Nothing excuses the behaviour of the Conservative MPs, party officials and police protection officers who took a flutter on the date of the general election, but honestly, what did the bookmakers expect? If you are going to offer odds on events which come down to the decision of one individual or organisation you can hardly be surprised when you receive a flurry of bets which might be traced back to inside information.
The past fortnight has been one big advert for political betting
The political betting scandal has similarities to the spot betting scandal of 2010 involving the Pakistan test cricket team, three members of which were later convicted of defrauding bookmakers after being caught in a sting by the News of the World. That was three cricketers who ruined their careers in return for what would have been pretty modest rewards (in a separate cricket betting scandal, the late South African captain Hansie Cronje inexplicably threw a match in return for a leather jacket).
They were foolish, but then no less foolish were the bookies for offering bets on such things as who would bowl and when, and when the first no-ball would be bowled. Surely it must have occurred to them how easy it would be to arrange the desired outcomes so that betting syndicates could sweep up. To deliver a no-ball, all a bowler has do is to step a little way over the crease. Had it not been for the News of the World’s infiltration of the fraudsters, no questions would have been asked.
There is a big difference between taking bets on something like the number of seats which will be won by Labour next week – which will be the result of the individual decisions of millions of voters – and on matters like election dates – which are in the hands of a few people. In taking bets on the date of the general election, bookmakers were relying on the Prime Minister keeping the decision under his hat until he walked out into the Downing Street rain to announce it to the nation. In fact, as we now know, Rishi Sunak had already been to the Palace to ask the King for a dissolution of Parliament. The matter must have been widely discussed. The vital information was bound to leak.
Yet still the bookmakers are taking similar bets. You can, for example, today place bets on the date of Rishi Sunak’s resignation as Tory leader and on Donald Trump’s choice of running mate for the US Presidential election. Do the bookies really feel they can trust everyone in the Trump campaign not to use inside information?
Either the bookies are being extremely foolish, or there is some method going on here. These scandals do, after all, generate huge amounts of free publicity for the bookies. The past fortnight has been one big advert for political betting. If anyone was unaware that it is possible to bet on a multitude of different matters related to politics and elections, they can’t be any longer.
On the Today programme this morning, work and pensions secretary Mel Stride refused to commit to saying that there should be an outright ban on political insiders placing bets on such things as the date of general elections, saying that the matter needed careful consideration. He is right. There is no point simply in banning, say, Downing Street staff taking bets when, of course, they can easily spill their inside information to other people. It would be better if bookmakers simply stopped taking bets on any outcome which can be so easily manipulated.
Comments