Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

LBC 97.3 Politics Thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-04-2013, 11:43
Potkettle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,192
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 thought it was a caller who suggested it!
Potkettle is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-04-2013, 12:19
radio lady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 419
I thought it was a caller who suggested it!
Well, to be honest you could be right. I wasn't really concentrating!!!
radio lady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 12:29
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
I'll tell you what is delusional, the idea that we've had 'lefty-wefty' politics at any time since pre-Thatcher.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but you don't have to look very hard to see that this is simply not the case. Statism (which is at the core of lefty-weftyism) has been growing hugely and continuously thoughout recent decades and it is that which is now poised to start bringing down the economies of nations (including ours) all over the globe.
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 12:38
clitheroe1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,846
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but you don't have to look very hard to see that this is simply not the case. Statism (which is at the core of lefty-weftyism) has been growing hugely and continuously thoughout recent decades and it is that which is now poised to start bringing down the economies of nations (including ours) all over the globe.
What has this got to do with anything that's been discussed on LBC?
clitheroe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 12:51
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
What has this got to do with anything that's been discussed on LBC?
Thanks for the question. These sorts of political and economic issues are discussed on LBC every day and are being discussed by Andrew Gilligan on his LBC show right now.
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 12:59
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
OOh - we have been pruned already! Very interesting...
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 13:05
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but you don't have to look very hard to see that this is simply not the case. Statism ... has been growing hugely and continuously thoughout recent decades and it is that which is now poised to start bringing down the economies of nations (including ours) all over the globe.
I think you need to define your version of 'statism' to enable a proper answer, because up to now, I don't have much confidence that you define things in a way that I would, so we could be speaking on crossed-terms. But I think under almost any analysis. you're just factually wrong about statism growing hugely (in economic terms) in the world.

However, even I will concede that a long and protracted discussion about world economics is probably not for even this thread, especially as it hasn't been a topic on LBC that I have heard recently.
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 14:10
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
I think you need to define your version of 'statism'
Happy to oblige. Statism is the philosophy / policy of routing all power, control and wealth through the state, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the people.

What happens is that the combination of cunning political bureaucrats and an ignorant population produces an exponential growth in all the features of lefty-weftyism and culminates in tyrannical regimes, totalitarian command-and-control and financial devastation. Hopefully I don't need to give you examples. We are on the verge of becoming one of them.
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 14:34
Charlie Drake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,044
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but you don't have to look very hard to see that this is simply not the case. Statism (which is at the core of lefty-weftyism) has been growing hugely and continuously thoughout recent decades and it is that which is now poised to start bringing down the economies of nations (including ours) all over the globe.
Against my better judgement, as this 'argument' seems bereft of any factual, or historical understanding of what 'Statism' actually means, just a brief couple of points, then I shall go away again:

Firstly, I find the use of this 'Lefty-Wefty' term that you seem to love and repeat both tiresome and childish. If you do wish to make any cogent points in any political/economic discussion, I suggest this is a very poor way indeed to go about it.

Secondly - yes, there has been a rise of Statism in (e.g.) Russia and China, as may be seen in the article below. In the West, however, the trend, certainly since the late 1970's, has been in the opposite direction, with nationalised industries being sold off to private enterprise, the New Labour 'Lite Touch' on banking as examples in the UK, although many can be found elsewhere:

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/The_New_Statism.html

Personally, what worries me more is the rise of global "Corporatism', where corporate interests influence educational agendas, voting patterns and media stances, to name but three.
Charlie Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 16:02
Talma
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,156
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.
To be fair, and at risk of lighting the blue touch paper, Mrs Thatcher was given huge help from the Unions when it came to their own demise, and the people who suffered under the Unions' intimidation of closed shops and flying pickets might just agree they needed to be cut down to size.

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.
Thanks for the question. These sorts of political and economic issues are discussed on LBC every day and are being discussed by Andrew Gilligan on his LBC show right now.
Gilligan was very balanced on his show today, going for both the Treasury bod taking him apart and the Labour one trying to score points while conveniently forgetting the part the last government played in the mess we're in.
Talma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 17:29
Nessun Dorma
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,024
This is the place for political discussion about LBC 97.3 Radio and it's contents from a political point of view. Please use this thread to discuss: the political points and views from the presenters on LBC programmes.
Will we be allowed to discuss LBC presenters and their presenting style on here, or will we be banned?
Nessun Dorma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 17:47
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
Against my better judgement, as this 'argument' seems bereft of any factual, or historical understanding of what 'Statism' actually means, just a brief couple of points, then I shall go away again:

Firstly, I find the use of this 'Lefty-Wefty' term that you seem to love and repeat both tiresome and childish. If you do wish to make any cogent points in any political/economic discussion, I suggest this is a very poor way indeed to go about it.

Secondly - yes, there has been a rise of Statism in (e.g.) Russia and China, as may be seen in the article below. In the West, however, the trend, certainly since the late 1970's, has been in the opposite direction, with nationalised industries being sold off to private enterprise, the New Labour 'Lite Touch' on banking as examples in the UK, although many can be found elsewhere:

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/The_New_Statism.html

Personally, what worries me more is the rise of global "Corporatism', where corporate interests influence educational agendas, voting patterns and media stances, to name but three.
Dear Oscar - please see Charlie's reply as being exactly what I would have said, too.

Thanks!
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 17:50
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
Will we be allowed to discuss LBC presenters and their presenting style on here, or will we be banned?
Go for it, as far as I am concerned.

I think the parameters of this thread have yet to be worked out. Given the mods stance on the other thread, which I found opaque and illogical, I have no idea what they will think about this one.

However, on a personal note, I'd like to think it will be led by LBC topics. I see it is a 'mature' version of the other thread - i.e. one that has grown with LBC and accepts that talking about their topics is just as valid as talking about the workings of the station itself.
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 17:53
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
Gilligan was very balanced on his show today, going for both the Treasury bod taking him apart and the Labour one trying to score points while conveniently forgetting the part the last government played in the mess we're in.
I didn't hear the whole show, but I liked what I did hear. He didn't let the politicians get away with much, did he?
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 18:31
clitheroe1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,846
,
Go for it, as far as I am concerned.

I think the parameters of this thread have yet to be worked out. Given the mods stance on the other thread, which I found opaque and illogical, I have no idea what they will think about this one.

However, on a personal note, I'd like to think it will be led by LBC topics. I see it is a 'mature' version of the other thread - i.e. one that has grown with LBC and accepts that talking about their topics is just as valid as talking about the workings of the station itself.
If we have to have a second thread (and I'm still not convinced of the need for it) would have preferred it to have been called something like "LBC 97.3 On Air Discussion Topics" instead of "Politics Thread" because (a) I don't get why only political discussion is banned from the other thread and not other subjects discussed on the station, (b) discussion about the political views of presenters or the politics of the station is very different from discussion on political subjects raised on air and (c) to prevent this thread becoming just another politics thread rather than a discussion of LBC programme content.
clitheroe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 19:30
Oscar_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surbiton
Posts: 1,396
I'm still not convinced of the need for it
I'm with you on this. I'm not convinced either.
Oscar_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 19:36
makeba72
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North London
Posts: 3,345
,

If we have to have a second thread (and I'm still not convinced of the need for it) would have preferred it to have been called something like "LBC 97.3 On Air Discussion Topics" instead of "Politics Thread" because (a) I don't get why only political discussion is banned from the other thread and not other subjects discussed on the station, (b) discussion about the political views of presenters or the politics of the station is very different from discussion on political subjects raised on air and (c) to prevent this thread becoming just another politics thread rather than a discussion of LBC programme content.
I'm with you on this. I'm not convinced either.
We are all in agreement, then. I note that the DS Mods didn't answer my specific questions on how far it could go, and I gave them several examples, to see if they were OK.

It does, regrettably, give the impression that some are more equal than others when it comes to being allowed to go Off-topic
makeba72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 20:24
chinchin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Inside a shoe box.
Posts: 30,843
Will we be allowed to discuss LBC presenters and their presenting style on here, or will we be banned?
#

If it's to do with the politics and/or poliical bias of a presenter, that's what the thread is for.
chinchin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 21:12
clitheroe1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,846
We are all in agreement, then. I note that the DS Mods didn't answer my specific questions on how far it could go, and I gave them several examples, to see if they were OK.

It does, regrettably, give the impression that some are more equal than others when it comes to being allowed to go Off-topic
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.
clitheroe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 21:46
radio lady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 419
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.

I am in full agreement with you regarding your last sentence. I think the LBC thread was perfectly alright as it was and dividing it into two parts is not perhaps the best answer. It could well lead to its premature death. I think if DS had allowed the political posts to go through then in the natural order of things another subject would have emerged and the thread would have moved on to pastures new.
As it always has done.

As for the first sentence in your post I am also inclined to agree but I think if you stand up for yourself and just proceed with what you want to post, then you will emerge unscathed. Heaven knows I have been sandbagged enough by various posters but my attitude now is what the hell - just post and pray!!
And when they flout the rules just tease them. Humour is often the answer.
In the end I think most posters want the thread to continue whether it is how they want it to be or not.

Not a very cogent post I know but I need to be elsewhere...........

And I liked Gilligan. I didn't hear it all but I preferred his quick delivery to ID and I very much hope he is a permanent fixture.
radio lady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 22:01
clitheroe1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,846
And I liked Gilligan. I didn't hear it all but I preferred his quick delivery to ID and I very much hope he is a permanent fixture.
I've not heard Andrew Gilligan's new show as I didn't really take to him when he filled in on another show in the past. However, quite a few people on here has said some positive things about his show today so I'll make a point to listen to him next week to see if he is better than he was previously.
clitheroe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 22:03
PrimarchofMars
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 466
Happy to oblige. Statism is the philosophy / policy of routing all power, control and wealth through the state, as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the people.

What happens is that the combination of cunning political bureaucrats and an ignorant population produces an exponential growth in all the features of lefty-weftyism and culminates in tyrannical regimes, totalitarian command-and-control and financial devastation. Hopefully I don't need to give you examples. We are on the verge of becoming one of them.

What you're describing isn't particularly 'left wing' as, if nothing else, it's a fallacy to think left wing = state. Such a definition would be a surprise to co-operatives, mutualists and the like. By your own definition you're describing 'state' as a conduit through which power, wealth and control is routed. If these things, once routed through the state, end-up in the hands of private firms, wealthy individuals, unregulated bodies and the like, is that really 'left wing'? The state has become a host for the neuroparasitology of Big Business. See how they were the first to cry 'foul!' on immigration policies, energy policies &c, how they are the sole beneficiary of workfare policies, how the closest we get to socialism is the 'privatisation of profits and the socialisation of loss' &c

For all the alarm about the rise in the size of the public sector - the bulk of which were women office workers without any power, wealth or control - we've seen increased privatisation which has more than offset this: railways, utilties and so on. In the case of railways, we've seen public subsidies rise whilst propping-up private firms. Again, I fail to see how this is 'left wing'. Similarly, the stealthy privatisation of public spaces, which grows at a rapid rate, that passes most people. Or the sleight of hand that is the welfare state: how housing benefit is a private landlord benefit, how tax credits benefit employers rather than employees and so on.

Like the others, I'm reluctant to take this further as I suspect there's an intention to take this thread into a broader political scope, beyond what is actually being mentioned on LBC, possibly in a bid to render this thread superfluous. I thought the point of this thread was meta-commentary on the political commentary happening on LBC. In the last 24 hours (an arbitrary cut off point only to keep discussion no longer topical). If you've heard this mentioned on a particular show, why haven't you commented on the show, the presenter or why you agree/disagree?

To be honest, it seems like you want to make this thread 'Oscar takes on all comers', which is not only egotistical but better suited to the general Politics thread, where you're not restricted to what's actually being broadcast on LBC at whatever particular time, no?
PrimarchofMars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 22:07
HappyTree
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Posts: 2,116
edit: oh never mind, it doesn't matter.

Primarch, I understand but don't mind Oscar. He is an old sparring partner from internet radio days gone by and he's just being cheeky. He'll simmer down soon enough, won't you Oscy-wosky?
HappyTree is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 10:20
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 5,268
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!
Quite right Martin. 'Next Door' did used to be TS. A lot of posters came across for a while because TS switched to 24 hour sport, having given up their through-the-night current affairs output. But they didn't stick around ('cept for the likes of me who alway enjoyed both threads). I admit to having a bit of an unhappy feeling about splitting the LBC thread into two, I hope I'm wrong Yeah, a few people got a bit cross but isn't that life, which really does go on ... oo bla dee ... ol bla da ...

Ooop forgot for a moment I was on the politics thread ... Ferrari was worse than ever this morning ....
Venetian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 11:00
habby
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East London
Posts: 8,567
I wonder if Mr Gilligan knows what is in store for him tomorrow given that we have this lovely new thread with which to beat him senseless - or not as the case may be!
Well done chin.
Now you have to keep it going!!
Lucky I thought of the idea, but didn't start this new thread
habby is online now   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 01:56.