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'
Shipley candidate Sir Philip Davies says it is "nobody's business" whether he placed the bet.
You're viewing a single thread.
See, I don't care about this at all. There's no suggestion he was going to deliberately throw the election. He didn't have any inside information. He's allowed to place bets!
It seems to me a given that you shouldn't be able to place bets on outcomes you can directly influence. This is not so different from e.g. a boxer betting on himself to lose.
This
Also.... Just give £8000 to charity ffs
Think of it as a safety net, if you lose the election you lose your job.... But the winnings of that bet would then help you out.
If you win, you keep your reasonable lucrative job, no problem.
A very good illustration of why all types of insurance are just gambling.
That's a fair point.
I think to most people if you can afford a "flutter" of eight grand you can afford not to be an MP.
If you were single and earning an MPs salary it could be a bit of a no brainer - could you get a other equally or better paying job within a few months? Considering you have been a politician for the last 5 years not an SME in whatever field?
If you had a family on that salary, unsure. If you agreed it with your other half as a planned move, maybe?
There is no indication that any of the politicians who bet against themselves intended to throw the election. Politics is not sport.
The possibility of throwing is what makes it a bad look.
Right, but they weren't doing that. There's no evidence they were and no motive for them to do so. The comparison with athletes is not apt. A pro footballer who bets on himself and manipulates the outcome is still a pro-footballer afterwards. A politician who bets on themselves and deliberately loses is not a politician afterwards. It does not make sense to do it.
no motive for them to do so
I can think of 8000 motives
That's about one tenth of the annual MP's salary. So, he has a far greater financial motive to remain an MP than he does to lose and collect the bet.
Well except for the fact that the salary option is:
- granted gradually over a year period
- requires you to do a full-time job
If they would be able to get even a slightly worse salaried job instead of being an MP, then the financial motive is - in contrast to your claim - actually in favour of him losing
yes because "remaining an elected mp for the tories" and "not doing that" represent equal propositions in terms of effort, time and resources
The motive is money, especially if you're pretty sure you're going to lose.
"In the 2005 election, I busted a gut to win. I expected to lose. I had a bet on myself to lose in the 2005 election, and my bet went down the pan."
He didn't throw the '05 election, even when he bet against himself.
so to check, you're fine with a football player betting against themselves, so long as they then happen to win?
Sweet summer child..
The idea that anyone would put in all the work to get selected as a candidate, then decide it was a smart move to place a bet against themselves and throw the election to make a quick buck is ridiculous. There's no way you could make enough money from the bet to make it worthwhile.
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?