You are reading a single comment by @snottyotter and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Why is Kier a Sir? Not because he wanted to be, or he may be a royalist, or he likes the idea of power, or whatever (all perfectly reasonable things). It was because of the sun. They would have roasted him when he, ultimately, was going to run for PM.
I'm pretty sure he wanted to be, probably isn't a republican and likes the idea of power. He also probably had a pretty decent idea that if he ended up with a chance of more public power he'd either have to defend taking the honour to a few republicans or defend not taking it to a whole load more people with more power who might place a bit more weight behind the title, and one of those ways is certainly the path of least resistance and more swords.
snottyotter
Lol
People seems obsessed with this type of argumentation at the moment. Counter-factual politics is the centrist's post truth politics. It's all about assigning intent to historic actions to whitewash the actual things people have done, or making claims for future actions with no evidence to back them up.
Why is Kier a Sir? Not because he wanted to be, or he may be a royalist, or he likes the idea of power, or whatever (all perfectly reasonable things). It was because of the sun. They would have roasted him when he, ultimately, was going to run for PM.
Why did Stewart vote those ways? Not because he's a Tory. It's because he had to in order to do the actually good things he wanted/wants to do.
I guess it may go back to the cognitive dissonance stuff. If you develop opinions based on what people have actually done (or said they will do, only quickly to say they will do something else), you might not actually trust (or even like) them very much.