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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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?