Why Ken Loach is a stupid-head and ‘poverty’ is a myth

I have that thing where lots of people are angry with a headline rather than an actual article, about Ken Loach. Actually the article’s not really about Ken Loach, it’s about Christopher Lasch, but as I was writing it I noticed the director’s call for a revolt against the elites. What interests me is how unlikely and archaic this now seems, because across the western world working-class votes are going to the Right: Labour is now third among working-class voters, behind two right-wing parties, and in Austria 85% of working-class men voted for the radical right Freedom Party in last year’s presidential elections. Donald Trump won the presidency through overwhelming support among poor whites. Almost everywhere in the west the elites are more ‘left-wing’ than the workers, in the sense of being more socially liberal and globalist; so the idea of a left-wing revolution is something from another era. The article wasn’t even about the film, or about food banks or poverty, as I’ve learned from experience to avoid writing about areas I don’t know enough about. I’m sure I Daniel Film is a great movie that tells a real story but that’s not my area of expertise and Ken Loach films are not my bag; I tend to only watch things that feature swords, sandals and half-naked men fighting.

PS The headline is ironic, obviously, not that anyone will get past it.

Comments so far

  1. For what it’s worth, when nationalism as we know it today first emerged in the late 18th/early 19th century it was as a left-wing or at least populist reaction against church and monarchy – usually promoted with arguments that you were more loyal to your fellow countrymen than the institutions of power. William Blake’s ode to the French Revolution is a good example of this sentiment.

    The political left didn’t become associated with cosmopolitanism and the right with nationalism until the mid/late 19th century if I remember things the right way.

What do you think?

*