Re-Nationalising Britain

An interesting comment in The Guardian article below - can you spot the flaw in the thinking of this writer ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/23/bnp-nick-griffin-question-time1


Answer below the article ;


*
Constituent's profile picture Constituent

23 Oct 09, 3:38pm (42 minutes ago)

As stated, so much does depend on local activity. However, the idea that in some constituencies a horse could get elected if it had the right colour collar doesn't hold much water. People do know who their local MPs are, and one who is clearly a constituency MP first and a party member second is likely to be re-elected against the odds.

However, it is unlikely that the BNP would be elected on a first-past-the-post basis as we don't know what their position is on most subjects except immigration. It's a pity that the QT programme centred so much around Mr Griffin, as that gave him more of a chance to concentrate on his particular issue.

What we have noticed in the past is that under the Thatcher administration we did not hear much from far-right politicians, as their problems were being dealt with by the government.

With so many MPs retiring, and three right-wing parties instead of one, it isn't a foregone conclusion that the Tories will win, even though Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are behaving as if they are already in power - and annoying potential voters in the process. The Tories may well need support from UKIP and BNP to keep a majority, or UKIP and BNP may prevent them winning seats thought to be safe. It's all up for grabs.

The Liberals are also in a strange position, with Mr Cable making sense to potential Labour voters, while Mr Clegg seems to occupy space to the right of Mr Cameron. In trying to be all things to all men, they may end up as no one.

Labour seem to be two separate parties, one consisting of parliamentarians and the other of voters. I suspect that there is huge pressure being placed on governments by businesses that are big enough to buy the country, and that those complaining about the EU and big government are outriders of the International Conglomerate Behemoth, for which profit is everything and people just disposable work units. However, Labour has managed to push through a few people-friendly measures, and has not embraced privatisation to the same extent as the Tories. Brown isn't as daft as he seems in sticking to international issues rather than political squabbling.

This leaves the Green Party, which seems to be the only one thinking internationally. The only problem here is that they need experience before taking over Government.

However, it is in the interest of big business to keep ordinary workers of various ancestries at each others throats. It should be remembered that while there is talk of negotiations, in practice businesses decide both prices and salaries on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. In theory the government should be laying into big business, given the disaster that the bankers have got us into, but the moneymen are more powerful. The Conglomerate can only be restrained by an international government, and at present it is doing a good job of preventing the EU from building up its strength. The rot is setting in, with privatisation spreading into public services, so that when things go wrong, all too often we find different parts of the conglomerate (with different business names) blaming each other and accepting no responsibility. Newspapers routinely complain about the failures of public services (often caused by too few staff) and then moan about overmanning on the next page.

The time has come for a strong government with public support that is prepared to renationalise public services, and to lay down pay rates for all types of job, regardless of who employs them and where they come from. Mr Griffin would not be able to complain about foreigners taking "our" jobs if employers had to pay them the same as "us". Out of the current bunch, a revitalised Labour party seems more likely to manage this than the others. Indeed, a vote for the tories or parties to their right seems more likely to give the unelected businessmen more power.

It's funny how people complain about government ID cards - have you tried to get your own money out of a bank recently? "





Did you find the point where the split occurred and the logic failed.


The writer advocates an 'international government' to solve the problems of Britain - and yet at the same time calls for 'renationalisation' of public services such as the railways.

Yet how can an international government set up to counter the power of international corporations control nationalised public services in the UK for the benefit of the British people.

It cannot.

The solution is simple.

Nationalism.

In order to defeat the growth and spread of the international corporations and supra-national political and economic institutions we must 'Re-Nationalise Britain'.

Internationalism must be replaced by Nationalism, and for that to occur a process of re-nationalisation must begin to repatriate back to the UK parliament all devolved political and law making powers from supra-national institutions such as the EU, UN, NATO and World Bank and also to repatriate power from international corporations whose immense global power and wealth means they can impose both wage costs and retail costs in the UK and control the market and also have control over essential infrastructure in the UK such as water, electricity, pharmacuticals, military equipment, industry and agriculture.

The liberals think that this process can be achieved through internationalism.

They are wrong.

Only Nationalism is the mechanism for our national liberation.