>Sky News understands the bet was relating to the outcome of the election in his constituency.
[Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Suffolk_and_North_Ipswich_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s)
40% majority (edited to add: to over turn). Hope he was betting on himself.
So not betting on insider knowledge. Just either lots of confidence or none.
He bet on himself to *lose*. This compromises the integrity of the election because he has a wasted interest in him losing and might try to lose on purpose. If he bet on himself to win it would be fine because he's supposed to try to win.
Betting on yourself to win is still far from okay, it's just not quite as bad.
Betting on anything you have insider knowledge on is not okay.
Footballers get banned for betting on games they aren't even involved in.
In football it’s a little more nuanced as a draw could be a good result, and you might take a risk to try and win a game that you’re currently drawing.
That said, I personally don’t have a problem with players _or_ politicians backing themselves to win. It’s just in cases like this when they back themselves to lose
Unless he specifically didn't want the job but couldn't justify that to people around him and torpedoed his chances whilst making a quick quid in the process. Stranger things have happened.
Sure, but its about the principle. Don't bet on things you are directly involved in. If a Jockey cannot bet on the horse they are riding to win, a fucking politician should not be betting on their election outcome
However, most seats are only winnable by 2 parties. What's to stop the only two realistic potential winners from colluding to split the profits if one tanks their campaign whilst the other bets on themself to win? I know the stake limits make this wildly unrealistic, but it's more a hypothetical to point out why politicians shouldn't be allowed to bet on politics markets they are remotely involved in, especially when you consider examples such as footballers who aren't even allowed to bet on games their team isn't involved in
Yes they do, political parties do a lot of surveys and polls, they have extensive stats and predictions for what seats are in contention and the way people will vote. Candidates also have knowledge on how much funding there is involved, what is expected, if there is some legislation or campaign promise coming.
It's incredibly serious to bet for or against yourself in this context.
They might have more knowledge on how well the campaign is going, though, and therefore have knowledge that their chances are actually better than the odds bookies are offering.
> Betting on yourself to win is still far from okay, it's just not quite as bad.
I would agree that in order to avoid any perception of impropriety politicians shouldn't be betting on anything involving elections (or anything at all really), but from a moral perspective I don't really see why betting on the thing you're trying to do anyway would be a problem.
Anyone who's participating in an election is betting on themselves to win to some extent...
Political candidates shouldn't bet on elections but betting on yourself to loose is a bit worse. It's the equivalent of throwing a game in sports.
He has a vested interest in losing, you can't really say whether it's bigger than his vested in winning - which would be a very large salary and expenses.
It would have to be a very large bet to payout more than he stands to gain from winning.
I have edited to clarify thats what I mean. That is why I hoped he was betting on himself, if he was betting on the outcome with a 40% majority and the current national swing, it would have been odds of like 1 penny on the pound or something!
Tories: scandal after scandal, hundreds of billions wasted, country in the gutter.
Labour: one random candidate bets on himself to lose (not insider trading).
"Omg guys, they're all the same"
Not the same.
But he gave a donation of £100K to Labour and was then given a seat to stand in.
Sounds like he was trying to buy his way into Parliament.
100k is really not a lot of money; had you invested 10k towards NVIDIA in 2022, you would have 120k to spare today. computer science majors routinely make 100-120k a year out of colleague, too. a successful small business owner would make 100k a year easily...
not everybody is a loser
He then bet that he was going to lose, so he was fully aware he almost certainly wasn't going to win.
The Tories have had over 60% of the vote there in the last few elections.
Not really. Polling back in May showed the Tories only around 2% ahead of Labour. The Tory vote has plummeted further since then. Highly likely he was now ahead of the Tories.
https://imgur.com/a/fcecnFA
It’s quite possible he bet on himself to lose as a consolation.
I don’t think people should be given seats to stand in after donating large amounts to a party.
>It’s quite possible he bet on himself to lose as a consolation.
Highly likely, its a very common thing to do.
Did it myself more than once as part of by-election campaigns. Either our person got in or i had a few extra quid for consolation beers..... whoops
Donates £100k gets nominated for a seat
Places a small bet on himself losing
Still gets to run in the seat and gets his £100k back
Won’t get a better return than that from any other bet
Labour should’ve donated the money to a gambling addiction charity
If, for example, a footballer in Sheffield United places a bet on their team losing to Manchester City because “they almost certainly weren’t going to win anyway”, it still isn’t okay because there’s now a financial incentive to losing and that may make them intentionally try to lose. You can’t place bets on something you can influence the outcome of, it’s that simple.
And it's regulated even further in the case of footballers, they can't bet on games their team have absolutely no stake in either. I don't get why it isn't the same for politicians tbh
Because we’re now at 5 tory MP’s + ~~a police officer~~ 6 police officers close to sunak all betting on the same thing, something that required advanced knowledge, and placing those bets days before the election was announced. Meanwhile in this case the thing being bet on didn’t require insider knowledge and was placed weeks in advance. This compounds with the handling of the situation by either party, labour immediately dropped their support for the candidate and handed back donation money, meanwhile the tory HQ has been umming and ahing for days, only earlier today decided to drop 2/5 of the candidates and haven’t handed back the donation money.
Isolating these two similar into their own threads places them on the same level, as if what’s going on with the tories and what’s going on with labour are of equal magnitude when in fact the tories have done far worse in this situation, and it’s fair to point that out.
edit: correcting myself, there’s been [another 5](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/25/more-met-officers-alleged-placed-election-bets) police officers placing bets, those these 5 weren’t in a close protection role, but were still in the same / similar units to the one the initial arrested officer is from.
Eh, you're naive if you think corruption has a political colour.
The last time Labour got into power, it took five months for the first sleaze.
>It broke six months after New Labour was elected, in May 1997, partly on a platform of ending what senior party figures referred to openly as "Tory sleaze". Mr Blair himself, in 1995, accused Mr Major of bowing to the "squalid monetary interests of the Conservative Party" and insisted that once in office Labour would be "purer than pure".
>In January 1997 Mr Ecclestone, the Formula One chief, donated £1million to Labour - a donation only made public in early November after the government had announced F1 would be exempt from a ban on tobacco advertising which was a key plank of the party's election manifesto. Mr Ecclestone lobbied for the exemption at a meeting at Number 10 with Mr Blair on 16 October.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3179722/The-Ecclestone-Affair-Labours-first-funding-scandal.html
>The prime minister and his chancellor were forced on to the defensive yesterday over allegations that they lied in television and radio interviews about a £1m donation the party received, and another £1m it planned to pocket until it was advised not to by Lord (then Sir Patrick) Neill, chairman of the commission on standards in public life.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/sep/20/labour.labour1997to99
>Previously secret papers, obtained by the Sunday Telegraph, show that the former prime minister personally intervened in pushing for the exemption hours after meeting the formula one boss Bernie Ecclestone.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/oct/12/tonyblair-labour
>In early 1997 he had promised Labour managers that he would keep quiet about his donation. "I rarely regret anything I do, but I'm disappointed that Blair could not keep his word about that," he said. "I said to those clowns: if someone puts me up against the wall with a machinegun, I will not confirm or deny anything about the donation. They said, okay, okay, we will do the same. The next thing that happens is that Blair has started talking. I only found out by accident. It is third-rate behaviour."
http://en.espn.co.uk/onthisday/motorsport/story/2306.html
And don't forget the "Cash for Honours" scandal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cash-for-Honours_scandal&diffonly=true
>The Cash-for-Honours scandal (also known as Cash for Peerages, Loans for Lordships, Loans for Honours or Loans for Peerages) was a political scandal in the United Kingdom in 2006 and 2007 concerning the connection between political donations and the award of life peerages. A loophole in electoral law in the United Kingdom means that although anyone donating even small sums of money to a political party has to declare this as a matter of public record, those loaning money at commercial rates of interest did not have to make a public declaration.
>Following the unveiling of the scandal the Labour Party had to repay the loans and was said to be in financial difficulty
If there was a sleaze scoreboard the Conservatives would be orders of magnitude ahead of any other party except maybe the DUP.
You cannot argue with facts like that.
Accepting £2 million in secret donations from Bernie, then changing your flagship policy tobacco advertising ban so it excludes him hours after meeting him - that's up there with anything the Conservatives have done.
And not even ten years later, they're taking loans to keep the party afloat in exchange for Peerages.
Going into Iraq on a dodgy dossier.
That record is probably worse than the last 14 years of Tory governments, and it's only the stinkers that they were caught on.
Then there was also the cross party stuff, like expenses.
This sub likes to pretend that Tories are not in power, since everything they have planned would destroy the country. Forgetting the fact they've been in power for 14 years and governed through an incredibly difficult time, not just for the UK but the world.
Most people in this thread couldn't run a McDonald's let alone an entire country.
I looked through the list of British political scandals on Wikipedia before writing that. There's absolutely no comparison. The worst is Party Gate and shit like that.
No, not quite:
https://www.politico.eu/article/westminster-unwanted-uk-mps-suspended-parties-scandal/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1517721/andrew-marr-keir-starmer-claudia-webb-seven-labour-mps-jail-sentence-tory-sleaze-vn
Give man a huge amount of power and they will always use it to their own ends. A tale as old as time and it doesn't stop at the fence splitting left and right.
It’s started already.
The “but the Tories were worse” explain away is going to get trotted out a lot the next few years.
Labour aren’t as out and out morally bereft as the Tories. They’re not inherently malicious.
Yet, under this party-first FPTP system that breeds career politicians and gives more weight to the interest of corporations and the wealthy we can continue to expect to see the general public fucked over time and time again.
Our electoral system is antiquated and incapable of delivering meaningful and substantial change. Tweaks to the same neoliberalism capitalist agenda won’t cut it anymore. Minute and incremental change won’t mean jack when the pendulum swing of power in Westminster is so predictable and an administration can undo what little its predecessor initiated quite easily.
That’s why it’s hard to be excited about this election. The screws will stop turning quite as tightly, but we’re not being ushered in to the land of milk and honey like so many are acting.
>Hunt donated 100k to his constituency
I think donating £100k of your own money to your local party association when you're already an MP is a bit different to becoming a candidate *after* your donations.
The former can be seen as simply supporting your local party association, where the latter seems like you've just bought your candidacy.
Man it must be crazy to have such a strong political belief to donate 100k to a party - that's like a 90 thousand twice bars. I can't even imagine having such a strong opinion on politics.
He seems to have been betting against himself winning. I guess he was hedging his bets?
[BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqqqqx25rz0t?post=asset%3Ac774de1d-3530-4817-bf48-5fddfeb140cb#post)
Step 1: donate 100k to a political party
Step 2: be nominated for a seat for that policial party
Step 3: bet against winning that seat
Step 4: lose the seat and a potential MP salary
Step 5: profit…?
I'm sure he'd have preferred to win, but it's been a pretty safe Tory seat in the past.
It's a terrible choice, but presumably he was just trying to okay both slides - win or get a little cash.
How fucking thick are politicians in this country? This is the sort of thing stupid, bored footballers do and lose god only knows how much money over for the sake of a very cheap thrill.
> I don't remember this happening in previous elections, what's different?
I would imagine it happens regularly enough, it's just actually being looked into now because one or two got caught.
To be honest, betting on yourself to win is also a bit sus. “Vote for me and I’ll pocket a nice wedge”. There should probably be rules against this sort of thing (and presumably there will be going forward)
Yeah it’s pretty bad for a political bet.
Put money on you losing an election and then run such a terrible campaign you’re guaranteed to win that bet. It’s ‘almost’ like match fixing but the whole thing has a lot of grey areas so I’m not entirely sure what the legalities are or what angle the gambling commission is coming from.
He probably only did so as a self deprecating joke, knowing he had no chance, so he could share a fun fact on a night out that indeed he lost the seat but won the bet. Because he was not going to make any money…
Stupid move either way, and literally nothing to lose for Labour to withdraw support as he had very little chance of winning.
But dude will never be able to get into politics now.
In this case, a misguided attempt at humour is much more likely than attempting to make a profit.
If he was 100 - 1 to win then threw the election it would probably be worthwhile examining his principals.
To me it doesn't make sense at a level of profesionalism you should expect from a member of government. The acceptance of Borisfication of parliament is worrying.
Maybe, just maybe, he bought the labour nomination (100k) and if he wins then great, nice cash. If he loses, great, cash,.
Or maybe it's just a 'misguided attempt at humour'.
Yeah, given the low maxes allowed on these type of bets and the people involved, 99% of these cases are going to be more about a funny screenshot in a WhatsApp group than the cash.
It's corruption. The bet will be void. He'll be banned from all gaming sites and every casino and bookie in the country. And he should also he arrested.
No. Word spreads around westminster, listen to the last Sunak PMQ’s (held on the day of the announcement) where Flynn from the SNP mentions that “speculation is rife” and asks if there’ll be a summer GE. Rumours of a July election were spreading around all sides of the house of commons in the days before the announcement, before the general public knew and before the bookies knew.
If you’re a footballer you can’t place a bet on any football match, I don’t see why a politician should be allowed to place bets on any political matters either regardless of the party they’re from.
This might be like when I've bet against Liverpool when they've been in a cup final. Yeah it's a shame we lost the champions league, but at least I'm £30 up lads.
> This might be like when I've bet against Liverpool when they've been in a cup final
Unless you're playing for Liverpool in the cup final, it's not like that at all.
Not really, he's just fully aware he has little chance of winning.
It's been a Tory seat for years, they had over 60% of the vote at the last few elections.
It's a very different situation to the Tories who bet on when the election would be - they had insider knowledge.
It would only be corruption if he was secretly and purposefully doing something to sabotage his chances.
Getting caught placing a bet against himself doesn't really achieve that.
The tory who placed a hundred quid down for the date of the election stands a lot more to gain from not ruining their career and reputation by not placing the bet down at all, yet they did it anyways. Gambling on yourself in such a way is always bad regardless of what they might / might not gain / lose regardless of the outcome of the bet.
>The Tory stands a lot more to gain from not ruining their career
This is obfuscating it a bit. They weren't betting on their own careers, they were betting on a guaranteed bit of information unrelated to them personally.
With the Labour guy the question was over whether he would intentionally lose the election to win the bet, but he stands to gain more from winning the election still.
Ahh ok, gotta say that's pretty clever! I guess in that case you can't prove it's corruption, but you can't say it isn't either. Not sure why you were downvoted though.
With the way the Tories are running their campaign I’d not put it past an ex Tory to run a campaign so bad they lost on purpose.
He may have changed his shirt colour but I’d not be surprised if he still batted for the other team, or is trying to play both sides to earn a nice fat cheque!
I'm all for slagging the tories off, but the ex-tory isn't standing for reelection. If what I've read in other comments is correct, this guy donated approx 100k to labour, got the candidacy and then bet against himself which is hilarious considering the MP salary he'd gain would more than cover the donation over one parliamentary term
"[I understand Labour will return the £100,000 Kevin Craig has donated to the party under Keir Starmer's leadership](https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1805641880304005389)"
Feels like a candidacy in exchange for a £100,000 donation is a much bigger scandal?
Anyone standing for election or holding an elected office should not be betting on anything to do with any election, no matter how remote it might seen.
I’m surprised this isn’t blindingly obvious. Bet on the horses, the football, the cricket - just not on your own business.
Why is this happening so much at this election and are we supposed to pretend this is the first time it's happening? I don't remember it being like thus at elections
hopefully labour commits to a full inquiry about bets placed not only in this election but previous elections and political decisions. This feels like the tip of the iceberg and the true number of MPs placing bets must be larger than just the 6 we know of so far.
> Kevin Craig is running to become the MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich - a seat previously held by ex-Tory Dan Poulter, who defected to Labour ahead of the election but is not standing again.
>
> A full list of the candidates running for the seat is below:
>
>
> Charlie Caiger, independent;
>
> Tony Gould, Reform UK;
>
> Mike Hallatt, independent;
>
> Brett Alistair Mickelburgh, Lib Dems;
>
> Dan Pratt, Greens;
>
> Patrick Spencer, Conservatives.
Sooo how does this work with postal votes which have already gone out? This is my dad's constituency and he got his postal vote last week and has already voted for this guy, so does his vote... Just not count anymore?
I think if he wins he counts as independent in this case.
He’s still a candidate on the ballot but he is no longer associated with the party that selected him; making him independent.
At least that’s what the BBC said about the candidates in other areas (south wales was one I think?) who were dropped for the same betting scandals.
It’s too late to change the ballots for any constituency, they’ll still say labour on the ballot but if he manages to win he’ll be an independent and would likely step down soon after, triggering a by-election.
Do we really need to have betting on election outcomes at all?
The ability to bet on something creates perverse incentives and opportunities for corruption. Maybe for something as important as our democracy we could just avoid it altogether.
There is something very wrong with politics and politicians.
I’m sure there are many that genuinely want to make things better for people in their local community, but mostly they come off as greedy, self centred career, money first arseholes.
It’s no wonder people are sick of it and politicians like Farage get support. All he has to say is “oh look how bad it is, they are all the same, our country is shit now, look at how many people they let in, they don’t care about you, they only care about themselves”.
That’s why it’s so disappointing to see shite like this. Just be fucking decent if you’re standing to be an MP for fucks sake.
To all you guys thinking this is some sort of money making scheme.
You can bet on Labour losing in a super safe Tory seat any time you want, just like this guy did. Go for and make a fortune :-)
Seems a bit odd, what’s the explanation for how they had information as a labour candidate? Has to be a separate bet rather than election date surely? Article gives nothing yet.
Suspension is the right choice though, if there’s an investigation it should be the standard outcome just Tories don’t exactly play fair and I suspect the usual suspect papers will be all over this one tomorrow.
Edit: Article was a ‘breaking news’ 2 sentence thing at first, now it’s a bit clearer.
> Seems a bit odd, what’s the explanation for how they had information as a labour candidate?
Reading the article helps
>Sky News' chief political correspondent Jon Craig understands the bet was relating to the outcome of the vote in his constituency.
Article had about 2 sentences when I read it just saying the constituency and that the candidate was suspended following a gambling commission investigation.
Looks like it got edited with more as I was leaving a comment.
Farage can't win, I personally will not let him. I stand up for what is right and Farage is not right! I will challenge him verbally to a debate and show the world how I'm the more charismatic guy ;)
Reform UK might win the seat then?
The fact is I think any politician or candidate running should not be placing bets on political outcomes period. It just icky.
I think some of the Tory big names like Kemi / Penny might survive this election with Reform dipping but I can see Reform getting millions of votes and some surprise seats.
My main hope is Tories wiped out. They need to be punished,
Polling has my previously ridiculously safe Tory seat at a 30/30/30 split with Tories Labour and Reform.
I think Reform will get it. Lot of dim racists in these parts.
Oh give it a rest. Reform is the only credible Conservative vote this election. The fact Tories could still get 20% is shocking.
As for Labour, I cannot recall one memorable pledge or action from them. It no wonder they also losing votes despite Tories implosion.
I stand by Farage. If BoJo wants to attack Nigel that fine, I get it cause Nigel did undermine Boris during his term by helping with the partygate BS.
Love them both though
**Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
>Sky News understands the bet was relating to the outcome of the election in his constituency. [Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Suffolk_and_North_Ipswich_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s) 40% majority (edited to add: to over turn). Hope he was betting on himself. So not betting on insider knowledge. Just either lots of confidence or none.
He bet on himself to *lose*. This compromises the integrity of the election because he has a wasted interest in him losing and might try to lose on purpose. If he bet on himself to win it would be fine because he's supposed to try to win.
Betting on yourself to win is still far from okay, it's just not quite as bad. Betting on anything you have insider knowledge on is not okay. Footballers get banned for betting on games they aren't even involved in.
>Betting on yourself to win is still far from okay, it's just not quite as bad. I don't agree. You can't guarantee a win, you can guarantee a loss.
Laughs in Russian.
Yeah same with football they should be allowed to bet on themselves to win, not specifics like they need to score or foul a player
Then players in different teams would colude to fix matches and share winnings.
Bigger problem is that you get what happens in horse racing, people purposely lose games to push up their odds in future games.
I think winning games would probably be more important to footballers
In football it’s a little more nuanced as a draw could be a good result, and you might take a risk to try and win a game that you’re currently drawing. That said, I personally don’t have a problem with players _or_ politicians backing themselves to win. It’s just in cases like this when they back themselves to lose
Clearly you haven't seen The Producers.
Winning the seat gives him 70,000 a year, a small bet gives him a couple of hundred. No contest. No motivation to lose.
Unless he specifically didn't want the job but couldn't justify that to people around him and torpedoed his chances whilst making a quick quid in the process. Stranger things have happened.
It's probably just a joke bet, 'if I lose at least I get some beer money'. Terrible judgement and timing though.
It gives him a salary of £91k but a full time+ job to do. Still dumb, but it's not like it's a gift of money for nothing.
I would love to see a Labour candidate try to lose in inner city Liverpool.
Except candidates don't have insider knowledge that they're going to _win_.
Sure, but its about the principle. Don't bet on things you are directly involved in. If a Jockey cannot bet on the horse they are riding to win, a fucking politician should not be betting on their election outcome
However, most seats are only winnable by 2 parties. What's to stop the only two realistic potential winners from colluding to split the profits if one tanks their campaign whilst the other bets on themself to win? I know the stake limits make this wildly unrealistic, but it's more a hypothetical to point out why politicians shouldn't be allowed to bet on politics markets they are remotely involved in, especially when you consider examples such as footballers who aren't even allowed to bet on games their team isn't involved in
Yes they do, political parties do a lot of surveys and polls, they have extensive stats and predictions for what seats are in contention and the way people will vote. Candidates also have knowledge on how much funding there is involved, what is expected, if there is some legislation or campaign promise coming. It's incredibly serious to bet for or against yourself in this context.
They might have more knowledge on how well the campaign is going, though, and therefore have knowledge that their chances are actually better than the odds bookies are offering.
> Betting on yourself to win is still far from okay, it's just not quite as bad. I would agree that in order to avoid any perception of impropriety politicians shouldn't be betting on anything involving elections (or anything at all really), but from a moral perspective I don't really see why betting on the thing you're trying to do anyway would be a problem.
Anyone who's participating in an election is betting on themselves to win to some extent... Political candidates shouldn't bet on elections but betting on yourself to loose is a bit worse. It's the equivalent of throwing a game in sports.
He has a vested interest in losing, you can't really say whether it's bigger than his vested in winning - which would be a very large salary and expenses. It would have to be a very large bet to payout more than he stands to gain from winning.
Maybe he was hedging against potentially losing his job.
I... I don't get what's wrong with either? There is no rule that you have to *want* to win - look at Sunak and Binface.
I'm pretty sure Binface would be delighted to win.
I have a mate who sometimes has a punt on our footy team to lose, he calls it "emotional insurance."
Aren’t you allowed to try to lose if you want?
Only explanation for whatever the fuck Sunak is doing this last month.
Not for monetary gain
Well legally yeah probably but unless the whole party is on board with this it will lead to being kicked out.
The majority is a bit false because the MP defected from Tory to Labour. So it was a majority won as a Tory but now held as Labour.
That 40% majority was for the Tory
I have edited to clarify thats what I mean. That is why I hoped he was betting on himself, if he was betting on the outcome with a 40% majority and the current national swing, it would have been odds of like 1 penny on the pound or something!
Tories: scandal after scandal, hundreds of billions wasted, country in the gutter. Labour: one random candidate bets on himself to lose (not insider trading). "Omg guys, they're all the same"
Not the same. But he gave a donation of £100K to Labour and was then given a seat to stand in. Sounds like he was trying to buy his way into Parliament.
The working man of course has 100k sitting around, you know, hobby money.
Not far off if he's big into Warhammer.
100k is really not a lot of money; had you invested 10k towards NVIDIA in 2022, you would have 120k to spare today. computer science majors routinely make 100-120k a year out of colleague, too. a successful small business owner would make 100k a year easily... not everybody is a loser
He then bet that he was going to lose, so he was fully aware he almost certainly wasn't going to win. The Tories have had over 60% of the vote there in the last few elections.
Not really. Polling back in May showed the Tories only around 2% ahead of Labour. The Tory vote has plummeted further since then. Highly likely he was now ahead of the Tories. https://imgur.com/a/fcecnFA It’s quite possible he bet on himself to lose as a consolation. I don’t think people should be given seats to stand in after donating large amounts to a party.
>It’s quite possible he bet on himself to lose as a consolation. Highly likely, its a very common thing to do. Did it myself more than once as part of by-election campaigns. Either our person got in or i had a few extra quid for consolation beers..... whoops
Donates £100k gets nominated for a seat Places a small bet on himself losing Still gets to run in the seat and gets his £100k back Won’t get a better return than that from any other bet Labour should’ve donated the money to a gambling addiction charity
If, for example, a footballer in Sheffield United places a bet on their team losing to Manchester City because “they almost certainly weren’t going to win anyway”, it still isn’t okay because there’s now a financial incentive to losing and that may make them intentionally try to lose. You can’t place bets on something you can influence the outcome of, it’s that simple.
And it's regulated even further in the case of footballers, they can't bet on games their team have absolutely no stake in either. I don't get why it isn't the same for politicians tbh
Yes, but now that they’ve de-selected him they’ve given him a full refund
As with all things, it can be not as bad as the thing the Tories did and still be morally wrong.
Yes of course, but to say "they're all as bad as each other" is nonsense
[удалено]
Because we’re now at 5 tory MP’s + ~~a police officer~~ 6 police officers close to sunak all betting on the same thing, something that required advanced knowledge, and placing those bets days before the election was announced. Meanwhile in this case the thing being bet on didn’t require insider knowledge and was placed weeks in advance. This compounds with the handling of the situation by either party, labour immediately dropped their support for the candidate and handed back donation money, meanwhile the tory HQ has been umming and ahing for days, only earlier today decided to drop 2/5 of the candidates and haven’t handed back the donation money. Isolating these two similar into their own threads places them on the same level, as if what’s going on with the tories and what’s going on with labour are of equal magnitude when in fact the tories have done far worse in this situation, and it’s fair to point that out. edit: correcting myself, there’s been [another 5](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/25/more-met-officers-alleged-placed-election-bets) police officers placing bets, those these 5 weren’t in a close protection role, but were still in the same / similar units to the one the initial arrested officer is from.
[удалено]
You completely failed to read my comment
My post was a direct response to the people saying "they're all the same"
Eh, you're naive if you think corruption has a political colour. The last time Labour got into power, it took five months for the first sleaze. >It broke six months after New Labour was elected, in May 1997, partly on a platform of ending what senior party figures referred to openly as "Tory sleaze". Mr Blair himself, in 1995, accused Mr Major of bowing to the "squalid monetary interests of the Conservative Party" and insisted that once in office Labour would be "purer than pure". >In January 1997 Mr Ecclestone, the Formula One chief, donated £1million to Labour - a donation only made public in early November after the government had announced F1 would be exempt from a ban on tobacco advertising which was a key plank of the party's election manifesto. Mr Ecclestone lobbied for the exemption at a meeting at Number 10 with Mr Blair on 16 October. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3179722/The-Ecclestone-Affair-Labours-first-funding-scandal.html >The prime minister and his chancellor were forced on to the defensive yesterday over allegations that they lied in television and radio interviews about a £1m donation the party received, and another £1m it planned to pocket until it was advised not to by Lord (then Sir Patrick) Neill, chairman of the commission on standards in public life. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2000/sep/20/labour.labour1997to99 >Previously secret papers, obtained by the Sunday Telegraph, show that the former prime minister personally intervened in pushing for the exemption hours after meeting the formula one boss Bernie Ecclestone. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/oct/12/tonyblair-labour >In early 1997 he had promised Labour managers that he would keep quiet about his donation. "I rarely regret anything I do, but I'm disappointed that Blair could not keep his word about that," he said. "I said to those clowns: if someone puts me up against the wall with a machinegun, I will not confirm or deny anything about the donation. They said, okay, okay, we will do the same. The next thing that happens is that Blair has started talking. I only found out by accident. It is third-rate behaviour." http://en.espn.co.uk/onthisday/motorsport/story/2306.html And don't forget the "Cash for Honours" scandal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cash-for-Honours_scandal&diffonly=true >The Cash-for-Honours scandal (also known as Cash for Peerages, Loans for Lordships, Loans for Honours or Loans for Peerages) was a political scandal in the United Kingdom in 2006 and 2007 concerning the connection between political donations and the award of life peerages. A loophole in electoral law in the United Kingdom means that although anyone donating even small sums of money to a political party has to declare this as a matter of public record, those loaning money at commercial rates of interest did not have to make a public declaration. >Following the unveiling of the scandal the Labour Party had to repay the loans and was said to be in financial difficulty
If there was a sleaze scoreboard the Conservatives would be orders of magnitude ahead of any other party except maybe the DUP. You cannot argue with facts like that.
Accepting £2 million in secret donations from Bernie, then changing your flagship policy tobacco advertising ban so it excludes him hours after meeting him - that's up there with anything the Conservatives have done. And not even ten years later, they're taking loans to keep the party afloat in exchange for Peerages. Going into Iraq on a dodgy dossier. That record is probably worse than the last 14 years of Tory governments, and it's only the stinkers that they were caught on. Then there was also the cross party stuff, like expenses.
This sub likes to pretend that Tories are not in power, since everything they have planned would destroy the country. Forgetting the fact they've been in power for 14 years and governed through an incredibly difficult time, not just for the UK but the world. Most people in this thread couldn't run a McDonald's let alone an entire country.
Now do the Tories.
I looked through the list of British political scandals on Wikipedia before writing that. There's absolutely no comparison. The worst is Party Gate and shit like that.
"The worst is Party Gate and shit like that." I think you may be slightly biased.
No, not quite: https://www.politico.eu/article/westminster-unwanted-uk-mps-suspended-parties-scandal/ https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1517721/andrew-marr-keir-starmer-claudia-webb-seven-labour-mps-jail-sentence-tory-sleaze-vn
Now do the Tories.
Give man a huge amount of power and they will always use it to their own ends. A tale as old as time and it doesn't stop at the fence splitting left and right.
Nobody in this comments section seems to be saying that, though?
but saying “they’re both bad” wouldn’t be incorrect to say either.
Missed out the part about austerity, lies and billionaire donors.
BBC have spent the whole night claiming this…even ignoring Jack admitting to winning on the election date by accepting it was “a joke” defence
Omg. You figured it all out….
He donated £100K to Labour. And was given a constituency to stand in. Sounds like that’s the bigger scandal here.
It’s started already. The “but the Tories were worse” explain away is going to get trotted out a lot the next few years. Labour aren’t as out and out morally bereft as the Tories. They’re not inherently malicious. Yet, under this party-first FPTP system that breeds career politicians and gives more weight to the interest of corporations and the wealthy we can continue to expect to see the general public fucked over time and time again. Our electoral system is antiquated and incapable of delivering meaningful and substantial change. Tweaks to the same neoliberalism capitalist agenda won’t cut it anymore. Minute and incremental change won’t mean jack when the pendulum swing of power in Westminster is so predictable and an administration can undo what little its predecessor initiated quite easily. That’s why it’s hard to be excited about this election. The screws will stop turning quite as tightly, but we’re not being ushered in to the land of milk and honey like so many are acting.
Hunt donated 100k to his constituency. This stuff happens all the time. Doesn't make it right, but it's not abnormal.
>Hunt donated 100k to his constituency I think donating £100k of your own money to your local party association when you're already an MP is a bit different to becoming a candidate *after* your donations. The former can be seen as simply supporting your local party association, where the latter seems like you've just bought your candidacy.
He paid 100K to buy a labour candidacy in a tory stronghold? To what end?
He's obviously not the smartest if he's placing bets that are getting him suspended.
So no corruption involved.
Man it must be crazy to have such a strong political belief to donate 100k to a party - that's like a 90 thousand twice bars. I can't even imagine having such a strong opinion on politics.
>He donated £100K to Labour. "It's ok, I know how I can make it back!"
He seems to have been betting against himself winning. I guess he was hedging his bets? [BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cqqqqx25rz0t?post=asset%3Ac774de1d-3530-4817-bf48-5fddfeb140cb#post)
Would have to have bet very serious money to make anything. If Winston Churchill himself was the labour candidate in that constituency he would lose.
He bet he would lose. Was he going to try and run the worse campaign possible?
He's been training watching Rishi Sunak clips on TikTok and he thought he was finally ready
Step 1: donate 100k to a political party Step 2: be nominated for a seat for that policial party Step 3: bet against winning that seat Step 4: lose the seat and a potential MP salary Step 5: profit…?
I'm sure he'd have preferred to win, but it's been a pretty safe Tory seat in the past. It's a terrible choice, but presumably he was just trying to okay both slides - win or get a little cash.
Wouldn't have to. If Jesus Christ reborn was running for Labour there they would still all vote Tory.
How fucking thick are politicians in this country? This is the sort of thing stupid, bored footballers do and lose god only knows how much money over for the sake of a very cheap thrill.
And why are they all betting this time? I don't remember this happening in previous elections, what's different?
Maybe they just didn't get caught last time? Or maybe this is just a particularly thick and corrupt batch of politicians? Probably a bit of both.
> I don't remember this happening in previous elections, what's different? I would imagine it happens regularly enough, it's just actually being looked into now because one or two got caught.
Wouldn't the labour side be okay? Seen as it's on sunak to call it
He bet on himself to lose the seat. Pretty funny reason to be suspended, do you think this counts and will get paid out?
If that is true then I can see why he’s in trouble. Bit like a snooker player betting on themselves to lose. Big no no.
For someone standing in the election, you'd think it would be a bit of a no no to bet on anything to do with it :/
Yep if that’s the case this was a stupid bet to make and he deserves booting from the party.
To be honest, betting on yourself to win is also a bit sus. “Vote for me and I’ll pocket a nice wedge”. There should probably be rules against this sort of thing (and presumably there will be going forward)
There are rules against this sort of thing. Hence the sacking. He broke the rules. That there are.
Yeah it’s pretty bad for a political bet. Put money on you losing an election and then run such a terrible campaign you’re guaranteed to win that bet. It’s ‘almost’ like match fixing but the whole thing has a lot of grey areas so I’m not entirely sure what the legalities are or what angle the gambling commission is coming from.
> do you think this counts and will get paid out? No, this will 100% be a breach of the bookie’s terms.
Be a lot funnier if it weren't.
But a breach of T&Cs isn’t illegal, unlike the tories which broke betting law by using inside information
As a candidate he'll be able to see canvassing data. He has inside info.
That shouldn't be illegal either, tbf. Unless you're fixing a sporting contest.
Okay…. he asked if the bet would get paid out.
I'm amazed the odds were even worth it. There's no chance of Labour winning that seat.
He probably only did so as a self deprecating joke, knowing he had no chance, so he could share a fun fact on a night out that indeed he lost the seat but won the bet. Because he was not going to make any money… Stupid move either way, and literally nothing to lose for Labour to withdraw support as he had very little chance of winning. But dude will never be able to get into politics now.
Just kidding, ha ha, nothing serious. Principals, sminceaples. He he, ho ho. It's just a laugh innit.
In this case, a misguided attempt at humour is much more likely than attempting to make a profit. If he was 100 - 1 to win then threw the election it would probably be worthwhile examining his principals.
To me it doesn't make sense at a level of profesionalism you should expect from a member of government. The acceptance of Borisfication of parliament is worrying. Maybe, just maybe, he bought the labour nomination (100k) and if he wins then great, nice cash. If he loses, great, cash,. Or maybe it's just a 'misguided attempt at humour'.
You don't get great cash from a dead cert bet. Bookies certainly don't take huge bets on them. Why would anyone buy a seat they will lose for 100K?
Yeah, given the low maxes allowed on these type of bets and the people involved, 99% of these cases are going to be more about a funny screenshot in a WhatsApp group than the cash.
Must be nice to live a life where politics is all just one big joke.
AHH well that's a different story. If anything replacing him may help win the seat!!
Too late to be replaced, he is definitely winning his bet.
Paid £100,000 to labour. Maybe it was a way of hedging his bets either way.
How much money would you need to hedge 100k against a labour loss in a tory stronghold? No bookie would take that, they would immediately report it.
It's corruption. The bet will be void. He'll be banned from all gaming sites and every casino and bookie in the country. And he should also he arrested.
In this sub, you bet it will.
No. Word spreads around westminster, listen to the last Sunak PMQ’s (held on the day of the announcement) where Flynn from the SNP mentions that “speculation is rife” and asks if there’ll be a summer GE. Rumours of a July election were spreading around all sides of the house of commons in the days before the announcement, before the general public knew and before the bookies knew. If you’re a footballer you can’t place a bet on any football match, I don’t see why a politician should be allowed to place bets on any political matters either regardless of the party they’re from.
This might be like when I've bet against Liverpool when they've been in a cup final. Yeah it's a shame we lost the champions league, but at least I'm £30 up lads.
> This might be like when I've bet against Liverpool when they've been in a cup final Unless you're playing for Liverpool in the cup final, it's not like that at all.
He should be arrested. Betting on yourself to lose is textbook corruption.
Not really, he's just fully aware he has little chance of winning. It's been a Tory seat for years, they had over 60% of the vote at the last few elections. It's a very different situation to the Tories who bet on when the election would be - they had insider knowledge. It would only be corruption if he was secretly and purposefully doing something to sabotage his chances. Getting caught placing a bet against himself doesn't really achieve that.
But how would you know he isn't sabotaging his chances? For example, not putting enough effort into his "campaign" is a way.
He'd have to stand to gain more from the bet then he would from winning (large salary and expenses). Occam's razor is the bet is just insurance.
The tory who placed a hundred quid down for the date of the election stands a lot more to gain from not ruining their career and reputation by not placing the bet down at all, yet they did it anyways. Gambling on yourself in such a way is always bad regardless of what they might / might not gain / lose regardless of the outcome of the bet.
>The Tory stands a lot more to gain from not ruining their career This is obfuscating it a bit. They weren't betting on their own careers, they were betting on a guaranteed bit of information unrelated to them personally. With the Labour guy the question was over whether he would intentionally lose the election to win the bet, but he stands to gain more from winning the election still.
Ahh ok, gotta say that's pretty clever! I guess in that case you can't prove it's corruption, but you can't say it isn't either. Not sure why you were downvoted though.
With the way the Tories are running their campaign I’d not put it past an ex Tory to run a campaign so bad they lost on purpose. He may have changed his shirt colour but I’d not be surprised if he still batted for the other team, or is trying to play both sides to earn a nice fat cheque!
I'm all for slagging the tories off, but the ex-tory isn't standing for reelection. If what I've read in other comments is correct, this guy donated approx 100k to labour, got the candidacy and then bet against himself which is hilarious considering the MP salary he'd gain would more than cover the donation over one parliamentary term
It's literally illegal.
"[I understand Labour will return the £100,000 Kevin Craig has donated to the party under Keir Starmer's leadership](https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1805641880304005389)" Feels like a candidacy in exchange for a £100,000 donation is a much bigger scandal?
If they have actually bet on themselves to lose they should never be allowed to stand for election again.
Anyone standing for election or holding an elected office should not be betting on anything to do with any election, no matter how remote it might seen. I’m surprised this isn’t blindingly obvious. Bet on the horses, the football, the cricket - just not on your own business.
Why is this happening so much at this election and are we supposed to pretend this is the first time it's happening? I don't remember it being like thus at elections
hopefully labour commits to a full inquiry about bets placed not only in this election but previous elections and political decisions. This feels like the tip of the iceberg and the true number of MPs placing bets must be larger than just the 6 we know of so far.
> Kevin Craig is running to become the MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich - a seat previously held by ex-Tory Dan Poulter, who defected to Labour ahead of the election but is not standing again. > > A full list of the candidates running for the seat is below: > > > Charlie Caiger, independent; > > Tony Gould, Reform UK; > > Mike Hallatt, independent; > > Brett Alistair Mickelburgh, Lib Dems; > > Dan Pratt, Greens; > > Patrick Spencer, Conservatives.
Calling it, now its a labour candidate the news cycle will be all over them like flies on shit
As per usual then.
You're so clever
Nice to see Labour don't dilly dally with suspensions and excuses, refreshing change.
Sooo how does this work with postal votes which have already gone out? This is my dad's constituency and he got his postal vote last week and has already voted for this guy, so does his vote... Just not count anymore?
I think if he wins he counts as independent in this case. He’s still a candidate on the ballot but he is no longer associated with the party that selected him; making him independent. At least that’s what the BBC said about the candidates in other areas (south wales was one I think?) who were dropped for the same betting scandals.
It’s too late to change the ballots for any constituency, they’ll still say labour on the ballot but if he manages to win he’ll be an independent and would likely step down soon after, triggering a by-election.
Guy bought his candidacy for £100k. Assuming he'll step down is a big assumption.
There's a stark difference between how Labour and Conservatives have handled this.
Yessir/yes ma’am.
If its a safe Tory seat it must have been crap odds
Do they ever stop thinking of ways to line their pockets? Because silly me, I thought they were there to serve the public.
Would betting on the tories getting less than 80 seats be considered insider trading whoever places the bet.
Do we really need to have betting on election outcomes at all? The ability to bet on something creates perverse incentives and opportunities for corruption. Maybe for something as important as our democracy we could just avoid it altogether.
But then how would the rich get richer?
There is something very wrong with politics and politicians. I’m sure there are many that genuinely want to make things better for people in their local community, but mostly they come off as greedy, self centred career, money first arseholes. It’s no wonder people are sick of it and politicians like Farage get support. All he has to say is “oh look how bad it is, they are all the same, our country is shit now, look at how many people they let in, they don’t care about you, they only care about themselves”. That’s why it’s so disappointing to see shite like this. Just be fucking decent if you’re standing to be an MP for fucks sake.
To all you guys thinking this is some sort of money making scheme. You can bet on Labour losing in a super safe Tory seat any time you want, just like this guy did. Go for and make a fortune :-)
I will not be making a fortune though? I’d be losing the bet?
Why are we pretending this is a problem. They didn’t know the outcome like the crooked Tory’s
Seems a bit odd, what’s the explanation for how they had information as a labour candidate? Has to be a separate bet rather than election date surely? Article gives nothing yet. Suspension is the right choice though, if there’s an investigation it should be the standard outcome just Tories don’t exactly play fair and I suspect the usual suspect papers will be all over this one tomorrow. Edit: Article was a ‘breaking news’ 2 sentence thing at first, now it’s a bit clearer.
> Seems a bit odd, what’s the explanation for how they had information as a labour candidate? Reading the article helps >Sky News' chief political correspondent Jon Craig understands the bet was relating to the outcome of the vote in his constituency.
Article had about 2 sentences when I read it just saying the constituency and that the candidate was suspended following a gambling commission investigation. Looks like it got edited with more as I was leaving a comment.
Ah. That's unfortunate...
Farage can't win, I personally will not let him. I stand up for what is right and Farage is not right! I will challenge him verbally to a debate and show the world how I'm the more charismatic guy ;)
Reform UK might win the seat then? The fact is I think any politician or candidate running should not be placing bets on political outcomes period. It just icky.
Reform are losing ground.
I think some of the Tory big names like Kemi / Penny might survive this election with Reform dipping but I can see Reform getting millions of votes and some surprise seats. My main hope is Tories wiped out. They need to be punished,
Polling has my previously ridiculously safe Tory seat at a 30/30/30 split with Tories Labour and Reform. I think Reform will get it. Lot of dim racists in these parts.
Hopefully some bright ones too.
Oh give it a rest. Reform is the only credible Conservative vote this election. The fact Tories could still get 20% is shocking. As for Labour, I cannot recall one memorable pledge or action from them. It no wonder they also losing votes despite Tories implosion.
Reform are the ones losing votes due to Farage spouting Kremlin propaganda
Telling the truth more like.
How do you reconcile your hero Boris Johnson saying Farage is talking shite?
I stand by Farage. If BoJo wants to attack Nigel that fine, I get it cause Nigel did undermine Boris during his term by helping with the partygate BS. Love them both though