UK X: Who Wants To Live Forever

[wakka]

Heartening results from YouGov snap poll:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/03/11/britons-say-bbc-was-wrong-suspend-gary-lineker

Highlights:

Britons have a favourable view of Gary Lineker by 50% to 30%

By 53% to 27%, Britons say the BBC was wrong to suspend Gary Lineker

51% of Britons say fellow BBC presenters who pulled out of their programmes in solidarity with Gary Lineker were right to do so

Well done Lineker for making a fool of the Government and their obsession with attempting to make extreme views mainstream as cover for their own incompetence, and the BBC for toadying to that agenda.

[BearBoy]

Not just a member of the party:

Davie unsuccessfully stood as a councillor for the Conservative Party in Hammersmith in 1993 and was deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association in the 1990s.

None of which should necessarily mean he is unsuitable for the role of Director General but, given Sharp's highly dubious appointment as Chairman shortly after securing a loan for Johnson, it does add a hollow ring to their pleas for the importance of impartiality from a freelance sports presenter.

[QualityChimp]

Tim Davie is the BBC's Director-General (basically editor-in-chief). He isn't the one involved in the Tory donor/loan/cronyism scandal (although he is/was a Tory Party member - another conversation in itself).

Richard Sharp is the BBC Chairman (a Government-appointed role). He's the one who is currently under investigation for Tory cronyism and has refused to step away from the role while the investigation takes place.

Cheers, I've edited my post.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Not just a member of the party:



None of which should necessarily mean he is unsuitable for the role of Director General but, given Sharp's highly dubious appointment as Chairman shortly after securing a loan for Johnson, it does add a hollow ring to their pleas for the importance of impartiality from a freelance sports presenter.

If he wasn't elected to a local council or parliament membership, then yes he was just a party member. He obviously tried to become more but he failed and was essentially just a member of the party before he became BBC DG.

In some small fairness to Davie, the role of BBC Chairman is appointed by the Government and always has been, so he wouldn't have had significant input into Richard Sharp's appointment. That said, the optics of this obviously look dreadful.

[Cassius_Smoke]

If he wasn't elected to a local council or parliament membership, then yes he was just a party member. He obviously tried to become more but he failed and was essentially just a member of the party before he became BBC DG.

In some small fairness to Davie, the role of BBC Chairman is appointed by the Government and always has been, so he wouldn't have had significant input into Richard Sharp's appointment. That said, the optics of this obviously look dreadful.

Actually it hasn't always been...

Prior to 2017, the BBC Trust was responsible for appointing the BBC chairman. The BBC Trust was the governing body of the BBC from 2007 until 2017, when it was replaced by the current regulator, the BBC Board.

Under the old system, the BBC Trust would advertise for the position of chairman and make the appointment following a selection process. The Secretary of State did not have a direct role in the appointment.

However, following a review of the BBC's governance structure in 2016, it was decided that the BBC Trust would be abolished and replaced by a new unitary board, the BBC Board. This new board is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the BBC and ensuring its overall performance.

As part of this new structure, the Secretary of State was given the power to appoint the BBC chairman, with the approval of the Prime Minister. The first chairman to be appointed under this new system was Sir David Clementi, who took up the position in April 2017.

The secretary of state, a government employee, now has direct power to hire and fire the head of the BBC.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Actually it hasn't always been...

Prior to 2017, the BBC Trust was responsible for appointing the BBC chairman. The BBC Trust was the governing body of the BBC from 2007 until 2017, when it was replaced by the current regulator, the BBC Board.

Under the old system, the BBC Trust would advertise for the position of chairman and make the appointment following a selection process. The Secretary of State did not have a direct role in the appointment.

However, following a review of the BBC's governance structure in 2016, it was decided that the BBC Trust would be abolished and replaced by a new unitary board, the BBC Board. This new board is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the BBC and ensuring its overall performance.

As part of this new structure, the Secretary of State was given the power to appoint the BBC chairman, with the approval of the Prime Minister. The first chairman to be appointed under this new system was Sir David Clementi, who took up the position in April 2017.

The secretary of state, a government employee, now has direct power to hire and fire the head of the BBC.

That's fair enough. I was under the impression that this had always been the case.

Point still stands that the DG wouldn't have input into who becomes BBC Chair.

[BearBoy]

I think it was the case prior to the creation of the BBC Trust. Like when Thatcher's government appointed Marmaduke Hussey (husband of palace race scandal alumni Lady Susan Hussey) as Chairman with the express purpose of getting him to force out the DG ,Alasdair Milne (father of Corbyn's former sidekick Seumas) as they thought he was too left wing and insufficiently supportive of the Government.

Looks like they had a brief period of greater independence between 2007 and 2017.

[BearBoy]

If he wasn't elected to a local council or parliament membership, then yes he was just a party member. He obviously tried to become more but he failed and was essentially just a member of the party before he became BBC DG.

I think the point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between someone who's just a member in the sense that they fill in a form and pay their subs (as I have done in the past, although not to the Tories, obviously) and someone who gets more involved, stands for election as a councillor, becomes an officer of their local association etc.

[Cassius_Smoke]

BBC have two options as far as I see.

Either they back down and let people talk about whatever they like on twitter or elsewhere.

Or they go all in, stop any political talk on personal account and gradually close an iron fist around politics on radio 4 and Have I Got News For You that they don't like. You can't have no politics on twitter, but its fine on Radio 4 or politics shows.

[Neon Ignition]

Anyone who is for formally was an MP shouldn't be allowed to hold a senior role within the BBC, it defeats the argument from the outset.

[Nu-Eclipse]

I think the point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between someone who's just a member in the sense that they fill in a form and pay their subs (as I have done in the past, although not to the Tories, obviously) and someone who gets more involved, stands for election as a councillor, becomes an officer of their local association etc.

That's fair. But it's still a marked difference from actually holding political office, obviously.

I do take your point though.

[Neon Ignition]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/mar/14/rishi-sunak-illegal-migration-bill-tory-revolt-robert-buckland-warns-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-641029f08f088ed9e336895e#block-641029f08f088ed9e336895e

The illegal migration bill still faces a rocky path

[Cassius_Smoke]

'No Tory MP voted against.'

This is the key sentence. No Tory MP voted against an illegal and unethical bill that closely alines to the Germany far right party AfD policy on immigration.

[Lebowski]

The governments record and reputation is in tatters at the moment, they cant campaign on being the government of fiscal responsibility in a cost of living crisis that they created, They cant tell us how well the economy is doing as they have ****ed it with Brexit. All they have left is stirring up xenophobia and creating a common enemy and a threat.

'No Tory MP voted against.'

This is the key sentence. No Tory MP voted against an illegal and unethical bill that closely alines to the Germany far right party AfD policy on immigration.

Was watching a political commentator this morning discussing what is actually going on with the Tory's. Braveman's bill has been pushed through by the hard right of the party and she is putting Sunak and a lot of Torys into a really tricky position. they know big parts of the bill are un-workable and illegal, but cant be seen to be soft on asylum so can't appose it. Sunak is clinging on for dear life and this puts him in a really weak position as Braveman can pretty much push through whatever she wants with this at the moment.

[Neon Ignition]

Yep, Tory MP's objecting to it will get caught up in another rebellion story and likely cause the Tories to collapse again around Sunak. The main question at this point is whether, if passed, will Labour reverse policies like these?