"Winning here!" : Why Political Betting ramped up the tension over Clegg's prospects

A guest post by an anonymous contributor

News has reached Scot Goes Pop that raises troubling new questions over what has been going on behind the scenes at the Political Betting website. Allegations have been made that the editorial team led by Mike Smithson have steered their readers towards bad value bets with bookmakers - and it now appears that one of those betting firms has handsomely compensated Mr Smithson for his "advice".

On January 26th 2015, deputy editor "The Screaming Eagles" posted "Interesting market, my money is on Clegg and Salmond" in regard to this betting heat -

Which of Cameron/Miliband/Clegg/Farage/Salmond will achieve the lowest percentage vote share in their seats in the general election?

Nick Clegg 4/6
Nigel Farage 11/10
Ed Miliband 25/1
David Cameron 40/1
Alex Salmond 50/1

The idiocy of this "tip" was apparent to any half-clued-up gambler, as several immediately pointed out; Farage was a much bigger price to win, and was doing worse in opinion polls in Thanet South than was Clegg in Sheffield Hallam, and so the then Lib Dem leader was obviously a "false favourite" in the market. Farage was the shrewd bet at 11/10 (and as it turned out was the only leader to fail to win his seat, as well as recording the lowest share of the vote, therefore "winning" this bet). 

A couple of people offered The Screaming Eagles much bigger odds than 4/6 on Clegg as a private bet, but despite claiming it was "a good bet" and that he had backed it at 4/6, he declined to follow up at EVEN money.

Why was the deputy editor of a betting site giving such obviously poor advice? Why was he claiming to have had such a bet but refusing bigger odds? Only a blind man could fail to see that something was up...

...because something WAS up.

By chance, a PB poster's flatmate was a trader at the betting company concerned, and so, over a pint, he casually enquired into how the Politics markets were going, and specifically, how much money they had seen for Clegg at 4/6?

"Not a penny" was the response.

Strange, the PB deputy editor had claimed his money was on at this price. Anyway, more to the point, surely Farage was the value. Which joker at his company put Clegg in at 4/6?

"Oh the bloke who is advising us on the markets for the GE is a bit of a political shrewdie apparently, we are paying him a fortune. A fellow called Mike Smithson."

Mike Smithson of Political Betting? Surely not???

Surely "OGH" wouldn't be making markets for a huge sportsbook, and getting his deputy to advise backing the "false favourite" on his site? Wouldn't that rip the integrity of any betting advice on "PB" to shreds? How would it be, for example, if a suspicion lingered in the air that Scot Goes Pop's positive views on the likelihood of Scottish independence were not actually the true opinion of the author, but a ruse to attract business for his paymasters?

When called out on his claim to have taken the 4/6 on Clegg, The Screaming Eagles panicked, threatened to report the trader (whose name he didn't know) to the betting authorities (even though he had done nothing wrong), frantically deleted posts and finally banned those who queried the matter from the site, with full backing from Smithson to the amazement of other regular thread writers and site staff who were puzzled by the Stasi-like moderation.

How can a website that employs these tactics be trusted to give impartial advice? Is Political Betting nothing more than a front for Mike Smithson's more lucrative activities? There are shrewd betting contributions from a couple of leader writers but, in light of these revelations, how can anyone know for sure how to distinguish the signals from the noise?

Could commendable challenger Corbyn conceivably clinch the crown?

Without in any way wanting to "do a Lovatt", I thought it might be interesting to have a quick look at the latest Labour leadership odds on the Betfair exchange...

Andy Burnham : Evens
Yvette Cooper : 16/5
Jeremy Corbyn : 4/1
Liz Kendall : 14/1

Basically what's happened is that Corbyn and Kendall have swapped over, with Kendall now occupying Corbyn's previous role as the oddball outsider.

I think those odds probably represent quite a rational reaction to the reports of private polling that supposedly shows Corbyn in a clear lead.  Obviously he has a better chance than we once thought, but given that the private polls were commissioned by his opponents, you do have to question the motivation for leaking them, and whether they've been reported accurately.  And even if these had been public polls, there would still be a big question mark, because it's notoriously hard to poll internal party elections.  Does a Corbyn lead pass the "smell test"?  Is it really likely that a party membership with a recent track record of voting for out-and-out Blairite leadership candidates would suddenly plump for an MP to the left of Michael Foot?

Ironically, the fact that Kendall seems to be crashing and burning could be a big additional hurdle for Corbyn.  There are probably supporters of both Burnham and Cooper who loathe Blairism sufficiently that they will give Corbyn a higher ranking than Kendall, which might help Corbyn over the line if the final "instant run-off" is between the candidates from the two extremes. But if it boils down to a  Burnham v Corbyn contest, which seems much more plausible, Corbyn will be receiving a negligible amount of transfers from Kendall's supporters.

If by any remote chance Corbyn does win, what would be the consequences?  Firstly there would be utter pandemonium - it would be one of the biggest upsets in British politics for decades, perhaps rivalled only by Scottish Labour's wipeout this year.  We can be pretty sure that the Labour right wouldn't simply reconcile themselves to the result, although in contrast to the early 80s they wouldn't be able to pray in aid a gerrymandered voting system.  Probably their tactic would be to bide their time for a year or two, and then start darkly hinting that it isn't tenable for a party leader - even one with a clear mandate from members and supporters - to remain in office without the support of the parliamentary party.  If that didn't work, we'd then be looking at an SDP-style breakaway, but perhaps on a much bigger scale.  It would be interesting to see what the rebels call themselves, though - they can't really be the Social Democratic Party this time (it wouldn't be true anyway).  Maybe they'd plump for the Hard-Edged Compassion Party, in tribute to their spiritual overlord.

Final thought : it isn't actually irrational that people are thinking of voting for Corbyn.  Setting aside ideology, he's quite simply the most impressive of the four candidates.  This is the sort of thing that happens when someone as uninspiring and dreary as Andy Burnham somehow emerges as the frontrunner to become Leader of the Opposition.

*  *  *

Public Service Announcement : The new Liberal Democrat leader will be revealed today.  You can probably be forgiven if you weren't aware of that (I must admit I'd almost forgotten).

Jade Remains Slight Favourite in 'Your Country Needs You' Betting

Well, if the bookies are to be believed, there's still a modicum of hope - in spite of Jade finishing (presumably) third in the public vote on Saturday, she remains marginal favourite for the ticket to Moscow on the Betfair market ahead of Mark, with the twins as the outsiders. But before anyone comes out with that old chestnut 'the bookies aren't often wrong', I must have slept through a heavily pregnant Katie Price singing for the UK in Kyiv in 2005. And, for that matter, Anthony Costa the year after. And Justin Hawkins the year after that. And the Revelations the year after that (if only!). And, in particular, Ulrika Jonsson's victory in Celebrity Big Brother last week must have just been a particularly bad dream.

Conclusion - the bookies get it wrong all the time. They may still make an obscene profit, but it doesn't change the fact that they get it wrong all the time!