad about how you shouldn't gamble on Labour...

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1803427399872233805

[GoSeigen]

And in yet another example of Tory incompetence/luck, the latest arrest comes hours after they launch a casino-themed ad about how you shouldn't gamble on Labour...

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1803427399872233805

"If you think Labour will win start saving"

Dumb slogan as I thought the Conservatives were always in favour of saving.

Mind you the way they've run government finances since 2010 shows they are perfectly comfortable with deficits and borrowing, as long as it's Tories who are doing it. See title of this thread.


GS

[kempiejon]

According to BBC, Sunak protection officer been suspended and later arrested over alleged bets about the timing of the general election. Hmm did he accompany Sunak to see the King on the morning prior to the announcement? Clearly as naïve and/or dumb as Craig Williams.

T7

Bit out of character for the cops though.

[terminal7]

Hot off the press:

The BBC can reveal this morning that the Conservative candidate being looked into by the Gambling Commission over a bet relating to the timing of the general election is married to the party’s Director of Campaigns.
Laura Saunders, the party’s candidate in Bristol North West, has worked for the Tories since 2015.
It is not known when the bet was placed or for how much money.
She is married to Tony Lee, who is the Conservative Party’s Director of Campaigns.
A Conservative Party spokesman told the BBC: “We have been contacted by the Gambling Commission about a small number of individuals. As the Gambling Commission is an independent body, it wouldn’t be proper to comment further, until any process is concluded.”

More to come? I put money on that!

T7

[bungeejumper]

Hot off the press:

The BBC can reveal this morning that the Conservative candidate being looked into by the Gambling Commission over a bet relating to the timing of the general election is married to the party’s Director of Campaigns.
Laura Saunders, the party’s candidate in Bristol North West, has worked for the Tories since 2015.

Hilarious really. The dustbin lid has clanged shut on the reputation of this sorry party's administration. As Shakespeare would have put it, nothing in its life became it like the leaving of it. (Macbeth, of course. A tale of treachery, chaos, betrayal, and a lead villain who realised when the game was up, but who opted to die bravely while leading his army to certain defeat.)

It's the sheer public obviousness of this (alleged) offence that gets me. When I was on Fleet Street, we had market-sensitive information in our hands all the time. And the reason we hacks didn't take advantage of it (apart from being conscientious, honest people, of course ) was that we knew that if we tried our hands at a little bit of insider trading, we could expect to go to prison. (It was pretty much a mandatory sentence twenty years ago. For all I know, maybe it still is?)

More to come? I put money on that!

You did, or you would? Forgive me if I pass on that lucrative opportunity.

BJ

[terminal7]

Hot off the press:

Hilarious really. The dustbin lid has clanged shut on the reputation of this sorry party's administration. As Shakespeare would have put it, nothing in its life became it like the leaving of it. (Macbeth, of course. A tale of treachery, chaos, betrayal, and a lead villain who realised when the game was up, but who opted to die bravely while leading his army to certain defeat.)

It's the sheer public obviousness of this (alleged) offence that gets me. When I was on Fleet Street, we had market-sensitive information in our hands all the time. And the reason we hacks didn't take advantage of it (apart from being conscientious, honest people, of course ) was that we knew that if we tried our hands at a little bit of insider trading, we could expect to go to prison. (It was pretty much a mandatory sentence twenty years ago. For all I know, maybe it still is?)

More to come? I put money on that!

You did, or you would? Forgive me if I pass on that lucrative opportunity.

BJ

BJ

Metaphorically speaking of course.

Of course we must not forget a Mr P Morgan from Grub street and a certain peer married to the fragrant one.

T7

[bungeejumper]

Of course we must not forget a Mr P Morgan from Grub street and a certain peer married to the fragrant one.

Indeed, it's permanently etched on my memory. I was only a couple of hundred yards away at the time! (But at a somewhat more reputable establshment. ) The peer was done for perjury, of course, not insider stuff.

BJ

[Gerry557]

Just out of interest, how many also bet that Labour would win too.

At least if Rishi has bet on a Labour win he will be safe from prosecution as it was common knowledge.

[terminal7]

and now the hubbie of the Con candidate:

The gambling watchdog is looking into the Conservative Party's director of campaigning Tony Lee over an alleged bet relating to the timing of the general election.

T7