“I would always assume that the parties have plenty of information about their candidates, and there is no such thing as a mistake.”
You obviously haven't spent much time in day-to-day organising of British political parties, then. They are all dysfunctional to the highest degree compatible with continuing to barely exist.
You're making the error of assuming that the systems that are theoretically in place are of actual practical use. What do you think these people write on their questionnaires? The truth?! “In my spare time I am a child m*lester who advocates for global j*had.” lol, lmao.
The systems are there *to cover the bureaucrats' arses*. So long as there was a form filled in, no individual can be held accountable and therefore no individual has an incentive to actually prevent such occurrences. This happens a lot in business too, btw.
As a general principle, assuming that “there is no such thing as a mistake” might be sensible in a world of perfect robots or even perfect autists, but in the real world of bipedal monkeys it is dangerously wrong. Your opponents are not Machiavellian geniuses playing 20D chess, and if you treat them as such you will miss opportunities to counter them.
“I would always assume that the parties have plenty of information about their candidates, and there is no such thing as a mistake.”
You obviously haven't spent much time in day-to-day organising of British political parties, then. They are all dysfunctional to the highest degree compatible with continuing to barely exist.
You're making the error of assuming that the systems that are theoretically in place are of actual practical use. What do you think these people write on their questionnaires? The truth?! “In my spare time I am a child m*lester who advocates for global j*had.” lol, lmao.
The systems are there *to cover the bureaucrats' arses*. So long as there was a form filled in, no individual can be held accountable and therefore no individual has an incentive to actually prevent such occurrences. This happens a lot in business too, btw.
As a general principle, assuming that “there is no such thing as a mistake” might be sensible in a world of perfect robots or even perfect autists, but in the real world of bipedal monkeys it is dangerously wrong. Your opponents are not Machiavellian geniuses playing 20D chess, and if you treat them as such you will miss opportunities to counter them.