I had a look at Political Betting (aka Stormfront Lite) for the first time in ages today, and there's a post from the site's editor TSE, who I believe self-identifies as a "moderate" or "centrist" Tory, and which makes me wonder if the political Right even inhabit the same planet as the rest of us.
He feels the need from the outset to defend himself from the ridicule he expects from his peers, because he has placed a bet on Jeremy Corbyn or Zarah Sultana to become Prime Minister at odds of 100/1. He stresses this is merely a "trading bet" (with the unspoken implication that it might make a profit simply because other people will in future be stupid enough to start thinking Corbyn or Sultana could win an election), and states as a fact, as if it's something that everyone just "knows", that Corbyn is a "much diminished figure since 2017" because of his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings.
I mean, what?! When I think of Jeremy Corbyn, there are probably about 500 things that would pop into my head about him long before I'd even remember anything to do with his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings. He's quite clearly not a diminished figure, his reputation has in fact grown and grown as he's been shown to be on the right side of history in respect of Israel and Palestine, and as his detractors during the confected "anti-semitism crisis" have been shown to be on the wrong side of history. His spectacular success in defeating the Labour machine in Islington last year has also greatly enhanced his track record as an electoral winner.
But if you said to someone like TSE that Corbyn's principled stance on the gravest crime against humanity of the 21st century might possibly have some relevance to his current public standing, you'd just get a blank look. The notion has probably never even occurred to TSE, who it appears shut down all thought after the Salisbury incident, which is as fresh in his mind as if it happened yesterday.
TSE even tries to pour cold water on Corbyn's electoral achievement in 2017, when he became the only Labour leader to top 40% of the popular vote in a general election since 2001. Apparently that doesn't really count for anything because the Tories "ran the worst campaign in living memory" in 2017. Well, that's a subjective call, but I very much doubt that any alternative Labour leader would have reached anything like 40% of the vote that year, because Corbyn was gobbling up Green and other radical leftist votes that a centrist leader would never have been able to reach.
I don't think it's particularly likely that Corbyn or Sultana will become Prime Minister, but for a 100/1 bet to be considered value, the real probability only needs to exceed 1%. Given that Zack Polanski seems to be open to an electoral pact with Corbyn/Sultana, and that it's reasonable to suppose that such an alliance might attract 15% of the vote at a time when the leading party is usually only in the 20s, it seems entirely logical that one of the leaders of that alliance could well have a better than 1% chance of forming a government. It's a perfectly sensible bet - not even as a trading bet, but just on its own terms.