Skip to content

Chris Mason: Why the betting saga matters

Getty Images An employee from a betting company writes odds on a blackboard outside the Houses of Parliament in central London oGetty Images

Reporting on politics is an exercise in two things: an examination of policies and, often, to bear witness to human fallibility.

Public life, because it should, subjects those who volunteer to be part of it to an intense scrutiny.

Democracy demands that, with reporters asking awkward questions and seeking to find things out to help inform you to make a judgement.

And that is the word that is at the heart of all of this: judgement.

A graphic which reads 'more on general election 2024'

What these revelations may help reveal, at least in part, is something about the judgement of those in senior roles, in office or seeking office.

Let us be clear - in all of the developments in recent days relating to alleged betting, there is a huge amount reporters don’t know.

In plenty of the alleged cases, we don’t know if there was indeed a bet, how much was bet, how many bets there were, precisely what was bet on, what the odds were, what the winnings were or, crucially, what the person placing the bet did or didn’t know about when the election would be.

The circumstances and context of each case could vary wildly, and we should be clear about that.

Journalism can be long-winded and imperfect. We reporters rarely know as much as we would like to know, and we never stop asking questions.

In recent days, I have received tip-offs and made a blizzard of phone calls and inquiries, attempting to piece together elements of this story we have reported online, on TV and on radio.

Other BBC colleagues, the Sunday Times and the Guardian have been doing the same.

For the party leaders in situations like this, they can find themselves prisoners of the alleged behaviour of others.

Imagine you were Rishi Sunak, or Keir Starmer after today’s revelation about a Labour candidate. You’d be incandescent.

But you will also be judged by your response. The nature of it and the speed of it.

Labour is attempting to make a virtue of their relative speed in disowning their candidate who’d had a flutter and contrasting it with what they see as Tory tardiness.

But the actions of a leader can also create awkward precedents and hostages to fortune. How many other candidates might have had a flutter on their fortunes or others?

I cannot remember the closing stages of an election campaign so dominated by a horror show of daily developments on one topic like the one we are currently witnessing.

And, as I have said before in recent days and I will say again, there is every prospect we have not yet heard the last of this.