Why Britain’s murky election betting scandal is causing outrage

Rishi Sunak’s gamble is a significant one. Five weeks ago, the British prime minister bet the house on his belief that a summer election would give his Conservative Party a better chance of holding onto power than waiting until the autumn.

Call one surprise election was Mr. Sunak’s final move. But it was later discovered that in the days before he stood sadly in the pouring rain on May 22 and told the nation he was going to vote, a number of colleagues and subordinates had bet in a more literal sense.

Reviewing the data from the week before Mr Sunak’s announcement, the bookmaker noticed Betting increased dramatically were placed on election day. The amounts at stake were small – just a few thousand pounds in total – but the sudden frenzy of activity was enough to warrant further investigation.

The question of whether these bets were made by political officials, using inside knowledge of Mr Sunak’s intentions to make a quick profit, has become the issue that dominates these discussions. What could be the Conservative Party’s final days in power. It also summarizes how some sections of the electorate view the party that has ruled Britain for 14 years.

“The whole thing has reinforced previous public concerns,” said Luke Tryl, chief executive of More in Common, a research group. “It gets right to the point: ‘One rule for them and one rule for everyone else.’”

Craig Williams, one of Mr Sunak’s key parliamentary aides and a running Conservative Party candidate, was the first to arrive under supervision after The Guardian reported that he had placed a bet on the July election on 19 May, three days before the prime minister’s announcement. Now suspended from campaigning, he has admitted to an “error of judgment”, but insists he has not committed a criminal offence.

As the Gambling Commission, the regulator that oversees Britain’s rich and diverse betting industry, expands its investigation, some other senior Conservative Party staffers named as under investigation.

Among them were Tony Lee, the party’s campaign director, and his wife, Laura Saunders, a potential Conservative candidate in the upcoming election who has now been suspended from the party.

Nick Mason, the Conservative Party’s chief data officer, took a leave of absence after being told he was also under investigation. There are rumors that a number of other Conservative Party staffers could soon be identified in the investigation.

Meanwhile, one of the officers protecting Mr Sunak was arrested on allegations that he had also placed bets on the timing of the election, and the Metropolitan Police had confirmed The agency is investigating several other law enforcement officials.

The scandal is yet another blow for Mr Sunak as he campaigns less to win the election scheduled for 4 July than to stave off potential losses for his party.

He already has causing an uproar after leaving the 80th anniversary of D-Day early to do a television interview, a decision for which he later apologized profusely. He later faced widespread ridicule after claiming that he had struggled as a child because his parents did not allow him to have satellite television.

The gambling allegations have added to that damage, polling experts say, adding to the sense of an out-of-touch party that seems to consider itself above moral concerns .

Michael Gove, one of the most senior Conservative lawmakers, said what was potentially most damaging was “the perception that we operate outside the rules that we set for others”. told The Sunday Times. “It was disastrous at the time of Partygate,” he said, referring to the scandal of ban-busting parties held inside Boris Johnson’s Downing Street during the pandemic, “And it is damaging harm here.”

Political betting is a growing industry — more than $1.5 billion was wagered on the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, making it likely to be the biggest gambling event of all time — but insiders say the market for when the election might be called is inherently niche.

In reality, they are run as novelty products, designed to attract attention and hopefully new customers, according to a longtime political betting expert who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the industry.

They are not designed to generate large profits, he said. Bookmakers simply do not want to lose money on them, operating on the assumption that there will be people — not just lawmakers but party members — with access to better information than they do. To limit their losses, they limit the amount of money anyone can bet on the market.

Bets placed in the days leading up to Mr Sunak’s announcement fit that bill. For example, Mr Williams allegedly placed a £100 ($125) bet for a potential winnings of just a few hundred pounds. “This is not a life-changing amount of money for senior figures in politics,” said Joe Twyman, director of Deltapoll, a public opinion consultancy.

In fact, the small size of the market may be the reason authorities noticed the unusual activity in the first place: This spike would likely go unnoticed in a market like racing. horse or football.

Britain has a strange relationship with betting, perhaps best illustrated by its position on sport. In football, for example, as in baseball, players are completely banned from betting on their own sport.

Last year, England striker Ivan Toney was banned for six months for gambling on matches. Brazilian midfielder Lucas Paquetá could be banned for life if he is found guilty of gambling on matches he played in. He has vehemently denied the allegations.

Yet both Mr Toney and Mr Paquetá played for clubs — Brentford and West Ham respectively — that were sponsored by gambling companies last season. They play in stadiums plastered with betting shop logos. And Brentford’s owner, Matthew Benham, bought the club with money he earned during his highly successful career as a professional sports gambler.

Such cognitive dissonance around gambling is very familiar in the UK. If gambling takes place in one of the thousands of betting shops on the country’s high streets, it is considered a social evil, a worrying and harmful addiction.

If it takes place at Royal Ascotand you’re wearing a nice hat, it’s the social event of the season. It’s worth mentioning that Mr. Williams, the prime minister’s assistant, describes his bet as a “thrill” – Britishism for a small bet, something inherently trivial, harmless and fun.

Experts say the election scandal affects voters not because they disapprove of all forms of gambling but because it shows the ruling party’s ethics.

“It summarizes what everyone was thinking,” Mr. Twyman said. “It reinforces an existing narrative built around historical issues from Partygate. And it has an opportunity cost: People are talking about this, instead of what the Conservative Party wants them to talk about.”

The extent to which it has resonated with ordinary people is astonishing, according to More in Common’s Mr Tryl. Its data shows that the betting scandal, along with Mr Sunak’s “mistakes” around D-Day and his comments on cable TV, have become defining themes of the campaign.

The allegations don’t make much of a difference in the polls, but it will give the Conservatives a lot of relief, Mr. Tryl said, because it doesn’t reflect the level of public concern. but the level of voter interest. already turned against his party. “A lot of people are gone,” he said.

That is certainly the bookies’ view: the Conservatives are now 70/1 to retain power come July 4.