Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

LBC 97.3 Politics Thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2013, 21:57
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 699
I bet the individuals who went cry-babying to the mods about the other thread being too political were the lefty-wefties who did so because they were always losing the arguments.
Er, how exactly do you arrive at this brilliant conclusion? Could it not have been posters who are bored with political discussion regardless of which way it's weighted? There have been quite a few who have expressed that on the other board over the months.

Unfortunately though, lefty-weftyism as a political system can take hold of a nation like a disease. It reaches critical mass as it has done of late in the UK and the USA
Really? "lefty-weftyism as a political system" in the US??? That's a first. And in the UK? So these recent welfare benefit/public expenditure cuts are a product of 'leftyism'??? Rrright! Or are you just trying to be be satirical?
FrankBT is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-04-2013, 22:02
clitheroe1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,846
Well I could highlight the whole thing, because it is all brilliant and very coherent, but since you have asked for just one I will point to:-


".....lefty-weftyism....in the arena of ideas, discussion and debate is always exposed as such (lunacy) because the lefty-wefty arguments always fall flat and fail miserably when scrutinised or examined."

No lefty-wefty can ever withstand a debate with someone like me who knows his onions on LBC or anywhere else.
This isn't coherent so I can't be bothered wasting my time commenting on this any further.
clitheroe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:10
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
FrankBT,

Are you saying it was you who complained to the mods and that you are not a lefty-wefty?

Er, you do know that Obama won a second term despite his lefty-wefty policies having butchered the USA during his first term, don't you?

And you do realise that the cuts in the UK are because of years and years of lefty-wefty fiscal irresponsibilty, don't you? Or are you just trying to be satirical with me?
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:17
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
This isn't coherent so I can't be bothered wasting my time commenting on this any further.
Another technique often used by lefty-wefties when they are beaten is to deny the truth and walk off muttering in such a way as to try to discredit the person who has beaten them in the argument.

Look out for this happening in the discussions that take place on LBC as well as here, folks.
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:30
chinchin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside a shoe box.
Posts: 30,843
Quite opposite to Oscar_'s findings I've noticed a technique used by the rabid right wingers of using the term 'the Politics of envy' when they are beaten on the truth. Interesting to hear from Nick Abbot that Clegg is on his second holiday to Klosters staying in a palace. Anyhow we are all in this together says Clegg visiting his father's chateeau after his holidays.
chinchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:34
chinchin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside a shoe box.
Posts: 30,843
Reverting back to benefits which was the subject of much discussion on the "old" thread.
There was a harrowing full page article in today's Daily Telegraph on this and if I could post a link to it I would do so.
If LBC really wanted to do an in-depth discussion on benefits I can think of no better person to interview than the subject of this article - a woman called Debbie Garrity who has to live on £53 a week.
What she has to say certainly shook me to the core.

I know Iain Dale likes to do "emotional" issues - perhaps if he was to interview her some of us would have a much better idea of what life is like for those forced to rely on benefits in order to exist.


Here we are.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...the-maths.html
The truth is that he wouldn't survive on £53 a wek and would most likely perish.
chinchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:51
chinchin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside a shoe box.
Posts: 30,843
Thanks for the article, radiolady. I have to say, I am pleased it was in the Telegraph, so maybe some of the less usual suspects are starting to see the true picture.

I can accept that economic times are difficult for the country (although, as you may expect, I have views on the truth behind some of that), but I cannot accept this demonisation of benefit claimaints. And that's something LBC colludes with, IMO, by just reading out headlines from the Daily Mail again and again and again. It's a very immature format that never seems to do any real journalism and never seems to learn from all the callers who phone in with the issues like the ones in the article.

I don't think this is a left/right issue. I think this is just a govt trying to hide just how bad things by being nasty. Divide and rule, etc. Sadly, all our politicians seem to put their own power before the state of the nation or the population.
Did you hear the guy who phoned in to James O'B about the big flat screen TV's that people buy with their benefits? I think all TV's are flat screen these days and you can't buy many on £71 JSA. What he failed to realise is that the TV may be a present from a friend or relative and the dishes on people's houses are probably for Freesat where there is no subscription.
chinchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:57
FrankBT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N London
Posts: 699
FrankBT,

Are you saying it was you who complained to the mods and that you are not a lefty-wefty?

Er, you do know that Obama won a second term despite his lefty-wefty policies having butchered the USA during his first term, don't you?

And you do realise that the cuts in the UK are because of years and years of lefty-wefty fiscal irresponsibilty, don't you? Or are you just trying to be satirical with me?
1) No I didn't complain, nor did I imply it. You are just trying to put words into my mouth.I have no issue one way or other about what posters post politically in LBC forums.
2) No, I'm not a leftie, but I'm not a Thatcherite or Dubya worshipper either.
3) It was George Bush who financially butchered the USA, increasing public expenditure more than any of the six preceding presidents, something to do with financing the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts as well as bailing out the banks.
4) The Democratic Party even though it is to the left of the Republicans is not a left-wing party by any stretch of the imagination. To believe that means you have little comprehension of what 'left-wing' politics is.
5) New Labour didn't throw money at public expenditure until 2003. Prior to that PSBR was still in the black. After that they had to finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars initiated by ....George Bush, who wanted us in. Then they had to bail out our banks, thanks to the credit crunch which was triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, originating in the US under....George Bush's Presidency. And a lot of money was thrown at the NHS because of pressure put on the government by GPs and Consultants, who ended up with big pay rises after threatening to withdraw their services That, as well as easing the 'patients on trollies in hospital corridors' crisis, a legacy of the Major/Thatcher years.
FrankBT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 22:59
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
I've noticed a technique used by the rabid right wingers of using the term 'the Politics of envy'.
Chin,
The phrase has been made into something of a cliche' (even though often it is quite true that envy is involved)
so opponents of lefty-weftyism are probably best advised to avoid using it in discussions.

But I am interested in knowing this:-

Give me a couple of examples of the sort of thing you might hear someone say on LBC which would lead you to describe them as "rabid right wingers".
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 23:01
Charlie Drake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,044
Did you hear the guy who phoned in to James O'B about the big flat screen TV's that people buy with their benefits? I think all TV's are flat screen these days and you can't buy many on £71 JSA. What he failed to realise is that the TV may be a present from a friend or relative and the dishes on people's houses are probably for Freesat where there is no subscription.
Or...they might have nicked 'em
Charlie Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 23:06
chinchin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside a shoe box.
Posts: 30,843
Chin,
The phrase has been made into something of a cliche' (even though often it is quite true that envy is involved)
so opponents of lefty-weftyism are probably best advised to avoid using it in discussions.

But I am interested in knowing this:-

Give me a couple of examples of the sort of thing you might hear someone say on LBC which would lead you to describe them as "rabid right wingers".
I have already written about the idiot who rang in to James O'B spouting off about people buying big expensive TV's out of their benefit money. As for the aforementioned term becoming a cliché I agree it is often the way rabid right wingers try to get out of an argument when they are in the wrong. Happens all too often and has become a cliché.
chinchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 23:07
chinchin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside a shoe box.
Posts: 30,843
Or...they might have nicked 'em
Grr!
chinchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 23:11
clitheroe1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,846
Another technique often used by lefty-wefties when they are beaten is to deny the truth and walk off muttering in such a way as to try to discredit the person who has beaten them in the argument.

Look out for this happening in the discussions that take place on LBC as well as here, folks.
It's quite clear that your intention is to disrupt this thread before it gets established. If you want to put forward a coherent argument then I will happily respond to it. However, all you seem to want to do is name call and abuse and that doesn't really warrant a reply.
clitheroe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2013, 23:58
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
It's quite clear that your intention is to disrupt this thread before it gets established. If you want to put forward a coherent argument then I will happily respond to it. However, all you seem to want to do is name call and abuse and that doesn't really warrant a reply.
Why do you accuse me of trying to "disrupt this thread"? I am not doing that at all.

What seems to be happening here is that because you have no answer for any of my coherent arguments you simply say (wrongly) that my arguments are not coherent and then use that as a reason for not responding. I think it is not that my arguments are not coherent, I think it is just that you don't like them and are frustrated by the fact that you have no way of answering them point-for-point argument-for-argument.

Not to worry though, my post was just a little initial opener in this thread. As it progresses if you wish to respond to anything I say in future which you regard as coherent then I look forward to that.
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 00:44
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
For me (and I believe for many other listeners) the problem with LBC is not that they discuss politics a lot, but that they discuss almost everything in a way that comes across as DOUR and devoid of any humour or light-heartedness.
Oops - in all the excitement, I actually missed this one cogent point.

Yes, I agree with that. Plus you can add in the repetition of topics with very little if any new slants from programme to programme. I also have the problem that most of the presenters tend to prop up the easy Daily Mail-type prejudices, rather than look for the far more nuanced realities of most situations.
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 09:16
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 20,675
Plus you can add in the repetition of topics with very little if any new slants from programme to programme. I also have the problem that most of the presenters tend to prop up the easy Daily Mail-type prejudices, rather than look for the far more nuanced realities of most situations.
Agree with both of those points. It's bad enough that some topics are repeated across the whole day, but some (eg the London riots) stay on the playlist for months at a time.

As for the presenters' slant on topics, I'm sure that this wasn't the case in the "good old days" of Brian Hayes etc. The presenter would present the facts, perhaps introduce a guest who also presented the facts, and then listeners would phone in with their own views. Of course Hayes would be fairly merciless if those views were too ridiculous, but conversely there was more debate and greater diversity of opinion in those days. Presenters now seem to tailor their remarks to appeal to their callers' prejudices, rather than to encourage discussion.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 09:22
PrimarchofMars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 466
Interesting response to a caller from Cristo last night. The caller was moaning/scoffing at New Labour and present Labour's political intentions and dismissed them as 'left wing'.

However, Cristo burst out laughing at the idea that New Labour or the present party are in any way 'left wing' and said the three mainstream parties are all right wing and went into some explanation as to why he thought why.

He basically said genuinely 'left wing' policies would be electoral suicide and that's why New Labour or present Labour wouldn't go for them, although he undermined his point by saying that renationalisation of industries - which, he pointed out to calm the fearful caller, New Labour or Labour have no intention of doing - would be big vote winners.

The caller was also crowing the virtues of Thatcher but Cristo, who has similarly described himself as a 'fan' in the past, had to point out several times to the caller that the communities she 'levelled' (to put it lightly) by destroying unions and industries she thought unprofitable* weren't built back up again afterwards and that it was understandable how many people have been very anti-Thatcher as she didn't make the country 'better' for everyone. The caller seemed a bit confused by this idea at first but eventually took it on board and comforted himself by claiming that she meant to, no matter how it turned out.


*compare this to the way the taxpayer is now propping-up the rail industry more heavily now it's been privatised.
PrimarchofMars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 09:35
PrimarchofMars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 466
The political discussions on LBC all clearly illustrate that lefty-weftyism is some sort of mental disorder or delusion, which in the arena of ideas, discussion and debate is always exposed as such because the lefty-wefty arguments always fall flat and fail miserably when scrutinised or examined. I bet the individuals who went cry-babying to the mods about the other thread being too political were the lefty-wefties who did so because they were always losing the arguments.

Unfortunately though, lefty-weftyism as a political system can take hold of a nation like a disease. It reaches critical mass as it has done of late in the UK and the USA and then avoiding destruction (as it always has done in other nations and always will do) becomes extremely difficult. In our case, The Farridge (as often heard and talked-about on LBC) may be our only hope now.

In terms of talk radio shows, very few that take a lefty-wefty stance have ever been able to attract an audience or become popular as a listening experience, so it is understandable why many people will find that the majority of LBC programmes tend to have the feel of having a non-lefty-wefty bias. Such programmes simply sound better and make more sense.
I'll tell you what is delusional, the idea that we've had 'lefty-wefty' politics at any time since pre-Thatcher. Any mess we're in now because of right wing politics. New Labour, can-carriers for current right wing, weren't left wing by any real definition: light regulation of the banking system, public finance initiative, back door privatisation, climbing into bed with big business &c.

Things that are dismissed as being the products of 'left wing' such as immigration, gay rights &c? The first people to cry 'foul!' on immigration reduction are big business, look at all the statements Vince Cable had to make as a counter to anything Theresa May has ever said. Gay rights a left wing issue, tell that to right wing political figures like Iain Dale, who set-up Conservative Home &c.
PrimarchofMars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 09:53
PrimarchofMars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 466
Reverting back to benefits which was the subject of much discussion on the "old" thread.
There was a harrowing full page article in today's Daily Telegraph on this and if I could post a link to it I would do so.
If LBC really wanted to do an in-depth discussion on benefits I can think of no better person to interview than the subject of this article - a woman called Debbie Garrity who has to live on £53 a week.
What she has to say certainly shook me to the core.

I know Iain Dale likes to do "emotional" issues - perhaps if he was to interview her some of us would have a much better idea of what life is like for those forced to rely on benefits in order to exist.


Here we are.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...the-maths.html

I read this yesterday and tweeted it on Twitter as I thought it a good piece. I've been making this point and using more-or-less the same phrase 'the maths don't add-up' for a long time each time someone makes a comment about how supposedly generous job seekers benefits are and how it allows - or, according to Osborne and Cameron - actually encourages luxury lifestyles with foreign holidays, giant plasma TVs, new cars, latest iPhone/tablet/games systems and so on. People only have to sit down with a pen and paper, take away water (which is often fixed, as mine is at £10 a week) gas/electric, Council tax (many out of work people now Council Tax), maybe the bedroom tax (anywhere between £12 and £25 a week), a PAYG mobile phone (try telling the job centre you don't have a phone), food, cleaning stuff for the house (you don't want to give the Daily Mail fodder for a 'jobless don't look after social housing' story), bus fares and so on. Won't be much left for a luxury lifestyle.

I don't doubt that a minority of people do seem to have this lifestyle but they won't be doing it on JSA, will probably be up to their eyes in credit and many of any such 'goods' will either be second hand, gifts (yes, the unemployed might have friends or relatives with money who might buy them Xmas or birthday presents &c) or might have even been bought when their financial circumstances were better (long term unemployment was relatively low until recently, and there are no figures exist for the kind of inter-generational unemployment that IDS has previously claimed).

I really wish that LBC would actually appreciate this compared to the line they normally take with benefits.
PrimarchofMars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 10:23
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
Andrew Gilligan laying into someone from the Treasury, although I didn't catch the name. The MP seemed unable to deviate from his script and AG as basically ripping his figures apart. The MP's been caught out on almost every point, but just can't admit it.
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 10:25
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
(long term unemployment was relatively low until recently, and there are no that figures exist for the kind of inter-generational unemployment that IDS has previously claimed).
Nick A had a nice little dig at IDS's recent claims to have been close to the breadline.

The first time, IDS "lived off his savings" (erm.... savings?) and the second, he had already married into one of the richest families in the UK.

Well done Nick!
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 10:27
PrimarchofMars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 466
RE: the clip of Nick Clegg's phone in that's used to trail Ferrari with the Irish lady who is angry about the Coalition's attitudes to 'stay at home' mothers.

It's been chosen for a reason, to make some kind of point, but what is that point? Is it just to make Clegg look stupid, even though the Irish lady seems to completely misinterpret Clegg's comment about hearing her children in the background?

The worst aspect of the phone-in, for me, is that it has regular coverage in Private Eye. I imagine that it gives Ferrari some kind of 'validation'.
PrimarchofMars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 10:37
PrimarchofMars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 466
Nick A had a nice little dig at IDS's recent claims to have been close to the breadline.

The first time, IDS "lived off his savings" (erm.... savings?) and the second, he had already married into one of the richest families in the UK.

Well done Nick!
Yeah, I was laughing all the way through that. The only disappointment was, whenever he mentioned IDS had married into 'aristocracy', he didn't do the thing where he whispers something that counters his point. For some reason it always makes me crease-up.

Looking forward to Abbot's cover slots next week.
PrimarchofMars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 11:30
radio lady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 419
In the 'wee small hours of the morning' Christo decided to nominate himself for this!!
As he is now into politics this belongs both here and next door..................
http://www.radioacademy.org/news/blo...dphones-award/
radio lady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 11:38
MartinRosen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Voted Mr Sexy 2014 everywhere.
Posts: 14,501
In the 'wee small hours of the morning' Christo decided to nominate himself for this!!
As he is now into politics this belongs both here and next door..................
http://www.radioacademy.org/news/blo...dphones-award/
I refer to my comments that I made next door !

Incidentally do we now have friends either side? 'next door' used to be the TalkSport friends!
MartinRosen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:57.