In Theory, the Election Betting Scandal Is Good News
‘There is no such thing as bad publicity’ – is the notion that all mentions in the media aid a cause, even if it casts it in a bad light. If true, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak must be delighted with news headlines that state five people with links to him or the Conservative Party are being investigated by the gambling watchdog for insider trading.
The Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire, Craig Williams, made a “huge error of judgment” when backing a July election when he knew it was a foregone conclusion. ©Getty
The story first appeared in the press on June 12th with the announcement that Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide, his private secretary, Craig Williams, had reportedly placed a bet – with Ladbrokes in his Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr constituency – on a July election three days before it was announced.
At the end of May, Betsbettingsites.com explained how the shock announcement of a July election had been a 12/1 shot. Double-digit winning bets are notoriously tricky to find. However, if you had been told of the July 4th election date days before it had been officially made, ‘winning money’ on the outcome would have been easy. It would have also been illegal.
A Routine Flutter Is Exposed
Quoted in the Guardian on June 12th, Williams said in a statement: “I’ve been contacted by a journalist about Gambling Commission inquiries into one of my accounts and thought it best to be totally transparent.”
“I put a flutter on the general election some weeks ago. This has resulted in some routine inquiries, and I confirm I will fully cooperate with these. I don’t want it to be a distraction from the campaign.”
Also quoted was a Conservative Party spokesperson who added: “We are aware of contact between a Conservative candidate and the Gambling Commission. It is a personal matter for the individual in question. As the Gambling Commission is an independent body, it wouldn’t be proper to comment further until any process is concluded.”
The Guardian piece also stated: “It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a ‘politically exposed person,’ and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over novelty markets.”
Twenty-four hours later, it was revealed Williams’s bet was for £100 at Ladbrokes 5/1 odds, and he told the BBC, “I’ve clearly made a huge error of judgment, that’s for sure, and I apologise.” However, he refused to say whether he placed the bet based on insider information.
Is a Leave as Good as a Confession?
A red flag was hoisted, fluttered, waved, and is now – courtesy of the revelation that five people are being investigated over bets placed on the date of the UK election by people potentially in the know – standing erect in a gale-force ten storm.
Nick Mason, the Conservative party’s data chief, has taken a leave of absence after reports stated he is also under Gambling Commission investigation for allegedly betting on the timing of the election before the date had been announced. According to the Sunday Times, he is alleged to have placed several dozen bets before the snap election date was announced.
Laura Saunders is another person who has taken a leave of absence following suggestions that she is linked to bets placed on an early election. The Tory candidate for Bristol North West is also under Gambling Commission investigation.
Saunders is married to Tony Lee – the Conservative Party’s director of campaigns – and, like his wife, he too has now taken a leave of absence after it came to light that he is another being probed by the Gambling Commission.
An unnamed Metropolitan Police officer who is part of Sunak’s close protection security team is the fifth person known to be under investigation. He is also the only person to have faced disciplinary action over the scandal so far.
Arrested and questioned for the alleged offence of ‘misconduct in public office’ after the Gambling Commission contacted his employers, the officer has been removed from operational duties and is on bail pending further enquiries. It has been suggested a further five police officers are under investigation by the Gambling Commission for placing bets on the date of the election.
Ladbrokes Sees Red and Says So
The latest press rumours indicate that more politicians could come under the spotlight. It has also been reported that the Gambling Commission has contacted bookmakers seeking details of those who bet £20 or more on a July election in the days before it was called. It is now believed that bets placed by third parties are being looked into.
It is unclear if what has become a political hot potato – an opinion poll has suggested the Tory betting scandal is the story voters have noticed the most – would have ever come to light if it were not for Ladbrokes initial report of Craig Williams’s £100 bet.
Client confidentiality and anonymity are considered priorities by many bookmakers in the UK. However, if they feel they have accepted bets involving impropriety, Ladbrokes never appear shy about blowing a very public whistle. The company, founded in 1886, seemingly embraces the maxim, ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’.
The Bets That Took the Cake
Despite being a pre-recorded show, in 2015, as part of a foolhardy decision, the famous High Street and online bookmaker offered a betting market on the winner of the Great British Bake Off. As a novelty betting market, stakes would have been restricted.
Nevertheless, on the eve of the final being broadcast, Ladbrokes went to the papers with the news it had accepted 529 Great British Bake Off bets from “suspicious accounts with links to BBC staff and members of the Great British Bake Off production company, Love Productions.” Its potential liability was £10,000.
The Report That Bit Back
Ladbrokes also reported racehorse trainer David Evans to the British Horse Racing Authority after they took a bet from him on one of his horses at enhanced odds – due to his status “as a high-value customer of longstanding” – which contracted in price when the trainer withdrew his second runner from the race in question.
As reported in a 2017 Guardian story, “Evans had doomed himself when placing the bet by phone to Ladbrokes. The trader with whom he spoke, apparently intrigued that the trainer was staking the largest bet ever made through his account on one of his two runners, asked: ‘What’s the message there, then?’ Evans immediately told him he was going to withdraw Tango Sky. Ladbrokes notified the BHA of their concerns over the bet later that same day.”
Evans’s horse was ultimately beaten. However, in a curious twist to this whistle-blowing case, in 2018 Ladbrokes was deemed to have misled the Gambling Commission regarding its reasons for shortening the odds of the horse it knew would be withdrawn from the race, Tango Sky.
In what appeared to be the manipulation of inside knowledge that it had acquired, Ladbroke’s shortening of Tango Sky’s odds was “in order to maximise Rule 4 deductions” from winning bets already placed, according to the Commission. It added the betting company “had failed to appropriately review all information available to them prior to initially providing … inaccurate explanations” during the investigation.