• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Radio
LBC 97.3 Politics Thread
<<
<
22 of 127
>>
>
orangeballoon
22-04-2013
being a leftie isnt thick (and i never said they were, i hope you are not accusing me of doing so?)


anyway, no offence was meant and i was talking about people ringing in to lbc with very strong foaming views they could not back up other than using the same soundbite quotes they said to begin with. NOT anyone posting on here.

The discussion on here was about those people and the response of the presenters who dismissed them for their bias and rant soundbites they could not back up. My comments therefore are valid as descriptions of those callers are they not?

anyway ive said all i ever will on the subject.
chinchin
22-04-2013
Originally Posted by radio lady:
“Oh do wake up chin!!
This was posted yesterday - see my post 494.

But we are back on topic which is a safer place to be as I do not want this thread to disappear.”

Oops sowwy. Didn't see your post!
HappyTree
23-04-2013
I wonder what that news anchor was swearing about anyway. Funny, the impact some sounds have and how grovellingly apologetic broadcasters have to be after a slip. Who are the invisible people whose standards are so prissy they can't tolerate the occasional verbal mistake? And what power they seem to wield.

They're probably all the more powerful because they only exist in the imagination.
Venetian
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“I fear I could be in danger of coming across all prudish, but anyway...

Posting here is supposed to be enjoyable. A robust debate is enjoyable. What is not enjoyable is some of the derogatory language (and implications) used recently. I don't think it's acceptable to say that anyone who disagree with a view is 'thick' or stupid. I also don't think it's acceptable to talk about 'lefty-wefties', or to deride some well thought out contributions as 'flailing', etc. It's unnecessary and, with some deep regret, I fear that I will have to use the report button for the first time if it continues and let DS decide.

I'm sure it's possible to get a view across without having to be rude about someone who doesn't share it.”

I agree makeba. I was looking forward to posting on this thread but on occasions it is making me feel uncomfortable: the last thing you want to feel when you get on board to enjoy some debating.

The jury is out ....
PrimarchofMars
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by orangeballoon:
“being a leftie isnt thick (and i never said they were, i hope you are not accusing me of doing so?)

anyway, no offence was meant and i was talking about people ringing in to lbc with very strong foaming views they could not back up other than using the same soundbite quotes they said to begin with. NOT anyone posting on here.

The discussion on here was about those people and the response of the presenters who dismissed them for their bias and rant soundbites they could not back up. My comments therefore are valid as descriptions of those callers are they not?

anyway ive said all i ever will on the subject.”

To be fair, much of the miners debate has been about measuring two different things, incidentally, something highlighted with another poster's reasoning above. It's really about productivity &c versus human cost.

Much of the mines closed down under Wilson (which was a counter-argument that reached meme status recently) happened with most concerned acknowledging a production/economics argument and was 'managed'. Thatcher's detractors argue that this wasn't the case with the mine closures afterwards under Thatcher &c.

Pro-productivity arguments (whether mining, manufacturing arguments), which are often propped-up by advances in technology and automation often belie the human cost: there's no longer jobs for people with families to feed. Whether you believe in 'trickle down' economics' plays a part in this, whether increased productivity (helped by automation &c) is immaterial if the country's wealth drips down and is shared by all, including the families displaced by the wholesale removal of job opportunities in whole area of employment.

For the last 30 years or so, whilst we've seen some standards of living rise - albeit propped-up by massive and chronic private debt, and cheaper clothes, electrical goods due, ironically, the rise of economic fortunes of other countries - we've also seen retrograde motion in social mobility, job stability and so on. Fewer employment opportunities in fewer employment fields.

At the same time, we see those at the top gain more and more and more from the policies that involved such a massive human cost. Even now, when many are genuinely suffering - whatever the lack of media coverage and LBC's 'on message' editorial stance claims - some are making incredible amounts of money during this 'no money left' austerity.

Again, much of the Thatcher argument will always come down to whether someone personally benefited from what happened and continues to happen.

In before 'lefty wefty jealousy' and other such bollocks.
Charlie Drake
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by PrimarchofMars:
“To be fair, much of the miners debate has been about measuring two different things, incidentally, something highlighted with another poster's reasoning above. It's really about productivity &c versus human cost.

Much of the mines closed down under Wilson (which was a counter-argument that reached meme status recently) happened with most concerned acknowledging a production/economics argument and was 'managed'. Thatcher's detractors argue that this wasn't the case with the mine closures afterwards under Thatcher &c.

Pro-productivity arguments (whether mining, manufacturing arguments), which are often propped-up by advances in technology and automation often belie the human cost: there's no longer jobs for people with families to feed. Whether you believe in 'trickle down' economics' plays a part in this, whether increased productivity (helped by automation &c) is immaterial if the country's wealth drips down and is shared by all, including the families displaced by the wholesale removal of job opportunities in whole area of employment.

For the last 30 years or so, whilst we've seen some standards of living rise - albeit propped-up by massive and chronic private debt, and cheaper clothes, electrical goods due, ironically, the rise of economic fortunes of other countries - we've also seen retrograde motion in social mobility, job stability and so on. Fewer employment opportunities in fewer employment fields.

At the same time, we see those at the top gain more and more and more from the policies that involved such a massive human cost. Even now, when many are genuinely suffering - whatever the lack of media coverage and LBC's 'on message' editorial stance claims - some are making incredible amounts of money during this 'no money left' austerity.

Again, much of the Thatcher argument will always come down to whether someone personally benefited from what happened and continues to happen.

In before 'lefty wefty jealousy' and other such bollocks.”

Regarding your last comment, it seems to me that our friend - who was so fond of such childish phrases as you mention - was trying to spoil the thread.

If, as a consequence, no-one posts here, then, regrettably, he will have succeeded.
orangeballoon
23-04-2013
[.....]
Kiko H Fan
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by Charlie Drake:
“Regarding your last comment, it seems to me that our friend - who was so fond of such childish phrases as you mention - was trying to spoil the thread.

If, as a consequence, no-one posts here, then, regrettably, he will have succeeded.”

I would like to see 'our friend' outside on a soapbox, addressing his concerns here in front of a real, live audience. Soapbox politics at it's best. Suggested pitches could include Waterloo Station, Trafalgar Square, Haven Green, Feltham and a myriad of other London locations.

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever happen, as he/she's another of the anonymous brigade (that are also active in the General Discussion Politics subforum) who can revel in their anonymity.
orangeballoon
23-04-2013
[....]
makeba72
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by orangeballoon:
“me? ruin? no intention. but i do see the usual collective bullying going on to close down anyone not saying what a certain group wants to read”

It's not you they're talking about.

I'd be interested to see your evidence for bullying, though...
orangeballoon
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“It's not you they're talking about.

I'd be interested to see your evidence for bullying, though...”

phew... i will delete then!
PrimarchofMars
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by orangeballoon :
“me? ruin? no intention. but i do see the usual collective bullying going on to close down anyone not saying what a certain group wants to read”

Oh, the irony!
HappyTree
23-04-2013
I'm not going to replicate the many criticisms of "trickle down" theory here. But perhaps it is fitting that the original name for it was "horse and sparrow" economics, conveying the image of the horse being fed lots of oats and the sparrow then following behind to peck at its...evacuations. No economist has ever considered this a valid model - it's a political spin term.
PrimarchofMars
23-04-2013
Clive Bull on bedblocking and hospital-hotels: maybe if the government hadn't cut social services &c., then people could return home with support and not bedblock.

Convalescent homes used to provide a similar service to hospital-hotels. Ha, as I've typed that, an elderly lady has just come on making the same point.
radio lady
23-04-2013
No wonder ID sounds so distracted on Drive........
http://www.iaindale.com - see first post.

Perhaps if he concentrated on one thing at a time he might be a better presenter.
Might be......

Dale's Dreary Drive is just plain boring now .
Whatever complaints the Whale may have engendered from listeners he did not have the monotonous tones of ID.
And I for one enjoyed listening to him far more than I do his successor.
Rikki65
23-04-2013
Originally Posted by chinchin:
“Many feel that the Station has become too obsessed with Politics and is too slanted to the right these days. Do you agree? Would you like to see more balance and less political content? I am warming to Iain Dale and agree with him that the station isn't 100% politics, although it is getting close! ”


I certainly do agree. LBC is totally unbalanced in favour of the right. It appears, to me, that certain presenters (the big guns) are conducting one long political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.
Nessun Dorma
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by orangeballoon:
“hahaha. i bet he thought he had another minute as it was 4:59 on the clock

do they still have a 5 second "dump" button (to screen out callers trying to swear) that could be triggered to save them?”

I don't think so, there is a slight delay, but nothing more than a second.
HappyTree
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by Iain's blog:
“ I won’t announce anything on air unless I have double sourced it on Twitter.”

Now I've never done journalism, but I think the standards of fact-checking are a mite more thorough than using 2 sources on Twitter. As we've seen from the Boston reporting fiasco, sources can end up using each other as verification in a kind of distorted gossip loop.

Yes, maybe he should concentrate on presenting his show rather than trying to be some breaking news anchor. It's not a race, it's not a competition! (actually, sadly, maybe it is)
makeba72
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by Rikki65:
“I certainly do agree. LBC is totally unbalanced in favour of the right. It appears, to me, that certain presenters (the big guns) are conducting one long political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.”

I tend to agree.

LBC is no longer the station that first attracted me. It's always gone through changes, but I much preferred the 'light and shade', especially through the daytime hours, that it provided. In terms of programming, I would much prefer what Radio London offers if only I liked the presenters they employed more! Robert Elms and Jo Goode just don't do it for me, I'm afraid, and Eddie Nestor is hit and miss. But I DO like that they veer away from hard news between 12 and 5pm and wish LBC would return to that.

Given that LBC have chosen a different direction, though, I think it's massively disappointing that their output is so blatantly right-wing most of the time, and certainly from their big guns. It's not as if there is an alternative, or I would have switched off a while ago, with great regret.

Even more disappointing is that they largely seem to have given up the idea of doing any actual journalism, and just trot out the same old clichés time and again. Perhaps this is a a product of the modern world - everything is done in such a hurry that there is no time to explore the cracks and grey areas, so the 'truth' behind the headlines is rarely revealed. But given that this is a phone-in, there is a real danger that this lack of research ends up re-inforcing prejudices rather than challenging them with the facts.
chinchin
24-04-2013
Switched off Ferris according to his logic 1 million are long term unemployed, getting benefit and are capable of working ergo they choose not to work. Um why is it employers don't want me after I send then my CV and covering letter and why are there so many people going for each job? The answer is obvious There are not enough jobs out there! And before you say anything I even tried for Christmas work at PoundWorld and they didn't want me. They do want many, many people doing unpaid workfare in their stores i.e. off with the last batch of unpaid workers i and on with the new! For those who say we choose to be unemployed , could you live on £70 a week? I now get no help towards my housing costs and paid my National Insurance contributions for around 30 years.
chinchin
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by Rikki65:
“I certainly do agree. LBC is totally unbalanced in favour of the right. It appears, to me, that certain presenters (the big guns) are conducting one long political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.”

Let's boycott the party political broadcasts on behalf of the Tories. I switched Ferrari off this morning.
makeba72
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by chinchin:
“Let's boycott the party political broadcasts on behalf of the Tories. I switched Ferrari off this morning. ”

I switch him off every morning.

Between him and James Max, LBC offers me nothing at breakfast time. I listen for as long as I can, but it's usually seconds before I turn off, for the sake of my blood pressure.

And of course, this only adds to the building of prejudice, as listeners and callers who could challenge their nonsense drift away, and it becomes self-perpetuating and self-congratulatory crap.
chinchin
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“I switch him off every morning.

Between him and James Max, LBC offers me nothing at breakfast time. I listen for as long as I can, but it's usually seconds before I turn off, for the sake of my blood pressure.

And of course, this only adds to the building of prejudice, as listeners and callers who could challenge their nonsense drift away, and it becomes self-perpetuating and self-congratulatory crap.”

Tory Party = Nasty Party
radio lady
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by HappyTree:
“Now I've never done journalism, but I think the standards of fact-checking are a mite more thorough than using 2 sources on Twitter. As we've seen from the Boston reporting fiasco, sources can end up using each other as verification in a kind of distorted gossip loop.

Yes, maybe he should concentrate on presenting his show rather than trying to be some breaking news anchor. It's not a race, it's not a competition! (actually, sadly, maybe it is)”


You are right - it does appear to be a competition. Brand Dale against the rest of the presenters. Guess who wants to win the Sony!

Twitters appears to have overtaken reliable sources like AP and Reuters - and guess who hacked into the AP Twitter account.
I think it is quite scary how dominant social networking and in particular Twitter have become.
But then I'm just old-fashioned!!!
radio lady
24-04-2013
Originally Posted by makeba72:
“I tend to agree.

LBC is no longer the station that first attracted me. It's always gone through changes, but I much preferred the 'light and shade', especially through the daytime hours, that it provided. In terms of programming, I would much prefer what Radio London offers if only I liked the presenters they employed more! Robert Elms and Jo Goode just don't do it for me, I'm afraid, and Eddie Nestor is hit and miss. But I DO like that they veer away from hard news between 12 and 5pm and wish LBC would return to that.

Given that LBC have chosen a different direction, though, I think it's massively disappointing that their output is so blatantly right-wing most of the time, and certainly from their big guns. It's not as if there is an alternative, or I would have switched off a while ago, with great regret.

Even more disappointing is that they largely seem to have given up the idea of doing any actual journalism, and just trot out the same old clichés time and again. Perhaps this is a a product of the modern world - everything is done in such a hurry that there is no time to explore the cracks and grey areas, so the 'truth' behind the headlines is rarely revealed. But given that this is a phone-in, there is a real danger that this lack of research ends up re-inforcing prejudices rather than challenging them with the facts.”



I think there are a lot of people who miss the light and shade of the LBC that was. The overnight slot particularly during the week is like being bashed over the head with a sandbag sometimes. DB who likes to spell his name although why he thinks that necessary I don't know as there is only one spelling of Duncan - repeats the mantra of LBC 97.3 ad nauseam during the entire programme and has a horrible habit of greeting his callers by abbreviating their name - trying to be a bloke's bloke perhaps? Gavin becomes Gav and so on. I often wish somebody would call him Dunc and see how he likes that.

Right wing or left wing doesn't bother me so much as the lack of a first-class journalist presenter who knows all the facts and can present an impartial programme. And LBC doesn't have such a presenter.
<<
<
22 of 127
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map