Earlier this summer I placed a couple of bets of my own on the Labour leadership campaign, two of which were a foolish waste of money (a fiver each on Ed Balls and Andy Burnham at about 25:1 at the start of the campaign). The one I got right, however, was putting £10 on Ed Miliband in May (May 12, William Hill) when the commentariat thought that a] he probably wouldn’t stand and b] if he did he would lose to his brother. The odds were 7:1, giving me the chance of a fine potential profit.
I never bet on David M simply because the odds have always been far too slim – even as his lead eroded during the long summer months.
While others are now trying to shift their money from David to Ed I have the converse problem: I need to bet on the older brother to lay off my potential £70 profit. But what is fascinating is that almost all bookies still have David as the clear favourite, despite the media/Westminster noise to the contrary. No one listed at Oddschecker (a very useful gamblers’ website) is offering better odds than 4:7 for David Miliband.
Which means I’d have to put a rather large bet down to guarantee a small profit from whichever brother wins. If a bookmaker starts offering evens on David I’ll take it later in the week. But it is striking that the bookies – and by implication the punters – still can’t believe that Mili-D won’t emerge triumphant on Saturday afternoon.
Jim Pickard
Kiran Stacey