0
()
submitted a long while ago by @ to c/@
0 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] woop_woop@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

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.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago

In Britain, being nominated as a local election candidate simply involves signing some forms

They're not local election candidates.

[-] polonius-rex@kbin.run 3 points 4 days ago

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?

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago

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.

[-] polonius-rex@kbin.run 1 points 3 days ago

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

this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)

0 readers
0 users here now

founded a long while ago