Shipley Conservative Sir Philip Davies 'bet £8,000 he would lose his seat'
Shipley Conservative Sir Philip Davies 'bet £8,000 he would lose his seat'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxw2lm2mm14o
Shipley candidate Sir Philip Davies says it is "nobody's business" whether he placed the bet.
There's actually a term for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_candidate
Or this - see the UK section
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_candidate
"All the work to be a candidate"...
It requires huge amounts of work to be a candidate. I know people who've run for parliament. One of them had previously run as a total no-hoper on multiple occasions, in order to prove he knew how to campaign well enough to get selected for a seat where he had a chance. He was so burned out by the selection process that having won the selection, he actually turned down the nomination, then quit politics altogether. The idea that he'd have deliberatey thrown any of those elections is ridiculous.
So we're just ignoring this part then?
In Britain, being nominated as a local election candidate simply involves signing some forms, with no deposit required. A paper candidate will often do no campaigning at all and so be able to submit a zero return of election expenses, simplifying the paperwork for the election agent. Paper candidates are commonly fielded in different locations by all the major parties in both local and national elections.
In Britain, being nominated as a local election candidate simply involves signing some forms
They're not local election candidates.
This isn't some no-name who's scraped their way in after years of effort; he's been the candidate since 2005.
Placing a bet against himself is absolutely the kind of thing that could jeopardize both his candidacy going forward, and his election chances. So "he wouldn't do all that just to throw it away" is nonsense.
The man has literally given himself financial incentive not to win and you don't see how that kind of conflict of interests is an issue? Are you real?
Even if his only incentives were financial, he will make more money by winning than by losing, because an MP's salary and expenses are pretty good. So, even taking into account the innumeracy of your average MP, he does not have a financial incentive to lose.
he will make more money by winning than by losing
assuming he wins, which isn't a guarantee for any tory at this point
"he's hedged his bets" isn't the justification you think it is