By Max Musson:
We are pleased to announce the sixth nominee for the 2014 Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize: Mike Newland of the British Democratic Party for his fluid and highly informative speech regarding the pitfalls of Globalisation, which he made in October 2013 at the 47th New Right Meeting in London.
Mike is not an obvious choice for such a nomination because he is not cast in the rabble rousing tradition that people often think of when oratory is mentioned, but his speaking style one which is confident and fluid and which enables him to convey important understanding of complex topics that most speakers tend to avoid. Mike is a very popular man with years of service to the cause of nationalism and is widely regarded as one of the best speakers within the BDP.
The Jonathan Bowden Oratory Prize and other nominations.
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #
Aynuk
- Edit
Couldn’t listen to all of it because it was tedious and boring, not to mention highly patronising. This is of course the economics ‘expert’ Mike Newland who refuses to accept that banks create our money supply. Don’t believe me? Well, check out a number of topics on this subject on the BDP website.
A Mayer
- Edit
Mr Newland appeared on a national commercial radio station some years ago as a much-heralded (by the station) representative of the BNP. Like all the media that station was not nationalist-friendly. Perhaps they thought on the lines of ‘give them enough rope’. They and the millions of listeners were probably surprised by a man who clearly knew his subjects. He answered comprehensively all the questions on BNP policies put to him, law and order, health, defence, etc and the economy which in particular was very well explained. The presenter listened respectfully. I think he made a very good impression, perhaps too good for after his view on immigration, the presenter, perhaps on the jobsworth principle- he had allowed a nationalist to make a very good impression- asked how a kindly grey-haired man could hold such a view. I did not hear of Mr Newland thereafter. Perhaps there was a reason for this although thjere are limited vehicles for the nationalist standpoint. I hope he did not suffer the fate of so many nationalists of ability who were channeled down the BNP conduit. The content of this video is good, but the delivery perhaps lacks vitality.
AAA
- Edit
I recalled that very good interview but not the station and interviewer. In my copy of N.S.T. (New Saxon Times), Issue 3, spring 2001 there is a feature entitled: “Can Parliamentary Democracy Work for Our Folk?” in which the author highlights the candidacy of Mike Newland and claims that Nick Griffin (Spearhead, November 1998) wrote a piece in support of Michael’s appearance on James Whale’s Talk Radio. I could have sworn the interview was a few years subsequent to 1998, but there we are.
.
Hope this helps.
Steven
- Edit
He was in the BNP for quite a few years and was the party’s candidate for London Mayor in the year 2000. Also, he used to be the party’s treasurer. I think he resigned from the party over a dispute with Griffin over the party’s accounts. Nick Griffin has a habit of provoking dissension within nationalist party’s ranks, it seems!
Mike Newland
- Edit
When Griffin became chairman it very quickly emerged that he did not see himself as a servant of the party. He regarded himself as the new owner and proprietor of it as though he’d received it as an inheritance.
This is the standard curse of small parties and especially where the leader is a person with no means of his own or income outside it.
Steven
- Edit
Mike Newland is a talented man and one of many who Nick Griffin didn’t make full use of. How much stronger would the nationalist movement in general and the BNP in particular be today if their talent had been utilized properly? Nigel Farage runs UKIP in a similar way and that party will also be caused damage by these sort of actions.
AAA
- Edit
“How much stronger would the nationalist movement in general and the BNP in particular be today if their talent had been utilized properly?”
.
Quite right. It is a crying shame that Jonathan Bowden was not so promoted.
Tony L
- Edit
I remember the radio interview that Mike gave. The presenter clearly thought that Mike would show himself up. He didn’t. Mike held forth for an hour or so and I believe the presenter gave him extended time. This is an example of when Nationalists are given media time they generally do well (NG’s embarrassing QT performance not withstanding!). Our problem is that the gate keepers who are there to keep us away generally do just that.
AAA
- Edit
Andrew Brons was for me the B.N.P.’s best media man. He has the air of a well-spoken and well-educated sage, in a sense a pleasant uncle who heads the family and always gives sound advice.
.
I recall an interview with him and some self-satisfied, smug female hack on Sky News. The the hack was employing the “far-Right” cliche whereas Andrew was utilising the much-more discretionary “nationalist”.
.
In a sense Andrew basically raised the question: Far-Right? How far and from what reference point?
.
Andrew could also have gone on to highlight the socialistic socio-economic policies of the B.N.P. and Nationalist parties in general. This ought to have planted the seed of doubt in many public minds.
.
Simple. Great reply. Put our detractors on the back-foot by confronting them with their own cliches. Priceless.
.
The interview: Pt. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWQ_4Yp2o6I
.
Pt. 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jld-LHqjwYU
Mike Newland
- Edit
Andrew Brons is quite brilliant at putting up a case without making people feel quite unnecessarily threatened.
One of the perplexing continual failures of the nationalist movement has been an apparent belief that if you frighten the wits out of everyone supporters will rally to the flag abandoning self-interest while opponents will wilt.
What really results is that most of your supporters see themselves as being asked to make a useless sacrifice while your opponents are as enraged as bees who have their hive poked with a stick.
It’s not effective politics.
Mike Newland
- Edit
Aynuk is incorrect that I assert the banks not to create the money supply.
They do indeed create money on a vast scale but not quite by the mechanism many in the nationalist movement suppose – along the lines of set up a bank borrow a quid and lend ten.
The actual mechanism is no secret. It’s in every textbook but there appear to be a lot of people who insist that all the economics texts are a part of a conspiracy to conceal the realities. Things are not quite as bad as that. I did discuss this in another online talk titled ‘Who invented money’.
The question of globalisation and how it works is indeed technical and boring as Aynuk says. Making it exciting is quite beyond my abilities. But a lack of excitement is not the same as a lack of importance.
Remind me to only talk about Stalingrad or the Battle of Britain in future.
Max Musson
- Edit
Don’t put yourself down Mike, I think you showed great skill in presenting a technical subjetc in simple, understandable and yet still interesting and enjoyable way. It was not barn storming demagoguery, but then not all oratory is.
AAA
- Edit
Mike, may I bring to your attention the reality-as-precedent that is the Bradbury Pound: social credit that was issued debt-free and thus non-usurious.
.
A short video and comprehensive e-book on the Bradbury Pound: https://www.ukcolumn.org/bring-back-the-bradbury
.
As I said, precedent implies that it is not fantasy. Even I, as an anti-State Distributist, see the corrective force of this venture even if it falls outside of my own decentralist position.
.
Please at least take a look –thanks.
Max Musson
- Edit
Perhaps you could write an article about it AAA?
Mike Newland
- Edit
My comments have been about how the current system works.
What other systems there are which might replace it I did not address but it’s well worth addressing.
Current suggestions include:
1. Full reserve banking.
2. Douglas Carswell’s halfway house with full reserves on everyday accounts if I’ve understood it right.
3. Cancelling public debt purchased by the Bank of England. That amounts to £400 bn in government payouts having been made in newly printed money. A dressed up Zimbabwe style financing. It’s really just printing money to pay bills no messing.
3. Kumhof’s ‘The Chicago plan revisited’.
4. Everything I can find written about the Bradbury pound appears to be a sales promotion rather than a dispassionate explanation.
As far as I can gather it amounted to issuing more banknotes exchangeable into gold on demand than the bank rules permitted given the gold cover available (‘suspending the Bank Act’) and getting the Treasury to print them instead of the Bank of England.
Not exactly debt free money as advertised.
The thing is that paper money always depends on confidence that it won’t be devalued. Otherwise people try to get rid of it creating a huge inflation. That can happen quite suddenly. Printing money in a state of stagnation may appear harmless – so why not do it again and again? Why pay taxes at all? Hmmm….
What you can get away with depends on the velocity of circulation.
Max Musson
- Edit
I think I can detect the basis of an article taking shape. Why don’t you write it and we will publish it on this website, Mike? Email the article to [email protected].
Aynuk
- Edit
Looks like Mike Newland has a few people here convinced, but I’m afraid I’m not amongst them. He is clearly making things up as he goes along. He roundly dismissed the (quite correct) view that banks create our money supply over on the BDP website – and this can easily be checked if anyone cares to look: https://britishdemocraticparty.org/debt-debt-debt/. Now it looks like he’s wised up a bit and is trying to shift his position by stealth.
He not only would not accept the view that our money supply is founded on debt, he actually took to making personal attacks on those who opposed him, with many comments being blocked for good measure.
Max Musson
- Edit
Better late than never, however, I’m sure you will agree?
Aynuk
- Edit
Better never late.
Better still to be correct before correcting others.
Max Musson
- Edit
Ah, but there is more joy in heaven for a sinner that repenteth … and let he who is without fault cast the first stone … 😉
Mike Newland
- Edit
My views have not changed at all.
What may have been thought ‘denying’ the banks create money was simply a reference to the fact that an individual bank lends out cash it’s got while the system as a whole does create money. You can find that in any textbook and they ain’t wrong
Quite a bit of confusion derived from a misreading of the book Where does money come from? which persuaded some people to think a single bank can lend without having any cash. I was a bit surprised by that since the book is by professional economists so I went along to the author’s talk at Birkbeck and got the book at the meeting.
The author explained quite clearly the usual account.
Hint. Banks can lend without EXCESS RESERVES.
But this whole subject is inhabited in fringe circles by those who think they’ve disovered a great conspiracy about money creation kept out of text books. They will not be giving up their exciting idea any time soon!
I’ve actually been accused of being a capitalist lackey trying to deceive the people. A ‘denier’ no less. Eeeek. No wonder people keep away from fringe politics when they find out what a lot of it is like.
Mike Newland
- Edit
PS The article referred to was about government borrowing and debt. Different topic.