UKH

OK, I have obviously led a sheltered life, I have just discovered LBC.

I have also just discovered the brilliant James O'Brien and just rediscovered that Eddie Mair didn't leave the airwaves altogether.

I've binged some stuff on YouTube, particularly where James dismantles some politicians, COVID deniers and a bunch of Brexiteers and Trump supporters. He seems really impressive (although a accept he might be a mini echo chamber for my current views on the world).

Then Ive listened to it over the last few days and I cant work it out. I have made the mistake of occasionally tuning into Jeremy Vine. I know there aren't many fans here but I dont mind him if the subject is interesting but its true that there are a whole bunch of dingbats that ring in.

I thought it couldnt get worse but then going back to LBC, it makes Vine's callers sound like the most intelligent people in the UK. What made matters worse is that I have been listening to Eddie Mair this evening who spent an hour talking to vaccine 'skeptics'. Jesus, what a bunch of absolute fu@kwits. There were a GP and immunologist trying to respond but I could hear the professionals getting really frustrated. The fact that he used to be on the flagship evening commentary program and has to deal with these fruitcakes amazes me.

I began to think that the station is a left wing battering ram for the ring wing loonies and politicians, then discover that the human arse crack, Nigel Flange, has a slot occasionally too.

Its a strange thing, going from excellent political commentary and the best interviews I've ever heard where politicians are given no chance to get away, unlike all other interviewers, to listening to some of the most appalling dimwits.

Im going to persevere but I may end up tuning out again. Does anyone else partake?

I quite like it, yes, with two exceptions.  Maajid Nawaz is a COVID denier and libertarian to the point of gross stupidity (and I'm hardly authoritarian) as well as a conspiracy theorist, and tends to end calls if they call him out rationally on any of those things, and Nick Abbot just talks absolute rubbish.  To be fair to Nawaz if you read up on his background you kind of get why, but it doesn't stop him winding me up so I turn it off.

What's worth bearing in mind that the approach they take to balance is that the station as a whole is balanced but the individual presenters are at varying points on the political scale.  James O'Brien is a long way left, whereas Nick Ferrari (breakfast show before him) is right-of-centre.

Or alternatively (given their respective pasts) it could be more easily argued that Nick Ferrari is far, far to the right of centre, and James O'Brien is pretty much to the centre-left.

I guess that depends on personal perspective.  O'Brien is definitely left of me, and I would describe myself on balance as (only just) left of centre.

Ive not listen to NF but its interesting reading a little about JOB. He used to be a columnust for the right and voted for Bojo, which again mirrors me. I was/am centre right but mainly centre, but I would rather poke out my eyes than vote for these current Tory shitbags.

Thanks for the qualification as to your perspective; you previously said NF was right of centre rather than right of you (or your view of centre) with JoB being far to the left. Given you identify as just left of centre, i would put you in pretty well exactly the same place as JoB, and myself.

For talk radio I prefer it to 5live because they can have an opinion. I like the fact that different presenters have different view points...keeps it interesting.

I listen to James O'Brian but often find him sanctimonious and his obsession with brexit and the tories make him almost unbearably priggish when talking to anyone who disagrees with him. 

I much prefer David Lammy as he is far less smug

Andrew Castle is pretty awful, reminds me of Richard Madeley

I like Majid Nawaaz, Iain Dale, Eddie Mair and Tom Swarbrick

Nick Abbot can get a bit irritating with his sound effects

Steve Allen just seems to opinionate on the tabloids he is reading in front of him, pretty banal stuff (and has now got himself in trouble for commenting on Gordon Ramsey's daughters weight)

Sheila Fogerty can be a bit meh

I can't think of any others

Would agree that JOB can be a bit sanctimonious with his "sighing" about stuff

Interesting you like Nawaz - for the reasons highlighted above I find him infuriating.  He seems the one who is least willing to get into an actual discussion (give or take Nick Abbott just being silly but not very funny).

David Lammy does come across very well, I'd certainly vote for him!  (He's a Labour MP)

Try Novara Media's Tyskysour instead

Lammy's response to that bloody awful caller who said he could never be English was brilliant. He stayed calm and controlled but it was devastating. 

Yes, the idea that James O'B is 'a long way left' is absurd (because that would surely imply that he's a socialist). He's simply, as you say, slightly left of centre. 

I haven't listened but think I should and agree about Eddie Mair - an excellent interviewer and commentator and a loss to BBC radio.

Dave

I strongly recommend O’Brien’s book, “How to be right.”

Amongst the glowing reviews on the cover was one from the Sun which described him as the epitome of a middle class, public school educated, obsessively politically correct, left wing snowflake remoaner. That sold it for me.

Yes, he is a huge loss. He would jolly his interviewees along in a cuddly way, make them his friend, then go in with the killer question.

I've not often listened to LBC, I tend to tune in to R4's Today Programme for political dialogue.

A few friends have posted (on FB) Neil Oliver speaking on GB News. I've never tuned in to GBN, anyone here a fan?

Is that the same GBNews that was designed in the image of Fox News? And is that the same Neil Oliver who described the Highland Clearances as: “Scots lads and lassies deciding to up sticks and go see the world”..?

That sounds crass out of context. Do you know or can you provide a link to the context? I'm aware that he is a unionist and so attracts some of the worst sort of nationalist bile.

Yes, it would appear so. I didn't know about that comment so had to look it up. I can't find an actual copy of him saying it, but there was quite the uproar at him seemingly wanting to re-write (Anglicise) Scottish history.

https://twitter.com/phantompower14/status/1229426301913706496?lang=en

Yes, I found that and the supposed much quoted quote is not in the clip. Is he being deliberately misquoted to put him in a bad light?

I don't know about Neil Oliver's politics but I'd be surprised to hear that he'd been trying to 're-write' such an emotive period of Scots history. After the Jacobite risings were crushed many Scots did emigrate and throw in their lot with the British Empire project. That's not to deny or diminish the fate of many Highlanders who suffered greatly. It needs to be remembered that many Scots (including Highland clans) supported the British Crown and fought for the government at Culloden.

And even if he did use the term "promised land" elsewhere, I don't see that as necessarily a problem. Unfortunately the whole programme doesn't seem to be available to watch anywhere to get the contexts.

I am just suspicious when most of the anti Oliver stuff I come across is in Nationalist echo chambers.

Possibly. I can’t find the exact quote, though I’ve not looked very hard, and one might expect not to get away with such an utterance without it being recorded and disseminated all over social media. 

I had vague professional connections with him some time back so have a little background knowledge on him outwith his media presence, and based on that I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. That still doesn’t mean he said it though.

The thing is, Oliver seems to be a serial historical revisionist for the sake of TV sensationalist programming. As far as the Clearances are concerned, evidence overwhelmingly points towards coerced mass migration as being the prime rationale behind it - not a voluntary seeking of adventure, as Oliver suggests.

Historians should remain impartial to any modern ideological stance they might subscribe to, that could potentially contaminate or distort historical evidence in support of their political or ideological ends, unionist or otherwise. 

Even John Prebble's account of the Clearances was prone to inaccuracies and romantic myth making, aimed at a particular readership (me included at the time, admittedly). Having since read around the subject, Tom Devine's more scholarly account of the Clearances would seem to be the most accurate to date. According to Devine, the Clearances were just as prevalent (if not more so) South of the Highland Line - and here too, in contradiction to Oliver, it was an act of coercive dispossession:

 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16901827.historian-sir-tom-devine-reall...

Oliver's programme seems to have been about The Hector in particular and it seems that it may not have been typical of the forced emigration which followed. Unfortunately it is not possible to see the whole programme and the quotes and clips in context. None of the clips I have seen are necessarily damning, but are certainly being widely used to condemn Oliver in Nationalist circles - I wonder whether things would have been rather different if such a well known and charismatic figure had come out with nationalist rather than unionist views.

I find Oliver's view on Covid lockdowns much more worryng!

It is an excellent book, and paints a far more nuanced picture than is often presented in popular culture. Recommended for anyone who has a genuine interest in Scottish history. 

I also see that there was an attempt to remove Oliver from his position as president of the NTS on the grounds of his Unionist views. This strikes me as very dangerous ground; that somebody is somehow not a proper fit Scot for such a position unless they are a Nationalist.

If this is the "promised land" quote in context, then the context is very much as a false promise, not some actual land of milk and honey:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0532tv8

We've had this discussion on UKC plenty of times down the years - maybe that should happen, but it doesn't, never has, and probably can't. I'm not saying that makes Neil Oliver a good historian or shite one, just that as a self described Unionist, he is going to viewed in a particular way by those who aren't. And vice versa for Nationalist historians being read by Unioinist-minded readers.

I read Prebble at university and then some of the pulling apart of his narrative (possibly some of Nairn's writings amongst others?), while studying the Romanticization of the Highlands in Sociology. I haven't gone back to the subject in a long time, by memories is that the Clearances were a complicated period of a century (or more?), that played out very differently in different places and at different times. It seemed then that those who had very firm views on what the clearances were, and who was responsible, mainly was a reflection of contemporary ideological positions. And this was well before devolution, let alone "Indyref I".

Don't listen to LBC and haven't kept up with Nawaz's opinions in recent years, but I met him a couple of times maybe 10 - 12 years back when I was working on similar issues to he was at Quilliam. Obviously he has a very radical background, but he was Mr Moderate back then. What has been saying about Covid?

Not a massive fan, personally, but it's not really aimed at me. Some discussion here:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/politics/gb_news__stop_funding_hate-73609...

I don’t think his British nationalist views were solely the reason for the lobbying if the NTS. As far as I’m aware it was more his academically questionable historical  revisionis, anti-woke/pc campaigning and his Covid views and thus his association with the likes of Fox and Farage would bring NTS into disrepute.

In essence he's spent the whole time arguing against lockdowns (and any other kind of COVID related regulation) even when there was very evidently no other sensible option at the time.  Basically he's a "let-it-ripper", if that's a term, or at least that's how he comes across to me.

He also often doesn't allow people who disagree with him to speak properly, unlike e.g. James O'Brien who will at least have the discussion.

I think I'd say he is the second most annoying LBC presenter after Nick Abbott who simply doesn't fit the station at all, as most of it is about serious discussion of some sort, and he just acts the fool.

He seems pretty radicalised the other way now. He was deep into the pro-Trump big lie stuff after the 2020 election.

It could be worse, one of their presenters could be suggesting you can grow concrete.

Does being an ardent Unionist make him a British nationalist. Some of my best friends are ardent Unionists but very much centre left Remainers.

He was appointed in 2017 long before covid and GB News to immediate outcry from Nationalists.

Calling unionists British nationalists is a petty pleasure of mine, in reaction to accusations or labelling of nationalism for being pro-independence. I've given up being angry about it but it still grates. In most cases it's lazy thinking, but in others it's purposely disingenuous labelling. Personally I'm a separatist, if I'm a nationalist at all I'm an EU nationalist, which is an absurd concept really, like being a British nationalist.

It is mostly simply a result of the unfortunate name the SNP is stuck with. If they had used separatist or independence there would never have been a problem

Definitely in part but it is a good if bogus stick for the tabloids to beat supporters with, Scottish Green supporters get labelled as such too.