When the facts change, I change my mind

Some attribute this quote to Sir Winston Churchill, some to John Maynard Keynes. I think Nigel Farage could have said it.

This weekend Farage is under fire for saying what he’s been saying since the 1990’s. What he’s been saying and what he said this weekend he is able to justify, and the facts haven’t changed. The facts are that Putin is a warmonger, and the EU/NATO has so far failed at the complex, goalpost-moving feast that is this particular geopolitical game.

Farage is claiming that the EU/NATO’s ambitions eastwards and perceived flirtation with Ukraine “provoked” Putin into invading Ukraine. He didn’t say he liked Putin. In fact he said explicitly that he didn’t like him. He said he admired him as a political operative, which does not mean he thinks he’s honourable. Farage was also very clear that Putin is to blame for the invasion of Ukraine. Neither did he criticise nation states for exercising their sovereign right to – er – sacrifice their sovereignty in order to join the EU. It is unfortunate that nation states exercising their sovereign right was one tiny link in a multifaceted causal chain that culminated in Russia invading Ukraine. But life, the world, the universe, is not simple and unidimensional. Nothing ever works perfectly neatly nicely. There’s always a black cloud somewhere. An unintended consequence, or several. Anyone who claims otherwise is an armchair spittle-spewer.

My view is that Putin would have invaded anyway – he has form – but the EU/NATO clumsily spilled one drop too much of oily propaganda on the troubled Sea of Azov. I think Farage’s word “provoked” wasn’t the best one to use as it refers to an intentional act, which it wasn’t. Funnily enough, maybe if he’d said “unintentionally provoked” he wouldn’t have been pilloried. Who am I kidding!

Back in January 2022, I said much the same thing about the EU (here). So that’s two people who think the EU/NATO don’t come out of this smelling of roses. Three, actually. The eminent journalist Peter Hitchens has consistently criticised the blanket, unquestioning, uncontextualized, simplistic coverage of the situation. I don’t normally laud journalists, and I don’t always agree with Hitchens, but I do like the way he interprets the world differently from the rest of the sensationalist media, second-rate politicians and those armchair spittle-spewers again. Coincidentally, a recent blog of his was entitled, “When the facts change, I change my mind”. One last thing about Hitchens, he’s not a fan of Farage. 

Another commentator who thinks along Farage’s lines is Robert Kagan, an American neoconservative scholar and foreign policy adviser. But the daddy of them all has to be former NATO Secretary General George Robertson (who blamed the EU more than NATO). Farage had great pleasure in telling that to the BBC choke-fest Nick Robinson. Robinson thought he’d scored a slam dunk by challenging Farage’s stance on Putin, until Farage hit him straight between the eyes. Robinson had nowhere else to go other than retreat into his own echo chamber. You can guess in which part of his anatomy that’s located.

Farage’s other opponents also fired blanks by saying that he was “unfit for any political office in our country” (Labour’s defence spokesman) and "echoing Putin's vile justification for the brutal invasion of Ukraine” (Conservative Home Secretary). I understand that the BBC also wanted a view from a Lib Dem spokesperson but couldn’t find one.

Combine these “Outraged from Orpington” comments with other Tw*ts on Twitter, and it’s a sad reflection of the common IQ in this country – the number of people who denounced Farage for stuff he didn’t say, or for just part of what he said, or they twisted what he said. There’s plenty of stuff Farage does say that is challengeable without tampering with the evidence.

Given my defence of Farage on this issue: 1. Will I be voting for him/Reform UK on July 4th? 2. Do I think he’d make a good Prime minister or 3. Reform UK a good coalition partner for the Tories? Undecided on question 1. Re question 2, he wouldn’t be given a chance by the Uncivil Service, subversive Supreme Court, EU autocrats and Armageddon America. If you thought they were out to get Boris … As for question 3, I doubt Reform UK have sufficient members of calibre to fill available positions, unless enough former Tories defect, but I don’t think the Tories are awash with talent either.

Actually, given my own threepenny-bit lifeworld at this moment in time, the question I’d rather answer is, with which party leader – present, past or wannabee – would I prefer to spend an evening in the pub? Well, it would be fun to sport an androgenous look for Keir Starmer then ask him what a woman is. Or I could wire Tony Blair up to a lie detector and ask him who murdered Dr David Kelly. Theresa May would cure my insomnia. Jeremy Corbyn would be fun; I’d start singing "Hatikva" while wearing my Star of David earrings, then I’d snuggle up for a selfie and send it to Diane Abbott. When I got fed up with politicians, I could drink with Ed Davey.

You can tell I’m not being serious. I do have a proper shortlist of three: Boris, Kemi, and Nige. Boris would make me laugh. Kemi would make me giggle, and Nige would make me smile.

Am I being provocative? Intentionally!