LBC 97.3 Politics Thread

12467158

Comments

  • Charlie DrakeCharlie Drake Posts: 3,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    makeba72 wrote: »
    One observation about the other thread since the DS intervention: I think the last two pages have been dominated by a discussion about socks. I made an on-topic observation about Ferrari, which got only one reply... but lots on socks.

    I reckon they should have kept the original thread and pointed those guys to a new home in the General Chat forum, personally.

    Good morning Makeba

    I can see your point, up to a point (which I will try to elucidate).
    Your view has an element of lateral thinking - something I've always enjoyed - but I think one has to see it from the point of view of the small band of contributors who have kept the LBC chat thread going for a number of years.

    If I get enough spare time ( a rare commodity these days, which is why I don't post much) I will attempt to trawl back through as many of the threads that are available. My theory is that the more serious political and economic (current affairs) aspect has only entered the fray relatively recently, and many of the 'small band' (I refuse to call them a 'clique') are not happy with it - some of them refraining from posting. That is their right, I believe.

    Also, I think they want to maintain light-hearted banter, as long as it's LBC-related, on topics such as Steve's socks, Martin's shorts etc. That seems to be mostly what they're happy - and appear to feel comfortable - with.

    Furthermore, we are living, for better or worse, in the Twitter era, where many people prefer short statements (unlike this one!).

    Just to put my cards firmly on the table, I tend to prefer the 'deeper' discussions (when they are well-reasoned), as evinced by such as you, Clitheroe and PrimeofMarch, to name but three. They give rise (for me) to much food for thought, and I love to read other people's perspectives on the current affairs topics raised by the LBC presenters.

    I truly hope that both threads can be maintained and that they both survive. Only time will tell.
  • makeba72makeba72 Posts: 5,723
    Forum Member
    Your view has an element of lateral thinking - something I've always enjoyed - but I think one has to see it from the point of view of the small band of contributors who have kept the LBC chat thread going for a number of years.

    My theory is that the more serious political and economic (current affairs) aspect has only entered the fray relatively recently, and many of the 'small band' (I refuse to call them a 'clique') are not happy with it - some of them refraining from posting. That is their right, I believe.

    Also, I think they want to maintain light-hearted banter, as long as it's LBC-related, on topics such as Steve's socks, Martin's shorts etc. That seems to be mostly what they're happy - and appear to feel comfortable - with.

    I truly hope that both threads can be maintained and that they both survive. Only time will tell.

    Hi there

    I don't disagree with very much there, CD.

    My own and oft-expressed view is that the original thread was just fine as it was. I was a fence-sitter in that respect.

    To summarise my own view:

    1) LBC has dramatically changed and it was no surprise that the thread did. In fact, for the thread to try to not change is, to my mind, to force it to be 'off-topic'.

    2) I think that the small band have put off more people posting by their own antics than they claim were put off by the way the thread changed. I've seen lots of new faces appear to mention something they heard on air ('political') and disappear when they were told off by the small band.

    3) Martin's knees were never, ever on-topic, yet dominate so-called LBC discussion. Again, I personally liked that banter, although I rarely contribute. My objection was the hypocrisy of those who were blind to the masses of their own off-topic chatter. Can't help myself - I always have to challenge stuff like that! Equally, lots and lots of political one-liners were apparently OK, but replying to those was not (at least, by their rules).

    4) Also, the small group was nowhere near as friendly or welcoming as it thought it was. Wind-ups and teasing are only ever allowed to be one-way traffic. And in the end, after a while, ends up leaving a bad taste in the mouth. Scratch the surface of some of that, and you end up seeing some unpleasant stuff, I often feel.

    Gosh - better stop there. Yes, I hope both threads can survive, but the old one won't be an LBC thread unless the small group can be more flexible, I feel. And if that's the case, it deserves to be in the chat threads.
  • makeba72makeba72 Posts: 5,723
    Forum Member
    OOh - death of Margaret Thatcher just announced by Ian Payne
  • PotkettlePotkettle Posts: 2,302
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    RIP Margaret, sad news.

    makeba...agree with your post especially No.2 & 4. that's why I lurk more than post.
  • makeba72makeba72 Posts: 5,723
    Forum Member
    Potkettle wrote: »
    RIP Margaret, sad news.

    makeba...agree with your post especially No.2 & 4. that's why I lurk more than post.

    Thanks Pk.

    As for Mrs T... I'm neither happy nor sad - a woman I didn't know personally has died. I didn't like her very much, but death is never a nice time.

    Peter Oborne has just made an unfortunate slip, though... "he was, er... she was, etc etc"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    makeba72 wrote: »
    Hi there

    I don't disagree with very much there, CD.

    My own and oft-expressed view is that the original thread was just fine as it was. I was a fence-sitter in that respect.

    To summarise my own view:

    1) LBC has dramatically changed and it was no surprise that the thread did. In fact, for the thread to try to not change is, to my mind, to force it to be 'off-topic'.

    2) I think that the small band have put off more people posting by their own antics than they claim were put off by the way the thread changed. I've seen lots of new faces appear to mention something they heard on air ('political') and disappear when they were told off by the small band.

    3) Martin's knees were never, ever on-topic, yet dominate so-called LBC discussion. Again, I personally liked that banter, although I rarely contribute. My objection was the hypocrisy of those who were blind to the masses of their own off-topic chatter. Can't help myself - I always have to challenge stuff like that! Equally, lots and lots of political one-liners were apparently OK, but replying to those was not (at least, by their rules).

    4) Also, the small group was nowhere near as friendly or welcoming as it thought it was. Wind-ups and teasing are only ever allowed to be one-way traffic. And in the end, after a while, ends up leaving a bad taste in the mouth. Scratch the surface of some of that, and you end up seeing some unpleasant stuff, I often feel.

    Gosh - better stop there. Yes, I hope both threads can survive, but the old one won't be an LBC thread unless the small group can be more flexible, I feel. And if that's the case, it deserves to be in the chat threads.

    There's a lot of double-standards on the other thread. Politics, it seems, is tolerated as long as it's a certain kind of politics, and it's used as brick-bat for one presenter only. That's what always bothered me. O'Brien, sandwiched between Ferrari and Hartley-Brewer - two massively opinionated presenters, was always the one accused of getting on his 'high horse' &c.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    Well, that's LBC's coverage sorted out for the next month or so.
  • chinchinchinchin Posts: 125,675
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Thatcher was the beginning of the end. The politics of greed verses the people. She was the cause of the Falklands War (or her government) and the decimation of UK manufacturing.
  • makeba72makeba72 Posts: 5,723
    Forum Member
    chinchin wrote: »
    Thatcher was the beginning of the end. The politics of greed verses the people. She was the cause of the Falklands War (or her government) and the decimation of UK manufacturing.

    I see you've been 'bumped' from the other thread for posting a one-liner on Mrs T.

    :rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    ~Twinkle~ wrote: »
    I can't do that, she did nothing to hurt me. I may not have agreed with some of her policies but I could never dance on her grave.

    But, as even Cristo admitted the other night, she and her policies shafted large parts of the country and have a right to be angry with what happened. He thought the de-industrialisation & was necessary but it was a big mistake to not replace it in the communities that were hurt by it. He's also a massive fan of Thatcher, too.
  • chinchinchinchin Posts: 125,675
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    makeba72 wrote: »
    I see you've been 'bumped' from the other thread for posting a one-liner on Mrs T.

    :rolleyes:
    Tis OK Makeba. There are two threads for all now. ;)
  • chinchinchinchin Posts: 125,675
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I understand miners had mothers and grandparents also before they lost their jobs and killed themselves.
  • Nessun DormaNessun Dorma Posts: 12,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    clitheroe1 wrote: »
    I'd be more direct than you and say a small minority of people believe they have the right to dictate what is on and off topic on the original LBC thread and chose to flout their own rules when it suits them. I just fear by diluting the interest in LBC across 2 threads, both threads are more at risk of dying. However, that's how they have decided they want it and so be it.

    And they are the ones who go running to the moderators and complain.
  • TomWhittonTomWhitton Posts: 1,465
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't really remember Thatcher too well - I was 8 when she was dethroned by Major - but my parents loathed her and took me on anti-Thatcher marches (which I do remember very well). I haven't spoken to him yet today, but my dad's probably drunkenly dancing around his living room at this very moment.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    chinchin wrote: »
    I understand miners had mothers and grandparents also before they lost their jobs and killed themselves.

    I obviously touched a nerve there eh.

    Maybe you should just let your hatred go now she has died and maybe move on? Just a suggestion.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    Genuine bind now. LBC is now about to hit full-on political mode but not sure whether I can actually bear listening to it.

    Also, given coverage for the foreseeable future will be That Cher oriented, what will they talk about on the other thread? Socks?
  • RegTheHedgeRegTheHedge Posts: 2,794
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Rip Mht
  • VenetianVenetian Posts: 28,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And they are the ones who go running to the moderators and complain.

    It's posts like this that have possibly caused the inevitable split in the LBC forum. One, you don't know that Nessun Dorma, it's just your opinion, of course you may be correct but it's more likely that it is the lurkers who report posts, and that is my opinion of course:D
  • chinchinchinchin Posts: 125,675
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    How many lost their life in the Falklands? How many miners lost their jobs and families? How many suffered through the greed of capitalism? How many UK manufacturing jobs survived? How many were killed in rail crashes when she spent the money on privatisation rather than safety?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    I obviously touched a nerve there eh.

    Maybe you should just let your hatred go now she has died and maybe move on? Just a suggestion.

    Some communities will only be able to 'move on' when they've got industries, jobs and economies back. I can understand why people would want some kind of decorum at the moment - I've lost a parent, close family members, best friends &c over the years - but I don't understand why others can't appreciate why some are so bitter over Thatcher.
  • m4rk1m4rk1 Posts: 4,084
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    makeba72 wrote: »
    Hi there

    I don't disagree with very much there, CD.

    My own and oft-expressed view is that the original thread was just fine as it was. I was a fence-sitter in that respect.

    To summarise my own view:

    1) LBC has dramatically changed and it was no surprise that the thread did. In fact, for the thread to try to not change is, to my mind, to force it to be 'off-topic'.

    2) I think that the small band have put off more people posting by their own antics than they claim were put off by the way the thread changed. I've seen lots of new faces appear to mention something they heard on air ('political') and disappear when they were told off by the small band.

    3) Martin's knees were never, ever on-topic, yet dominate so-called LBC discussion. Again, I personally liked that banter, although I rarely contribute. My objection was the hypocrisy of those who were blind to the masses of their own off-topic chatter. Can't help myself - I always have to challenge stuff like that! Equally, lots and lots of political one-liners were apparently OK, but replying to those was not (at least, by their rules).

    4) Also, the small group was nowhere near as friendly or welcoming as it thought it was. Wind-ups and teasing are only ever allowed to be one-way traffic. And in the end, after a while, ends up leaving a bad taste in the mouth. Scratch the surface of some of that, and you end up seeing some unpleasant stuff, I often feel.

    Gosh - better stop there. Yes, I hope both threads can survive, but the old one won't be an LBC thread unless the small group can be more flexible, I feel. And if that's the case, it deserves to be in the chat threads.

    Really good post Makeba. Well articulated too.:)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 477
    Forum Member
    Venetian wrote: »
    It's posts like this that have possibly caused the inevitable split in the LBC forum. One, you don't know that Nessun Dorma, it's just your opinion, of course you may be correct but it's more likely that it is the lurkers who report posts, and that is my opinion of course:D


    That's a fair point; we don't know for certain. I'd hedge a bet that if it was lurker, it was lurker that was sympathetic to the core of the longer, more frequent posters. The moderator intervention only came at specific times.
  • makeba72makeba72 Posts: 5,723
    Forum Member
    m4rk1 wrote: »
    Really good post Makeba. Well articulated too.:)

    You're going to make me blush :o
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 405
    Forum Member
    Some communities will only be able to 'move on' when they've got industries, jobs and economies back. I can understand why people would want some kind of decorum at the moment - I've lost a parent, close family members, best friends &c over the years - but I don't understand why others can't appreciate why some are so bitter over Thatcher.

    Being bitter about anyone or anything only hurts yourself. All it does is to prolong your hatred and pain.

    Surely the way your life turns out is ultimately your own responsibility? Dancing on the grave of an 87 year old woman is very sad.
  • makeba72makeba72 Posts: 5,723
    Forum Member
    How many ex-PM's have had a 'ceremonial funeral' (not a 'state funeral', I note)?

    Is this normal?
This discussion has been closed.