As we have seen, MT tended to be rather divisive, and still is.

I've been trawling the news websites to try and find a balanced view - this is about the best I could find:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22076886

I think the writer makes a good point that many of the changes in the UK were already happening, but - rather like the Tory arm of our current coalition - the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher tended to accelerate those changes ('too hard, too deep and too fast').

She seemed to revel, increasingly, in being confrontational - sometimes just for the sake of it. So much for 'conviction politics'.

As for LBC coverage, I do think it's rather a shame that James O'Brien wasn't around to discuss the issues, as I believe he may have added another useful perspective.

I haven't had a chance to listen to Anthony Davis lately (or Ian Payne) who both seem to take what I would consider a more balanced and reasonable view of life in general. An attitude which I much prefer, especially if it's mixed with a little useful knowledge of the subject.

What, that Londoners commenting on Orgreave &c. shouldn't have to worry about the people of Orgreave &c?

I think the supposedly non-political LBC thread would have seen pages of anti-centrist/left wing comments in a fairly short space of time. I think, possibly, O'Brien was as glad to miss it as Abbot was unhappy to cop for it with his own standing-in.


What I heard of his show, Iain Payne offered counter-opinions to some of the callers regarding the impact Thatcher had outside the capital. Whether he was playing 'Devil's advocate' or being objective, I don't know. He was a lot more balanced than I've heard him be previously; I'd assumed his own politics were in-line with Hartley-Brewer's, Ferrari's &c. If he was putting that aside out of a sheer professional attitude to his work, big credit to the man.

I hadn't realised until recently that Ian Payne has a regular give on BBC Radio 5Live, drivetime, and not a sports slot.

Not sure it's that Londoners don't care as much as that there might be a different mindset, so many of us having come from elsewhere or living alongside people who have moved sometimes hundreds of miles or different countries to get work. So staying in places like Orgreave despite knowing full well there are never going to be any jobs and still, twenty years later, being bitter about it, won't get all that much sympathy.

Most of the LBC presenters being self-employed are used to the idea of job insecurity so I think that affects their attitudes too.

That's a fair point, but one that appears to be quite different from what's mentioned above and my own initial observation: the caller that started this discussion was local to London judging by his accent. It's rare that a week goes by without hearing someone on LBC confuse/conflate their experiences with jobs - there's loads of jobs! - with that of national unemployment and subsequently demanding the national government come down hard on the unemployed because, if they're not working, they don't want to work because, after all there's loads of jobs (where they are).

Also, the 'we moved to London for work' issue is a difficult one as, I'm sure that if everyone in other areas without work moved to London it would only exacerbate London's existing jobs/housing problems.

The best call l've heard about Thatcher was, sadly, on Radio London not LBC and if anyone uses iPlayer it's Shane, about 30 mins in to the Vanessa show this morning. Unlike on LBC, he was given proper time to speak.

He makes a lot of points, but what stands out for me are:

- Maggie turned self-interest into a virtue
- She appealed to the aspirational lower middle classes (C2) on purpose and built up policies to encourage 'possessive individualism'
- She used unemployment to control inflation
- In a reply to David Owen, she said that there was no such thing as poverty in the UK

James at his best.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe1Sz...ature=youtu.be

The irony of Steve Allen, the most hateful and sneering man on LBC, pouring disdain on those that feel similarly towards Thatcher, whether in life or death. "They are indicative of Britain" I said to my driver this morning.' No, Steve, I think it's you that's indicative of what's wrong with Britain.

Talking about those that didn't do well under Thatcher: "tough", there speaks someone happy to see the ladder pulled up but then complain about others daring to complain that they can't get on the ladder. Also, completely misrepresenting what actually happened during what happened under Thatcher: "you have to help yourselves". What were the miners fighting for their jobs actually doing, Steve? Or have you now decided to paint them too with your 'workshy' broadbrush? Again, this idea that there's more than enough work to go round and if you're not working then it's because you don't want to. Even the DWP admit this isn't the case but don't let facts get in the way of some sneering, Steve.

Little wonder half your life appears to be taken-up with lonely comfort eating.

Why are we still compelled to listen to the poor sad Steve I wonder?. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but will be compelled to listen.

Honestly? I fell asleep during Duncan Barkes and Allen had just started. I gave Allen half an hour or so before turning it off.

It's funny how such a food obsessed glutton is so down on other people who eat too much and have food issues. As with gays, I think there's a lot where Allen doth protest too much.

Going to post this in both 'houses'.

LBC are using the excuse of people calling for a statue (which is really just Boris trying to promote his 'true Tory' anti-Dave credentials) to keep this MT story going for another day.

When someone famous or influential dies, I'm afraid that the media become rather boring. There's only so much you can say. And to dress it up as 'respect' is, I think, hypocritical of a medium that thrives off disrespect and controversy to pull the callers in.

RE: pre-emptive arrests for would-be protesters at Thatcher's taxpayer-funded funeral. Will there be 'outraged at loss of civil liberties' snorting from Ferrari? Or will that be 'different'?

Further to my other reply to this, and why I'm not keen on the author of the piece, he's also written this piece for the Mail which is probably more typical: Maggie did more for the workers than her Leftie critics ever did

Someone else seems to have concerns about Sandbrook's admitted 'revisionism' and there's a blog dedicated to scrutinising his work

Thanks for that, P o M - I'm reading through the links with interest.

I certainly had noticed Sandbrook's youth before reading the article, although that shouldn't necessarily preclude a good objective, scholarly and historical point of view.

The accusations of plagiarism and revisionism, however, are more serious.

No, which is something I pointed out regarding criticism of Owen Jones on the other thread. It hardly stops David Starkey stroking himself to sleep over the Tudors, does it?


I think a combination of age and class has a lot to do with the revisionism issue. He seems to take various orders of middle-class, demographics he's both knowledgeable and comfortable, and then extrapolate and project what he knows on to the lower/working classes. Made some rum observations in his TV series about how the lower classes lived during the 70s. All very 'Abigail's Party' but seemed to think that's how struggling factory workers lived.

I suppose LBC are trying to introduce a form of balance when they publish this rather poor and shambolic attempt:

http://www.lbc.co.uk/two-sides-of-th...e-v-dale-70154

Fascinating that almost without exception, the comments favour Ken's point of view.

Personally, I find one of the (many) ultimate ironies of the Thatcher legacy is that after all her flag waving, putting the 'Great' back into Britain, 'buying British' etc. etc. the UK is now almost entirely foreign owned and, consequently, we call very few of the shots and have very little autonomy.

I think JR must read our forum. Nice to have a small attempt at some balance however too little and too late! Perhaps I am turning into bitter old Steve Allen?

Not really, Chin. Of the many things that SA doesn't 'do' I think politics is very much one of them.

He has as much right as you to have an opinion on whatever he thinks. What happened decades ago was not his fault. If he angers you so much why listen to his show?

I heard him say that he hopes that Maggie Thatcher's funeral does not give those who just see it as a way to stir up trouble, don't. To show some respect for the dead regardless of what happened decades ago. I agree with that too. My father and his father were miners. It affected us and many other families but I do not hold this hatred years later. We all had to make the best of what was dealt to us.

You say he is lonely, sorry but he appears to have a very fulfilled life, maybe he lives alone but that does not make him lonely. His private life should remain private.

He does tend to share it with his listeners though so it is perhaps not suprising that posters will comment on it?

I am not surprised to read what Primarch says about Steve. Steve should leave politics alone, he just can't stop his "act" no matter how difficult a subject is, he has to realise there are boundaries.

Because presumably "We" must enjoy his show ?

Indeed.

I'm not aware of my saying he didn't have a right to an opinion. Similarly, I've also got a right to cast my opinion on his very public opinion.


And nor was it the fault of those who suffered under Thatcher. A point Allen seemed to miss and a point he concluded with "tough". That's pretty much indefensible as far as I'm concerned.


As I said above, I don't ever intend to listen to Allen's show. It happens when I wake up having left the radio on.


But that's your personal choice. Why do you deny this to others? It's ironic that you open your post with the point about having a right to express an opinion. Some people still have strong - understandable - opinions on Thatcher.

As for respect, it's a weird one. I've been hearing so many stories over the last 48 hours as to how kind and considerate to people she knew, remembered faces and names, made cups of tea and so on. However, for people she didn't know, she had no problem ruining communities of strangers, acknowledging that to drive her policies through it was necessary for unemployment &c. In the North, incidentally, unemployment became as high as 16%; it's a myth that everyone could 'help themselves' as Allen claimed - the bullshit trumpeting of those who have climbed the ladder and don't have a problem with it being pulled up behind them. All I can see is that people are now expected to respect a politician who had no respect to the people who were negatively impacted by her policies.


Unfortunately, it seems to be a life full of bitterness and resentment. What else explains his continuous disdain and sneering for others? How or why would a 'fulfilled' man have this attitude towards others?


Yet he seems to use the show as an opportunity to talk about his private life constantly: his mother, where he goes shopping, who he speaks to, what he eats and so on.

Just as well some are more understanding than others.