One bet a politician might want to lose?

The Andersonstown News has a focus on the betting in it’s West Belfast heartland. The Diane Dodds/Sinn Fein face off is the most obvious, but they also highlight the match bet between Peter Robinson and Gerry Adams, which in some respects both men might just want to lose to promote the interests of their respective parties:

In another bet which may be of interest to West Belfast high-rollers, Eastwood’s have pitted Gerry Adams against the DUP’s Peter Robinson, who is standing in East Belfast. If you can predict who will get the most first preference votes between these two political heavyweights, and also correctly select the winner from four other well-balanced pairings, you can have odds of 9/2. If you were considering a wager on the Adams-Robinson head-to-head, it could be worth recalling that in 2003 Peter Robinson, with poor DUP vote management, got an enormous 9,254 votes in East Belfast to Gerry Adams’ 6,199 in the West of the city.

  • SCW

    Gerry Adams will outpoll Peter Robinson because the DUP are trying very hard to manage the vote in East Belfast.

    Quite pointless really for them when East Belfast will not return 3 DUP MLA’s. It would be offensive to the residents of East Belfast!

    Lord Browne rather than Dawn Purvis or Jim Rodgers?? Interesting to see how the mathematics goes for the third seat… its too close to call

  • Yokel

    Predict 5 individual head to heads, which are apparently fairly well balanced, all correct for cumulative odds of 9/2?

    Feck away off..

  • BonarLaw

    9/2? Eastwoods’ are having a laugh with this one.

    I’m with Yokel, where’s me scratch card?

  • middle-class taig

    Yokel

    I think the problem is that the principal expertise of the people setting the odds at Eastwoods is in which dog’s going to come off the first corner hardest, and whether Thierry Henry’s going to make more than twenty passes in the second half. They set the odds for politics ridiculously conservatively. And frankly, why wouldn’t they? It’s not as if political betting is a core activity – why take a big hit for a market that only comes to you for two weeks every couple of years?

    The only way SF can take 5 seats is to take a real risk with Gerry’s seat. To be honest, in a movement in which many took immeasurably greater risks (often to much greater cost than the loss of a seat at Stormont), I for one would like to see them go for it. I don’t think going down to a narrow defeat in a blaze of electoral adventurism would do him any harm with the republican base, and it may well serve to demonstrate the lie in the mouths of those who call the SF leadership careerist.

    I also think that the Southern electorate is sufficiently au fait with the workings of STV that it wouldn’t do any future Southern presidential bid much harm either. It would certainly look pretty selfless.

    Any SF apparatchiks prepared to comment?

  • BonarLaw

    Adams in the Vice Regal Lodge? What odds on that Mr Eastwood?

  • Aaron McDaid

    mct,
    I suppose the important thing for SF is McGuinness and the other proposed Ministers winning. Adams isn’t planning to take a seat in the Executive and he’ll still be MP. So I don’t think it’d do them any harm.

    Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue if the law was changed to make it compulsory to vote all the way down the ballot through all candidates.

    Also, are the BBC planning to repeat their electoral interference this time by advertising that people vote only 1,2,3?