Against all odds, it seems we hate to see bookmakers losing | David Mitchell
Bookies are the victims of the parliamentary betting scandal, but do they deserve our sympathy?
Shall we make this interesting? You must be hoping I will. So, come on, letβs spice things up, introduce a bit of financial jeopardy. What do you bet Iβm writing about and how much will you stake? You may have trouble getting a bookmaker to take the bet, of course, because they may not believe you hadnβt read beyond this paragraph, however fervently you promise it and point to how unfinishable my columns tend to be. They may still suspect you had the βinside informationβ that comes from having somehow slogged through to the end. A betting market canβt really exist about this sort of thing unless columns were published paragraph by paragraph over several hours, and even then youβd have desperate Observer editorial staff trying to supplement their salaries by placing spread bets on how many times this weekβs Andrew Rawnsley piece uses the word βstrategistβ.
Itβs the election, of course! Would you have made money? I donβt think youβd have been given great odds, even if youβd managed to get anything on. Iβm talking about the election and how loads of people suddenly seem to be betting on it. Why this flurry of flutters? Well, to make it interesting, I suppose. Without money riding on it, they fear the campaign may struggle to hold their attention. Thatβs a bit of a red flag about political apathy, particularly as many of the people Iβm talking about are parliamentary candidates.
David Mitchellβs new book, Unruly, is now out in paperback (Penguin, Β£10.99)
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
Continue reading...