John Lloyd - Revision history

Melissa Jones: typo

2018-03-20T13:11:47Z

typo

David: /* Books */

2014-08-14T09:25:44Z

Books

David: /* Moving right */

2014-08-14T09:23:56Z

Moving right

David: /* Stalinism */

2014-08-14T09:16:31Z

Stalinism

David: /* Stalinism */

2014-08-14T09:15:23Z

Stalinism

David: /* Biographical Information */

2014-08-14T09:14:50Z

Biographical Information

David: /* Affiliations */

2010-11-20T12:34:55Z

Affiliations

David: /* Affiliations */

2010-11-20T12:33:53Z

Affiliations

Tom Mills: /* Moving right */

2010-05-07T12:15:58Z

Moving right

Tom Mills: /* Views - from Stalinism to Neoconservatism */

2010-05-07T12:12:09Z

Views - from Stalinism to Neoconservatism

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Image:John Lloyd.jpg|right|thumb|John Lloyd]]
-'''John Nicol Fortune Lloyd''' (born 15 April 1946) is a British journalist who for most of his career has been associated with the ''Financial Times'', but who has also written for and at one time edited the ''[[New Statesman]]''.  He identifies himself as a liberal but is a prominent pro-war activist.  He left the ''News Statesman'' in 2003 after being dubbed the magazine’s “house reactionary” by one of his colleagues.<ref>John Lloyd, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200304140009 Why I can no longer write for the NS], New Statesman 14 April 2003.</ref>
+'''John Nicol Fortune Lloyd''' (born 15 April 1946) is a British journalist who for most of his career has been associated with the ''Financial Times'', but who has also written for and at one time edited the ''[[New Statesman]]''.  He identifies himself as a liberal but is a prominent pro-war activist.  He left the ''New Statesman'' in 2003 after being dubbed the magazine’s “house reactionary” by one of his colleagues.<ref>John Lloyd, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200304140009 Why I can no longer write for the NS], New Statesman 14 April 2003.</ref>
 ==Biographical Information==

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 *Charles Leadbeater, John Lloyd, ''In search of work'' (Penguin Books Ltd 1987) ISBN 0140227733; 9780140227734
 *Martin Adeney, John Lloyd, ''The miners' strike, 1984-85: Loss Without Limit'' (Routledge, 1988) ISBN 0710213719; 9780710213716
 *John Lloyd, ''Rebirth of a nation: an anatomy of Russia'' (London : M. Joseph, 1998) ISBN 0718138627; 9780718138622
 *John Lloyd, ''Re-engaging Russia'' (Foreign Policy Centre, 2000) ISBN 0953559866 9780953559862
 *John Lloyd, ''The protest ethic: how the anti-globalisation movement challenges social democracy'' (London: Demos, 2001) ISBN 1841800090 9781841800097
-*John Lloyd, ''What the media are doing to our politics'' (London: Constable, 2004)
+*John Lloyd, ''What the media are doing to our politics'' (London: Constable, 2004) ISBN 1841199001; 9781841199009
 ===Contact===

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Lloyd modified this position in a 2005 ''New Statesman'' review of books on neoconservatism by [[Oliver Kamm]] and [[Douglas Murray]]:
-<blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">Now I have to partially - only partially - retract the indignation (I can't speak for Aaronovitch, who does indignation better than I and who was, when I last spoke to him about it, still indignant). Kampfner, who apologised for the distress that his piece caused me, was partly - only partly - right. What I was supporting was not just, as I wrote in the July 2003 issue of Prospect, the invasion of Iraq: it was a foreign policy that the neoconservatives have articulated and made their own. Why I only partly retract the indignation, and why Kampfner is only partly right, is because neoconservatism, as [[Douglas Murray]] makes clear, covers much more than foreign policy, even if foreign policy has been its most dramatic stage. <ref>John Lloyd, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200512120039 The case for freedom. For a few on the left, Tony Blair's determination to take a stand against tyranny has been a source of admiration rather than despair. John Lloyd explains why, when it comes to foreign policy, he is no longer ashamed to be called a "neo-con"], New Statesman, 12 December 2005.</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">Now I have to partially - only partially - retract the indignation (I can't speak for Aaronovitch, who does indignation better than I and who was, when I last spoke to him about it, still indignant). Kampfner, who apologised for the distress that his piece caused me, was partly - only partly - right. What I was supporting was not just, as I wrote in the July 2003 issue of ''Prospect'', the invasion of Iraq: it was a foreign policy that the neoconservatives have articulated and made their own. Why I only partly retract the indignation, and why Kampfner is only partly right, is because neoconservatism, as [[Douglas Murray]] makes clear, covers much more than foreign policy, even if foreign policy has been its most dramatic stage. <ref>John Lloyd, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200512120039 The case for freedom. For a few on the left, Tony Blair's determination to take a stand against tyranny has been a source of admiration rather than despair. John Lloyd explains why, when it comes to foreign policy, he is no longer ashamed to be called a "neo-con"], New Statesman, 12 December 2005.</ref></blockquote>
-Another characteristic of Lloyd’s writings has been his hostility to popular movements.  In ''The miners' strike'', which he co-authored, he criticised the miners for being undemocratic.  This was an accusation he later made of the anti-corporate movement in the 1990s when in his 2001 book ''The protest ethic: how the anti-globalisation movement challenges social democracy'', which was published by [[Demos]].
+Another characteristic of Lloyd’s writings has been his hostility to popular movements.  In ''The miners' strike'', which he co-authored, he criticised the miners for being undemocratic.  This was an accusation he later made of the anti-corporate movement in his 2001 book ''The protest ethic: how the anti-globalisation movement challenges social democracy'', which was published by [[Demos]].
 ==Affiliations==

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===Stalinism===
-The following are two accounts given by Lloyd of his early association with the Stalinist left:
+The following are two accounts given by Lloyd, in 2002 and 2007 respectively, of his early association with the Stalinist left:
-<blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">I was…a largely inactive member of the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] between 1971 and 1973, and then a much more active participant in the tiny [[British and Irish Communist Organisation]] until 1977. I denounced my comrades, in a 20-page speech, for their Stalinism; I had just read, sweating with horror, all of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.<ref>Show trial: the left in the dock, by John Lloyd, ''New Statesman'', 2 September 2002.</ref></blockquote>
+<blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">I was…a largely inactive member of the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] between 1971 and 1973, and then a much more active participant in the tiny [[British and Irish Communist Organisation]] until 1977. I denounced my comrades, in a 20-page speech, for their Stalinism; I had just read, sweating with horror, all of [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s [[Gulag Archipelago]].<ref>Show trial: the left in the dock, by John Lloyd, ''New Statesman'', 2 September 2002.</ref></blockquote>
 <blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">I had had a brief membership of the Communist Party and a longer affair with a tiny group called the [[British and Irish Communist Organisation]] in my twenties: but by my late thirties I was a social democrat - in these febrile times for Labour, a member on the party's right wing. I had come to that through a renunciation of communism, and a sense of shame that I had attempted to embrace it: I had broken with the BICO with a speech to its annual meeting in Dublin, in which I argued that its attachment to communism was a dead end, and that its rich swath of publications and positions (one of which argued, most famously, that Ireland was two nations) were unremittingly hostile to much of the far left of the time, and were best understood as a democratic trend within the left. Losing the argument, I gave my allegiance and time to the Labour Party.<ref>Tony, the NS and me, by John Lloyd, The ''New Statesman'', 7 May 2007.</ref></blockquote>

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===Stalinism===
-The following are two accounts given by Lloyd of his early association with the Stalinist left given by Lloyd:
+The following are two accounts given by Lloyd of his early association with the Stalinist left:
 <blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">I was…a largely inactive member of the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] between 1971 and 1973, and then a much more active participant in the tiny [[British and Irish Communist Organisation]] until 1977. I denounced my comrades, in a 20-page speech, for their Stalinism; I had just read, sweating with horror, all of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.<ref>Show trial: the left in the dock, by John Lloyd, ''New Statesman'', 2 September 2002.</ref></blockquote>

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 He became a freelance journalist in 1996 and was a columnist for ''The Times'' from 1997 to 1998 and a contributor to the ''New Statesman'' until 2003 delivering what his editor called, “contributions from the cutting edge of Blairite thought”<ref>Peter Wilby, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200407120042 ‘Rough trade’], ''New Statesman'', 12 July 2004</ref>
-Lloyd’s departure from the ''New Statesman'' in 2003 was apparently in protest over the magazine’s anti-war stance, but more specifically he had taken issue with a colleague referring to him as the magazine’s “house reactionary” (he had by this time become closely associated with the neo-conservatives and the pro-war left).  According to [[Peter Wilby]], who was then editor of the ''New Statesman'', Lloyd’s “principled stand occurred after he had secured the editorship of the new ''Financial Times'' magazine”,<ref>Peter Wilby, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200407120042 ‘Rough trade’], ''New Statesman'', 12 July 2004</ref>which Lloyd edited from 2003-2005.  Commented on Lloyd’s departure ''The Independent'' wrote that “The presence of this Blairite apologist at the Statesman has been a puzzle for quite some time.”<ref>Sholto Byrnes, ‘A staggering display of pique’, ''The Independent'',  11 April 2003</ref>
+Lloyd’s departure from the ''New Statesman'' in 2003 was apparently in protest over the magazine’s anti-war stance, but more specifically he had taken issue with a colleague referring to him as the magazine’s “house reactionary” (he had by this time become closely associated with the neo-conservatives and the pro-war left).  According to [[Peter Wilby]], who was then editor of the ''New Statesman'', Lloyd’s “principled stand occurred after he had secured the editorship of the new ''Financial Times'' magazine”,<ref>Peter Wilby, [http://www.newstatesman.com/200407120042 ‘Rough trade’], ''New Statesman'', 12 July 2004</ref>which Lloyd edited from 2003-2005.  Commenting on Lloyd’s departure ''The Independent'' wrote that “The presence of this Blairite apologist at the Statesman has been a puzzle for quite some time.”<ref>Sholto Byrnes, ‘A staggering display of pique’, ''The Independent'',  11 April 2003</ref>
 ===Policy World===
-Around the same time that Lloyd left the ''Financial Times'' he also became involved with a number of think-tanks and academic institutions.  He was appointed an Associate Fellow, at the Kennedy School at Harvard University in 1995 and was a Senior Associate Member of St Anthony’s College Oxford, 1996–99.  Together with [[British American Project|British American Project’s]] [[Nick Butler]] and [[Baroness Symons]] he became a director of the [[East-West Institute]] in New York in 1997. Funded by its impressive array of elite directors, the [[East-West Institute|East-West Institute's]] honoury chair is [[George H.W. Bush]].  Lloyd also joined the New Labour associated think-tanks [[Demos]] and the [[Foreign Policy Centre]] and authored books published by both organisations.
+Around the same time that Lloyd left the ''Financial Times'' he also became involved with a number of think-tanks and academic institutions.  He was appointed an Associate Fellow, at the Kennedy School at Harvard University in 1995 and was a Senior Associate Member of St Anthony’s College Oxford, 1996–99.  Together with [[British American Project|British American Project’s]] [[Nick Butler]] and [[Baroness Symons]] he became a director of the [[East-West Institute]] in New York in 1997. Funded by its impressive array of elite directors, the [[East-West Institute|East-West Institute's]] honorary chair is [[George H.W. Bush]].  Lloyd also joined the New Labour associated think-tanks [[Demos]] and the [[Foreign Policy Centre]] and authored books published by both organisations.
 ==Views - from Stalinism to Neoconservatism==

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 *[[Prospect Magazine]], board member
 *[[Moscow School of Political Studies]]
-*[[Just Journalism]] Advisory Board circa 2008 (no longer an advisor in 2010)<ref>Just Journalism [http://web.archive.org/web/20080415115144/www.justjournalism.com/advisory-board Advisory board], retrieved from the Internet Archive of 15 April 2008 (Accessed: 20 November 2010)</ref>
+*[[Just Journalism]] Advisory Board circa 2008 (no longer an advisor in 2010)<ref>Just Journalism [http://web.archive.org/web/20080415115144/www.justjournalism.com/advisory-board Advisory board], retrieved from the Internet Archive of 15 April 2008 (Accessed: 20 November 2010)</ref><ref>Just Journalism [http://justjournalism.com/advisory-board/ Advisory board], Accessed: 20 November 2010</ref>
 ==Books==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ==Views - from Stalinism to Neoconservatism==
-Lloyd is a former communist who became a critic of the left’s anti-imperialism, and a proponent of military aggression by the United States and its allies.  The following are two accounts given by Lloyd of his early association with the Stalinist left given by Lloyd:
+Lloyd is a former communist who became a critic of the left’s anti-imperialism, and a proponent of military aggression by the United States and its allies.
 <blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">I was…a largely inactive member of the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] between 1971 and 1973, and then a much more active participant in the tiny [[British and Irish Communist Organisation]] until 1977. I denounced my comrades, in a 20-page speech, for their Stalinism; I had just read, sweating with horror, all of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.<ref>Show trial: the left in the dock, by John Lloyd, ''New Statesman'', 2 September 2002.</ref></blockquote>
@@ Line 31: / Line 34: @@
 <blockquote style="background-color:beige;border:1pt solid Darkgoldenrod;padding:1%">John Lloyd's protestations of a youth of historical ignorance ('Show trial: the left in the dock', 2 September) ring hollow to one who knew him in the 1970s as a leading member of the [[British and Irish Communist Organisation]]. This group was not only sophisticated in its historical investigations, but also had a reputation as the most unashamedly pro-Stalin group on the left. To suggest now that they were naive innocents, unaware of the millions of peasant deaths caused by the Russian workers' movement in the 1930s, is implausible.<ref>Paul Cockshott, Letter of the Week, ''New Statesman'', 9 September 2002.</ref></blockquote>
 Lloyd describes his conversion from leftist to what might be termed democratic imperialism as follows: