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

@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.

@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

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

@ChrisMayLA6

@2legged

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

@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)