this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
772 points (94.1% liked)

Political Memes

5412 readers
3200 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So when (if) the Conservative Party fail to win an absolute majority at the forthcoming general election and a new party (parties) form the government what effect will that have on BBC productions and editorial policy? How will I detect these government controlled shifts in output? Will all the (current) government planned and controlled content be immediately shelved and the new government will only show repeats / reruns until new propaganda is produced?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It'll be more subtle than that. As current members of the BBC board leave their replacements will be appointed under "recommendation" of the new secretary of state. Hardly an a political way of doing things.

Still, at least we just do it for one media organisation. Doing it for something like judges could be really really dangerous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the interests of checks and balances it’s worth noting that the Secretary of State should only recommend from a list of people provided by the Privy Council. And yes, in my opinion too, politically appointing judges is absolute insanity for a number of reasons.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the interests of checks and balances it’s worth noting that the Secretary of State should only recommend from a list of people provided by the Privy Council.

Ah that's OK then, its not like the privy council is "mainly senior politicians who are current or former members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Correct. Mostly senior politicians of ALL major parties ( so that could theoretically be a mix of tories, labour, snp, lib-dem, dup, sinn fein, plaid, green, sdp (if anyone is still alive), independent etc.) across the floor of either House of Parliament; plus some religious leaders, some British and also non-British judges and a few other people. Bit of a mixed bag because if all your advisors agree on everything you probably need new advisors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So we keep the Tory bias until they no longer make up majority of both the commons and the lords. Because if you have a pool of people to pull from and most of them are Tories you're likely to end up with a Tory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

The leaders of the opposition and the third party are not Tories, none of the governments of Wales, Scotland nor Northern Ireland are Tory. The church leaders aren’t Tories and nor are the judges. Under these circumstances it’s quite hard to stack the deck entirely in your own favour. Plus, even if everybody in the privy council was Tory they’d still not be able to agree on anything anyway.