Mastodawn

I'm with Frances Ryan, there is a false distinction drawn by our political class between threats to security that emanate from the global system & those that stem from how UK society is organised.

The argument that we necessarily need to choose between military expenditure & welfare spending (wilfully) misunderstands the *real* threats to the UK population.

Rather we should see the UK's 'security' as including the plight of the population.

#security #politics #welfare
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/16/warfare-v-welfare-britain-spend-benefits-defence-safe

Show thread

Peter Brett Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6 We should, of course, invest in both

Show thread

The Tepid Emperor Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6 Another fine piece from my niece!

Show thread

Claire McNab Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6 That is the basis of the concept of social security. Keep people safe from hunger, poverty, homelessness, illness.

But in the UK, 50 years of neoliberal govt has actively promoted more stigmatisating language. And the word security is used almost exclusively for police or military matters.

In Ireland, the govt handles these matters through the Department of Social Protection. Another good term.

Show thread

Reg Jun 16

@2legged

The adoption of neoliberalism included the systematic destruction of trade unions and other institutions that provided the means by which the public might oppose socially destructive State decisions.

@ChrisMayLA6

Show thread

Claire McNab Jun 16

Yes, @ReggieHere. The neoliberal era has overtly been about creating social insecurity.

It's no coincidence that the instigation of the post-WW2 liberal consensus came at a time when Western States were desperately trying to avoid being turned into socialist states.

That the wealthy seem content to undermine those post-war protections to enrich themselves is an indication of their disdain for everyone else.

@ChrisMayLA6

Show thread

Emeritus Prof. Christopher May Jun 16

@2legged @ReggieHere

Yes an insecure workforce is less likely to agitate for better terms, conditions & pay... while insecure consumers (usually the same people, of course) are then subject to marketing that indicates how various products & services can mitigate anxiety (in various suspect ways)

Show thread

Reg Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6

It's probably an unpopular opinion but 'national security', however much it's dressed up to infer mutual advantage is always based on the perceived threats to the State rather than its citizens.

If the State decides to fund defence or surveillance or tax cuts for the wealthy at a cost of public health and welfare services, then this is because it considers the threat from abroad to be greater than the threat from its own citizens.

Show thread

JimmyB (he/him)Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6 given that Britain is usually the international threat, the logical view is to lobby for a reduction in our ‘defence’ spending…so we can do less harm and commit fewer crimes overseas.

Show thread

SamuelJohnson Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6 This presumes a society with some kind of solidarity. Historically, the "family with the wrong people in charge" hasn't cared much for anyone they regarded as lesser beings and this instinct is alive and well in the English establishment and on display daily*

Https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/06/08/malt-j08.html

*See

Richard Murphy's latest blog https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/06/16/reform-wants-to-release-a-racist-wrecking-ball-on-the-uk-economy/

Rupert Lowe on abolishing devolution yesterday.

It's bad faith all the way down. Always has been.

The Malthusian underpinnings of Boris Johnson’s “herd immunity” strategy

Today the toll of the pandemic is viewed by leading figures in the ruling elite as a supposedly natural “check” on sections of the population considered a drain on profits.

World Socialist Web Site

Show thread

David S Jun 16

@ChrisMayLA6 absolutely.

Antisocial behaviour is a threat to population and while some might like to delà with it through drones warfare, it's social services that actually work