...they lived in a chronic state of mental inaccuracy, excitement and inertia, which made it vaguely exhilarating to lie and definitely fatiguing to be truthful.
Edith Wharton - The Mother's Recompense (1925)
Wharton's is a strangely modern observation - analysis requires considerably more mental effort than instinct. The extra effort can be observed - it is a neurological fact, an important way to minimise the effort of thinking.
With a well-defined political outlook it is possible to dispense with analysis altogether as Ken Loach has done. The UK government may be many things, but it is not brutal. For brutal Loach should look elsewhere. Here is another example of his chronic state of mental inaccuracy.
The director has previously clashed with Business Secretary Greg Clark about the film, in an episode of BBC One's Question Time.
"Your film, Ken – it is a fictional film," the Conservative minister said, prompting groans from the Gloucestershire audience.
But Loach shrugged off Clark's criticism with an impassioned reply. “When you’re sanctioned your life is forced into chaos, and people are going to food banks," he said. "How can we live in a society where hunger is used as a weapon?"
No, hunger is not used as a weapon. Loach is lying. Why do it, why not dispense with the rhetoric and stick to some kind of analysis? Presumably because he cannot, his instincts crowd out any possibility of analysis and so he demeans the cause he purports to support.