Opinion

John Lloyd

A tale of two citizenships

John Lloyd
Nov 12, 2013 18:25 UTC

When New York City Mayoral-elect Bill de Blasio strode on stage for his victory speech last week, he said that “the people of this city have chosen a progressive path.” But will they stick with it (and him)?

The international media, at least, are skeptical. The Economist opined that “New Yorkers may yet miss (Michael) Bloomberg.” The Wall Street Journal gave generous space to doubters like the omnipresent Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, who said that de Blasio “could go too far left, because there’s a tolerance for moderation, not necessarily for liberalism.” The Financial Times’ columnist Christopher Caldwell took an opposite, but still skeptical, tack, questioning how far his leftism would really go: “de Blasio would be more like his predecessor than meets the eye.” Only the liberal New York Times was generally welcoming, but covered itself against his possible failure by noting that “he is a politician who has yet to prove himself as a manager, and it will be a steep learning curve.”

To the UK Labor Party’s leader Ed Miliband, however, de Blasio’s victory was particularly sweet. I recently talked to a member of his “shadow cabinet” — the group of opposition parliamentarians that correspond to the government’s cabinet — and was told that Miliband’s pitch of a “one nation Labor party” was based on inculcating an ethic of solidarity among citizens and reversing the rampant individualism that Miliband sees encouraged by Prime Minister David Cameron (and that de Blasio sees as having been fostered by ex-Mayor Bloomberg). So while recognizing that Britain is not New York, the two men share a common sense that a new civic mindset is as important as any specific measures.

But how to put that into place when there is a well of distrust and apathy for politics, particularly among the young? My contact in the Labor shadow cabinet admitted that under-30s were “in another world,” while a recent UK report revealed them to have “a considerable aversion to formal, professional politics and to political parties and national politicians.”

In many western states today, the governing parties are unpopular — and the opposition sometimes even more so. That’s true in France, Japan, Italy, Spain, the UK and the U.S. To state the obvious, most people don’t trust politicians: a euro barometer survey found that, since the start of the euro financial crisis, trust had halved.

In Britain, a summer of quiet revolution

John Lloyd
Jul 16, 2013 16:13 UTC

The British Isles are sentries in a turning world. The monarchy, pageantry, the mediaeval House of Lords, titles, accents, the established Church of England with the Queen at its head — they all give the adroit illusion of continuity and the primacy of tradition over change.

But this summer there are diverse changes modernizing the Isles. These revolutions, small and large, will not be reversed, and will contribute significantly to a redefinition of what it is to be British (and Irish). The illusions of tradition will remain, as diligently served as ever. The core is hollowing out.

These changes are not unique to these wet and windy islands. But it’s more remarkable because for many centuries Britain and its offshoots punched above their weight, making history and creating (or inventing) traditions. The French are famed for having a beautiful and mostly efficient country and for grumbling furiously about it. The British change everything all the time, and worship the old customs whose essence they have long since destroyed, or are destroying.

The politician’s hagio-biography

John Lloyd
Oct 8, 2012 22:03 UTC

Last week, Ed Miliband, who wants to be Britain’s prime minister, had the kind of public event that changed people’s, or at least the media’s, perception of him: He was punchy, sharp, raspingly dismissive of the government’s strategy. The Labour Party leader, in his speech to the party’s annual conference, spoke for over an hour without notes, moved about the stage with apparent ease, and seemed in a fine, combative humor. He got good press, which he generally hasn’t for the first year of his leadership. It didn’t have quite the earth-moving quality of Mitt Romney’s steamrollering of President Obama a day later – another, and much greater, turnaround event for the man who wants the somewhat larger job of U.S. president. But Miliband did good.

Unfortunately, he also spoke about himself.

This was unfortunate, because what he told his audience – the nation, rather than just the Labour Party conference – was the now-standard democratic politician’s confected biography. He had a loving family, and he was just like most people – in his case, because he went to state schools. Trust me, says this biography: I am psychologically secure, and I know ordinary life. As he said in his speech: “that’s who I am”.

But who is this “I”, really? The “I” who went on to Oxford University and to the London School of Economics (elite)? Then to Harvard (elite and American)? Then almost immediately to a career in politics, as a senior politician’s aide (far from ordinary life)? The “I” who had a father, Ralph, who was the UK’s most prominent Marxist sociologist? This “I” has apparently been banished from Miliband’s story – he is just the “I” that he thinks his electorate wants him to be.

  •