Hiyas, Yesterday in stoke central constituency, there was a rather windy byelections.
The other day, in the guardian, I noticed a clip to do with the stoke byelections - the clips seems interesting to mention because an exchange near the end might be of a wide interest. The clip: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/feb/22/they-dont-care-about-us-the-anger-and-ap thy-behind-the-stoke-byelection-video Towards the end of the clip, a local guy spells out basic "bread and butter" social and indeed traditional left concerns to do with the welfare of people in stoke central. As a reply, the seemingly socialist leaning Labour activist points out that indeed Corbyn has a rather long history of addressing precisely the kind of concerns voiced. The reply to that, was in my mind, illuminating. Suddenly Corbyn's record regarding the military came up as a reason Not to vote for all the required social reforms voiced but a minute before. Security - or that which is perceived to be safe - became the base of all other concerns. Indeed, when a person feels their life is under threat - a mortal threat - perhaps their artistic, cultural, social, and indeed health and education concerns might seems rather negligible? Questions: Is it too far fetched to consider that when a person/voter considers' a certain agenda to be vital for their security - even if this is a Sense of being secured - then there is a likelihood they'll indeed have a sympathy with, or even vote for, a party that will feed that very basic instinct? (even though that party's wider agenda might not be entirely as desired. afterall, how often do we get to vote for someone we entirely agree with?) With the above in mind, and apologies for a rather british focus: people on the left call for NHS to be saved. The call is not for the safety and security of people's health? pension security? and so on... (contrast with stuff like: the security of our nation is at stake - we need to upgrade trident!) In other words, has the security issue been given for the authoritarians to define, or is this sense is missing something? Cheers and all the bests! aharon xx http://itchy.5p.lt Notes: Personally am against territoriality that stuff like "issues" and "subjects" imply. I think such terms produce a sense of fixed "areas" and within that, contain violence needed to "protect" the perceived territories. However, this perception, perhaps mistakenly, seems on a different time-scale from the question of political discourse framing. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
