Skip to content

Ken Loach’s Spirit of ’45 is a fantasy


This blog post originally appeared in The Guardian‘s Comment is free.

The general election of 1945 is one of the key turning points of modern British history. Labour won a thumping Commons majority and used it to introduce the welfare state, nationalise key industries and guarantee full employment. You have to have a heart of stone – or be an implacable Thatcherite – not to feel that there was something wonderful, heroic even, about that moment.

According to Ken Loach’s documentary The Spirit of ’45, an election held nearly 70 years ago remains relevant to a world in which the free market is triumphant. As he says: “It’s time to put back on the agenda the importance of public ownership and public good, the value of working together collaboratively, not in competition.” A key part of his argument is that as the British people once enthusiastically embraced socialism, then we in our own times can and should emulate their example.

Described as a “celebration”, Loach uses his vision of the past to make blatantly contemporary political points. He is not alone in that – it’s what all historians do – but film documentaries have a greater emotional punch than words on a page. And because Loach is an accomplished filmmaker, his account is especially persuasive – particularly to those critics of neoliberalism who desperately want it to be true. But, sadly, while I am no particular fan of an unbound market, I fear that Loach’s version of 1945 is more imagined than real: it is, for want of a better word, propaganda.

His film certainly skilfully tears at the heartstrings. There are old folks telling us about the privations of interwar poverty and of how miners cried on news of Labour’s victory. It also uses fascinating and sometimes shocking archival film – notably of a confused Churchill being heckled – that make a lasting impression.

All this however obscures some inconvenient truths, hinted at in polls taken at the time by Gallup, revealed by the work of Mass Observation researchers. This evidence shows that more British people wanted a coalition of the main parties – in March 1945 43% – than sought a Labour government. An overwhelming majority wanted Churchill or the suave Conservative foreign secretary Anthony Eden to lead this coalition – not Clement Attlee.

The first-past-the-post electoral system nonetheless forced voters to choose between the parties. Given Labour won 48% of votes cast, when forced to choose, it is obvious that more wanted a Labour than a Conservative administration. But this also meant Labour’s tally included many Liberals and others who were not convinced socialists. Mass Observation uncovered some Liberals who voted Labour thinking they would reduce a widely expected Conservative Commons majority and were dismayed to discover they had made Attlee prime minister. In fact, a few weeks after the election nearly two-thirds of those polled described it as having been a “bad thing” largely because with the Pacific war still unresolved many felt it was improper to hold the contest.

The film is right to say that many Labour 1945 voters expressed the view of “never again”: they did not want a return to the kind of society that allowed mass unemployment to exist. The vast majority certainly supported the implementation of the 1942 Beveridge report and its promise of cradle-to-the-grave social security. Yet those that liked his suggestion of a National Health Service did so largely because they hoped to personally benefit, far fewer looked on it as an act of redistribution. In any case, the Liberal William Beveridge’s scheme was a continuation of progressive Edwardian reforms and it entailed welfare payments only just above subsistence. His was not a socialist measure, but one designed to make capitalism work more effectively.

There were, it is also true, large majorities in support of nationalisation – 60% supported the coal mines being put in state hands. However, not everyone in favour of some state control of the economy was a socialist. In fact the record of the coal industry in private hands was so grim, even a few Conservatives believed government was better placed to make it more efficient.

The society most people wanted from the 1945 election was a 1930s with jobs, that is, not socialism but reformed capitalism. This would be a private world. As a Labour candidate told his party’s conference in 1945, “two years ago, when I was in Africa, we fell to talking one day about what we hoped to see in the post-war world, and the fellow who put the point best was the one who said that he wanted to settle down with his wife in a cottage, with the kiddies, and to enjoy chocolates and looking after the chickens”.

There was no one Spirit of ’45. As in all elections Labour won thanks to a confusing coalition of contrasting views. Of course there were some convinced socialists among those who voted for Attlee’s party, keenly seeking a radical New Jerusalem in which the market played no part. But they were in a minority – although not as much as today.

Loach’s film should therefore be better called The Myth of ’45, for it peddles a fantasy, albeit one that provides comfort during these hard times for some on the left. But the danger of believing in a pristine moment is that it encourages adherents to denigrate the necessary compromises of the messy present. But the past in general and 1945 in particular was as politically complicated as our own times: those who suggest otherwise do not know their history.

Steven Fielding

Published inArt, Fiction & PoliticsBritish PoliticsLabour

One Comment

  1. jon jon

    Ive not yet seen the film, but it seems to me that Loach is making an argument (which is what he always does) not offering a quantative analysis of voters expectations and intentions reproduced from survey data circa 1945, the latter may have been more balanced and nuanced, but its hard to imagine that it would have been a compelling 90 minutes of cinematic drama. The point is surely this, for my generation we have never known Socialism, we have been told repeatedly by both the Tories and New Labour that there is no alternative, that capitalism is the very essence of human nature, Loach is saying No – there are alternatives and we don’t need to go that far back or that far away to see what one might look like.

    I don’t really get the point of the survey information anyway, the Nazis only got 35% of the vote, that doesn’t mean they didn’t radically re-shape Germany, Mrs Thatcher only got 43% in 1979, of which a large majority weren’t voting for her radical neoliberal agenda. Equally, prior to the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982, Michael Foot`s Labour Party was leading the opinion polls (despite SDP treachery) indicating a rejection of Thatcherite policies and a significant support for a return to Socialism. The point is that opinion polls don’t really tell us a great deal about history, what is signifcant is that once the Atlee Government changed British society, there was a social majority in favour of that form of social democracy right up until the mid 1980s (if not later, particularly outside of the South East).

    There were two great transformative governments of the twentieth century, the one emerged out of the crisis of capitalism in the 1930s and 40s, the second out of the crisis of Keynesian social democracy in the late 1970s. Whatever our political allegiances, we must recognise these governments did indeed reflect a “spirit” of the times, even if this wasn’t an absolute majority, or without subtleties and contradictions. The reason Ken Loach is making this film now, in this new period of the crisis of neoliberalism I think, is that he is saying to the young people who remember nothing before 1979, learn your own history, learn the lessons of the workers movement, its achievements and its failings (Loach is brilliant in criticising the tepid TU bureaucracies which stifled militancy in the early 1980s in his documentary “which side are you on”). It is of course true that the world has changed (the eternal refrain of the Blairite) Socialism in the 21st century will not involve flat caps and dodgy moustaches (unless popular fashion takes a decidedly unfortunate turn in the years to come!) but it will also not drop from the sky, or from the university, or from a generation which does not know its relationship to history.

    None of that is “propaganda” unless we consider all political art to be propaganda, it’s an intervention in the present conjuncture, and a much needed one at that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.