Thursday, 12 May 2011
Posterity will regard Farage as the Churchill of our times.
Comparisons with Churchill can, more often than not, be trite.
However, Nigel Farage offers an interesting one. In years to come, when Britain is a sub-state of the EU and a patriotic school boy, or historian, asks: ‘How and who could have saved it?’ they will, no doubt, come across one Nigel Farage from Kent, England.Farage will not only engender both immense sympathy and intrigue, but will also become an exemplary figure of courage in the face of overwhelming political odds, including general media and public hostility.Whilst Churchill was able to use two formidable party machines to further his political career (Conservative and Liberal), causing often derision in his own party, Farage has become a public figure through a party that over twenty years ago did not exist. That is some achievement.
His orations in the European Parliament are extraordinary, not just for their energy and vitality, but because he is like David facing Goliath in a cesspit of snakes where everyone is against him. People forget that UKIP is the only political party in that Parliament that is opposed to their nation’s continuing membership, and hated with a vulgar passion by the other political factions therein.He wields his unalloyed silver tongue on the simple truth that democracy and self-government matter.This is something that Churchill suggested, bellowing, to Halifax in one of their first Cabinet meetings during the war when the latter suggested giving up Uganda to Hitler to achieve peace. Whilst Churchill won the war and lost the election in 1945, no one would have anticipated that UKIP would have come second in the European elections in 2009. Nor that it would capture a million votes nationally within two decades of its formation.Who knows with Farage continuing at its helm, where it will be in 2019, a decade after UKIP established itself as the serious political alternative in Britain?Despite overwhelming odds it is exciting to watch to where the mercurial gifts of their leader will take UKIP. The only path and destiny open to him is upwards, or else Britons will be left scrapping over the process of fragmentation of the UK whilst the real ruler becomes Brussels, like a silent nocturnal baby-snatcher fabled in medieaval popular myths. Whilst Churchill was born to fight the Nazis (he wrote this in a letter as a school-boy) providence has created a parallel in Farage to fight today’s EU cormorant seeking to devour our independent democracy.My fictional patriotic schoolboy will be filled with tears, if he finds that the battle was lost and that Farage was left to be devoured by the monsters of the media and his political opponents.
He may pick-up one of the flags of St George, St Andrew, or Saint David but he may never forgive Farage’s detractors.
Copyright Abhijit P.G. Pandya May 2011.
Copyright Birkenhead Society May 2011.
- Have you actually met Nigel Farage? Just wondering….
Hi,with respect –clearly you have as little knowledge of Winston Churchill as you have of election strategy.Your comments are tasteless and demean a great man of British history.As anonymous has said ‘have you ever met Farage?’.He is no Churchill –both of whom I have met.WSC was an erudite man of breeding, education and ability.WSC had served these United Kingdoms both militarily and as an administrator in Britain & abroad in Peace & War, in Britain & in The Commonwealth and beyond.WSC was a skilled & much published author.Tell me what has Farage done & in what way do you even in your sycophancy deem it apropriate to demean WSC by comparison with Farage, whose ability as a performing monkey is great but as a leader, author, educated man is inconspicuous.You may not have been in UKIP or have heard of the Party sufficient to realise that when Roger Knapman resigned the leadership he had advanced UKIP from 3 MEPs to 12 and had built up 30,000 members.This Farage inheritted.Perhaps since he has reduced the membership to a 1/2 and obtained a mere 370,000 votes in the recent election you could clarify or at very least show a Churchillian similarity beyond the fact that both men were near financially illiterate.I look forward to you publishing an apology for your tasteless inference.Regards,
To view the original blog CLICK HERE