Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[pingu393]

Mr Penguin said:

Which would suggest Labour think he has done something wrong (as do the Gambling Commission).

I think Labour have jumped the gun. They are in a very secure position and can "do the right thing" without having to worry about it. The Tories need every seat they can get, so they will hang on to every candidate until the last moment.

I actually think Labour have not done the right thing, but it's an easy political decision for Keir to make - right or wrong.

It plays into the "we will take immediate action" argument. Lots of people like that. Personally, I like the "wait until the last minute to make the decision with all the available information" argument. The Tories wait until the last moment, not because they are crisis managing, but because they are in a crisis.

[Blue62]

Mr Penguin said:

Which would suggest Labour think he has done something wrong (as do the Gambling Commission).

The MP comment was in response to another poster who is under the impression that Kevin Craig is a sitting MP, I think he’s in your gang.

He has done something wrong and he has been suspended, I didn’t state otherwise, I’ll need your address for the window and will cover the postage.

Given the history of the seat and consistent polling predictions, when set against the nationwide polling predictions, the outcome is not really in doubt, multi millionaire Kev doesn’t really need any special insight or intelligence to conclude he’s not going to win this one. Try harder.

[EddieSteadyGo]

Blue62 said:

...
Given the history of the seat and consistent polling predictions, when set against the nationwide polling predictions, the outcome is not really in doubt, multi millionaire Kev doesn’t really need any special insight or intelligence to conclude he’s not going to win this one. Try harder.

What a pathetic response!

Despite you being one of the 'holier-than-thou' posters, you don't have the humility to admit you were wrong. Interesting.

[Mr Penguin]

Blue62 said:

The MP comment was in response to another poster who is under the impression that Kevin Craig is a sitting MP, I think he’s in your gang.

He has done something wrong and he has been suspended, I didn’t state otherwise, I’ll need your address for the window and will cover the postage.

Given the history of the seat and consistent polling predictions, when set against the nationwide polling predictions, the outcome is not really in doubt, multi millionaire Kev doesn’t really need any special insight or intelligence to conclude he’s not going to win this one. Try harder.

Who is my gang and what window are you talking about?

[Elysium]

hidetheelephants said:

Elysium said:

Yes, there are obvious differences. The Labour MPs actions are far worse. Betting against yourself is much more likely to be a criminal offence.

How do you figure? Betting on a thing you know privileged information about is a fix. At best twit aspiring Labour MP has sight of private polling data, which is an statistical exercise with error bands, at the last check the constituency he's standing in is a coin toss so arguing he's on a sure thing either way is dubious, although now he's suspended he may paradoxically win his bet.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 25th June 23:42

Inside information is not the main issue. The Labour chap must have deceived the bookmaker when placing the bet and can obviously influence the possibility of it paying out by running a deliberately bad campaign.

I don’t believe it matters if he actually does this or not.

[Blue62]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Interesting. Thanks. Will be insightful to see Blue62's evidence for saying this is wrong and actually it was "zero chance"....

Nothing is zero chance, but if you fancy a wager on Labour winning that seat I’ll happily take it. Have a little look at the history of the seat and the polling numbers, then set it against the national picture. Then consider that betting odds are not predictive in any way, shape or form, it’s called a ‘book’ for a reason.

The bottom line here is that a few of you are working overtime pretending that this is either equivalent to or worse than the current scandal surrounding the party of government. I imagine you’re in a fairly small minority on that one, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that I or anyone else who disagrees with you is defending ‘our Kev’, that’s not the case. They’re all tts and none of them get my vote, but get some perspective.

[EddieSteadyGo]

Blue62 said:

Nothing is zero chance, but if you fancy a wager on Labour winning that seat I’ll happily take it. Have a little look at the history of the seat and the polling numbers, then set it against the national picture. Then consider that betting odds are not predictive in any way, shape or form, it’s called a ‘book’ for a reason.

The bottom line here is that a few of you are working overtime pretending that this is either equivalent to or worse than the current scandal surrounding the party of government. I imagine you’re in a fairly small minority on that one, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that I or anyone else who disagrees with you is defending ‘our Kev’, that’s not the case. They’re all tts and none of them get my vote, but get some perspective.

You said it was "zero chance". It was actually much closer to evens. You should just admit you didn't know the odds in that seat were much closer than you realised. And there is no "wager" to have now as the candidate has been suspended.

[Blue62]

EddieSteadyGo said:

What a pathetic response!

Despite you being one of the 'holier-than-thou' posters, you don't have the humility to admit you were wrong. Interesting.

Let’s talk about humility on July 5th, no idea what the religious reference is about, do you keep some sort of register? Interesting.

The betting industry and polling are two very different things, if you think Labour have a prayer in Central Suffolk be my guest, bookies love mugs.

[EddieSteadyGo]

Blue62 said:

Let’s talk about humility on July 5th, no idea what the religious reference is about, do you keep some sort of register? Interesting.

The betting industry and polling are two very different things, if you think Labour have a prayer in Central Suffolk be my guest, bookies love mugs.

No humility. Can't admit you made a mistake. Typical.

[Mr Penguin]

pingu393 said:

I think Labour have jumped the gun. They are in a very secure position and can "do the right thing" without having to worry about it. The Tories need every seat they can get, so they will hang on to every candidate until the last moment.

I actually think Labour have not done the right thing, but it's an easy political decision for Keir to make - right or wrong.

It plays into the "we will take immediate action" argument. Lots of people like that. Personally, I like the "wait until the last minute to make the decision with all the available information" argument. The Tories wait until the last moment, not because they are crisis managing, but because they are in a crisis.

I think they have done the right thing and the Conservatives should have acted faster - at least when the names were made public. It's easy to do the right thing when the candidate would be MP 500 or whatever if he wins and in a seat they won't win again and they made this point a few days ago to pin something on the Tories which would backfire if they didn't vs directors in party HQ but it also made them look like they won't accept it, which they shouldn't.

In any other walk of life this would lead to suspension pending investigation.

What Starmer may have jumped the gun on is dealing with it in a way that makes it an issue that could blow up in a week or two and give him a big story to deal with when the timing means he'll have the most MPs and so most names mentioned will be Labour ones, making it look like a Labour story rather than a Westminster one. But if so it was because he laid a trap which backfired and he'll learn to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Talksteer]

Oliver Hardy said:

OMITN said:

I think this gambling business has been really unfortunate for Rishi and shows that he has been let down by the people around him.

Just because he was a hedge fund guy doesn’t mean that he in any way would condone financial speculation about important events.

Not sure how Rishi (or the conservative party) can be held accountable for someone placing bets, it is how they are dealt with that matters is it not? If he were to do a Boris and try and change the rules to suit his acquaintance then that be a problem, but they got suspended so what else can he do?

Sure you can hold them responsible, leadership isn't just about setting the punishments and investing allegations.

If the conservatives were heading towards government with excellent policies and record then do we think anyone would have been doing this? Hell it wouldn't have even been something they could have betted on of Rishi has done a better job of planning they whole thing and hadn't attempted to spring a surprise election.

[OMITN]

Elysium said:

From what I have read Section 24 of the gambling act creates an offence of cheating:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/secti...

The Labour candidate must have deceived the bookmaker he bet with by withholding the fact that he was the subject of the bet. That seems to be obviously contrary to 3(b) with the existence of the bet being proof of the deception.

In contrast the two conservatives being investigated (there are only 2) are presumably suspected of having inside information. For this to be an offence the possession of that information would need to be proven.

I think the Labour situation is much worse, particularly as it implies the possibility of election offences as well.

Edited by Elysium on Tuesday 25th June 23:43

Thanks for this. It’s helpful.

I find reading legislation in isolation is useful but not always super helpful (beyond the basics of what it covers). FWIW I don’t agree with your read of s42(3)(b).

What I have found is a handy primer (as you gave me something to search against) that may be useful: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/general-ele...

My skim of that suggests that the Lab and Con people have enough to worry about, even though the fact patterns are different.

[Talksteer]

768 said:

Lower the voting age to 16, they're mature enough!

Do we have a maturity test for existing voters?

All the arguments against children voting are precisely the same ones used against men without property, ethnic minorities and women voting.

Ultimately the lack of votes means that we rarely consider the impact of any policy or program on children to everyone's detriment.

Personal view is that the voting age should be 10, the same as it is for criminal responsibility. Children under 10 should still get a vote but it will be exercised by proxy from their guardian.

[Elysium]

OMITN said:

Elysium said:

From what I have read Section 24 of the gambling act creates an offence of cheating:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/secti...

The Labour candidate must have deceived the bookmaker he bet with by withholding the fact that he was the subject of the bet. That seems to be obviously contrary to 3(b) with the existence of the bet being proof of the deception.

In contrast the two conservatives being investigated (there are only 2) are presumably suspected of having inside information. For this to be an offence the possession of that information would need to be proven.

I think the Labour situation is much worse, particularly as it implies the possibility of election offences as well.

Edited by Elysium on Tuesday 25th June 23:43

Thanks for this. It’s helpful.

I find reading legislation in isolation is useful but not always super helpful (beyond the basics of what it covers). FWIW I don’t agree with your read of s42(3)(b).

What I have found is a handy primer (as you gave me something to search against) that may be useful: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2024/general-ele...

My skim of that suggests that the Lab and Con people have enough to worry about, even though the fact patterns are different.

For me the Labour situation is worse because there is no obvious defence and because the ‘victims’ are the electorate.

He has put himself in a position, probably through deception, where he has bet on an event where the outcome that pays out (losing) is in his direct control.

In contrast it has yet to be proven that the two conservatives under investigation were actually in possession of inside information. They are also less directly connected with the event and not in direct control of the outcome.

The bigger issue for me though is that the Labour candidates actions impact the voters. So it goes beyond a simple gambling offence and potentially interferes with the election.

Will be interesting to see what comes of it.

[Talksteer]

EddieSteadyGo said:

2HFL said:

So just ban gambling full stop then, surely people could live without it…

The wrong conclusion. We have laws and rules around gambling. Break the rules, you take the consequences. We don't need to start banning activities for everyone just because some people don't use good judgement.

Plenty of situations where the law exists to protect people from themselves.

I wouldn't ban betting on sports but I do think that there should be limits on how much anyone can spend on it, we are perfectly capable of understanding how much money a person can afford to borrow it should be possible to work out how much they can lose. Online casinos should be banned, you literally can't win and the exploit the poor and vulnerable.

[hidetheelephants]

I'd vote for that; they're a plague.

[jdw100]

Talksteer said:

Plenty of situations where the law exists to protect people from themselves.

I wouldn't ban betting on sports but I do think that there should be limits on how much anyone can spend on it, we are perfectly capable of understanding how much money a person can afford to borrow it should be possible to work out how much they can lose. Online casinos should be banned, you literally can't win and the exploit the poor and vulnerable.

I bet that won’t happen.

[Blue62]

EddieSteadyGo said:

No humility. Can't admit you made a mistake. Typical.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here, you’re using the betting odds to describe the situation in the Central Suffolk constituency as close, I’m looking at the history and polling to describe it as anything but.

They’re two different things Eddie, odds are affected by bets laid, if there’s a rush of money on a candidate the odds on that candidate will shorten despite what the polls and experts are telling us, which is why looking at the betting odds in an election is more an exercise in fun. The odds may at one time have been close but they don’t reflect the polls. I used the word zero in the same way that I would use the phrase ‘no chance’, a clear exaggeration but one I’d stand by.

I’m sure we will hear more in the coming days. Someone here has suggested Craig’s actions are more serious than those candidates and MP’s who were acting on inside information, I can see the point but given the circumstances I think it’s hard for anyone to argue that he was really in a position to throw the election, even if he wanted to, equally difficult to argue that it was for financial gain. Another poster suggested Craig was acting on inside information from within his own party when the key data is in the public domain, any local party insight would be marginal.

This isn’t a selling handicap at Wincanton on a wet Wednesday, where a jockey might be persuaded to ease up over the final furlong and I think little will come of it, but let’s wait and see who is right. I posted last night that all of these candidates are idiots and unworthy of our votes, they won’t be getting mine.

[Elysium]

Blue62 said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

No humility. Can't admit you made a mistake. Typical.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here, you’re using the betting odds to describe the situation in the Central Suffolk constituency as close, I’m looking at the history and polling to describe it as anything but.

They’re two different things Eddie, odds are affected by bets laid, if there’s a rush of money on a candidate the odds on that candidate will shorten despite what the polls and experts are telling us, which is why looking at the betting odds in an election is more an exercise in fun. The odds may at one time have been close but they don’t reflect the polls. I used the word zero in the same way that I would use the phrase ‘no chance’, a clear exaggeration but one I’d stand by.

I’m sure we will hear more in the coming days. Someone here has suggested Craig’s actions are more serious than those candidates and MP’s who were acting on inside information, I can see the point but given the circumstances I think it’s hard for anyone to argue that he was really in a position to throw the election, even if he wanted to, equally difficult to argue that it was for financial gain. Another poster suggested Craig was acting on inside information from within his own party when the key data is in the public domain, any local party insight would be marginal.

This isn’t a selling handicap at Wincanton on a wet Wednesday, where a jockey might be persuaded to ease up over the final furlong and I think little will come of it, but let’s wait and see who is right. I posted last night that all of these candidates are idiots and unworthy of our votes, they won’t be getting mine.

Bizarre argument. Bookmakers don’t set the odds based on the level of bets placed. They set them based on the likelihood of the event happening. If they didn’t they would all go out of business very quickly.

On your second point, it’s really easy to argue that he could ‘throw’ the election. It’s in his direct control.

You are absolutely right that this candidate is an idiot that is unworthy of your vote. Which is a why it’s a bit jarring that you feel the need to play down the impact. It obviously does matter for the voters in this constituency, whose ability to freely cast their vote for the party they choose has been needlessly removed by actions of this very foolish man.

On the Conservatives it is interesting that of the many people who had placed bets only two are being investigated. So there does not seem to have been a widespread abuse of privileged information. We don’t know yet if the two that are being looked at did anything materially wrong. However, they have all misled the bookmakers by not revealing their links to the Conservative Party and should be roundly condemned for doing so.

[President Merkin]

We probably should distinguish between manipulating insider information & betting on politics occasionally in order to avoid an outbreak of pearl clutching moral panic among certain people who were nowhere to be seen on this thread when it was confined to the Tories & their hangers on for which you only have to scroll back a week's posts to see.

Honestly lads, you are just a little too transparent for your own good.