Thread 51 Sunak: A William Hill to die on

[DuncinToffee]

Previoust thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5100698-thread-50-sunak-civil-war-what-civil-war?page=40&reply=136272126

10 days to go

Ah, he doesn't block me!

‘hundreds’ of Richard Holden’s campaign leaflets have been delivered to houses in the wrong constituency. Local Tory party say it isn’t their fault the Royal Mail are dying they were addressed to Wickford.

Not surprising he doesn’t know where his constituency is.

I couldn't understand with the Paterson saga why he wasn't suspended pending the outcome of the investigation, and it appears the Tories have learnt nothing from that.

My dearly beloved MP #dklemon was keen to suggest (when he thought I might be on his side) that MPs should be subject to a similar process of investigation and suspension as other professions. When I pointed out that if it had been alleged that I was abusive to staff whilst drunk I would have been suspended and then fired and was that what he was suggesting he went very quiet. Odd.

I wish. A pact would mean the LD could step down in my constituency and stop pretending only they can win here, using Frankenstein graphs made up of who knows what.

God, this is so bloody ridiculous

The thick of it on steroids

Me too.
such wanton cruelty so little care or understanding of what some have to face it’s beyond wickedness.

If people knew the election date in advance and then bet on the date, that is clear cut "insider" gambling. You know the result and you bet on it before it's common knowledge.

I am not sure about betting on event where you don't know the outcome. To what degree can he influence the outcome?

And he bet on himself to lose?

I suppose you could run a poor campaign. But he has more to gain by actually winning.

I am sure the Tory media will lap it up and see it as an equivalence.

Whether it is equivalent or not, what is important surely is how the party organisation deals with it.
Did they respond promptly and appropriately, or did they dither, deny, lie and obfuscate.
If I were cynical Starmer might secretly pleased that he had the opportunity to show he was in charge, when frankly he had nothing to lose by it.

If he had bet on himself to win, would that have been a problem?

It's not like he can influence the outcome.

What value is an issue? A £50 bet meaning he could buy all his supporters a pint if he loses, or his house where he deliberately sets out to lose so he makes a fortune (*isn't this something bankers do, or at least those who short the system)?

• I have no idea if this is correct as I neither gamble, or work in the banking sector, it just seems similar in behaviour, just known by different name.

Tory politician becomes fifth party figure to be investigated by gambling watchdog for suspicious bet on general election date

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/25/election-betting-fifth-tory-investigated-in-growing-scandal?

For me betting on an election that you are part of, is not a good look.

Oh I see Pippa Crerar of the Guardian (love her) is on to it now, suspect there will be more to come...

I completely agree and think maybe the Guidance on the Code of Conduct for public life should be clear that betting on political outcomes is never acceptable for our elected representatives. This doesn't cover people running for election for the first time, but it's a reasonable standard to aspire to and the logic of the rule - that we want all elections to appear absolutely transparent - is clear.

That said it isn't in any guidance or code ATM. So there is a clear difference between any candidate of any party who has simply bet on the election result, in their constituency or generally. Which is crass but breaks no explicit code. And candidates who may have placed bets on the election date using inside knowledge which is clearly cheating and potentially a criminal offense.

I'm almost convinced the Labour incident "was allowed" as it gave Starmer a chance to get one up on Rish!.

It also keeps the betting scandal in the news crowding out other stories.

I can't believe gambling on politics as an MP or prospective MP needs specific guidance. And yet here we are.

We thought the same about breaking the law, lying to parliament and so on...

Yep.

It is just unbelievable that any of them thought it was OK to bet on the election date or on losing their election.

Maybe it is common practice at election time to make these bets, but it has never been revealed before.

I think it is very common. Also not sure about whether there is an offence here unless positive evidence of insider info; Westminster runs on gossip, the day before there were rumours. Not sure those count.

Wrong thread I've reported my post

Agreed. It's going to be hard proving an offence without actual knowledge so for the MPs that's tricky as you say they could have sensed something was up due a meeting being rescheduled, that kind of thing. But there's no defence for their Director of Campaigns and Director of Digital who will almost certainly have a paper trail showing Sunak told them he intended to go to the King in advance so they could start booking advertising and ensure candidate were selected. Common sense says if those two are not guilty that means Sunak didn't give key employees 24hrs notice of when the campaign would start which....which...which would make perfect sense actually

Has the Tory campaign started yet?

Surely I didn't miss it?

So what happened to all that bollocks Sunk was talking yesterday about this being a really serious matter, they couldn't possibly be seen to be prejudging what the Gambling Commission might decide, etc etc?

At least they weren't waiting for Sue Gray this time