A few days ago, the Socialist Unity blog ran this photo in full with the caption “We’re all in this together”.
The obvious point is that Tory Chancellor George Osborne and his chums are dining out on fine champaign while the rest of us starve, demonstrating that the public has to practice ‘austerity’ while the government has a posho party.
The only trouble is that, as one of the early commenter revealed, it’s a case of non veritas in vinum. The photo is in fact from 2004, when Gordon Brown was in residence. It wasn’t that hard to track down the provenance of the photo since it bears the imprint of the Associated Press on the bottom corner.
Here it is taken from their photo wire:
There’s more on the original context to be found with a bit of googling. The gist of it is that the champers was ordered by the Labour Party to celebrate either a cabinet reshuffle, or someone’s retirement.
But none of this is very interesting. Most sensible people have no trouble accepting that senior figures in government have to wine and dine as part of the job. I certainly don’t sit around sniffing at my garden variety bubbly and spitting out through gritted teeth “fucking Chancellor of the Exchequer sips Moet et Chandon and we have to drink this piss!” (Though one does get the impression sometimes that this is precisely how John Wight might ruin an otherwise jolly evening.)
What is interesting is John Wight’s response to the hapless fellow who pointed out his error. Here’s their exchange with some points emphasised for discussion.
Jim Jepps: This picture is from 2004.
John Wight: How do you know this? I got it on FB
Jim Jepps: Because it’s a very old picture and I’m a very old man with a memory. It was some international dinner that Brown was hosting. It was in the papers at the time.
John Wight: And even if does happen to be from 2004, does it alter its message vis-a-vis what’s going on right now? In fact the picture is even more relevant given the policies of this govt. So, this picture is doing the rounds on FB. It highlights the utter hypocrisy and shameful attacks on the poor and working class by this govt of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich, and all you can do is try and undermine the significance of what is taking place with pedantry.
Jim Jepps: Really? A delivery of fancy wine that Gordon Brown received highlights the hypocrisy of the Coalition government? Sorry to upset you, that wasn’t my intention.
Cornered, John Wight, naturally, turns nasty.
John Wight: You haven’t upset me in the slightest, Jim. I just find it a bit odd that at a time when the Tories are stepping up their attacks on the poor and working class, you would rather focus your anger on Gordon Brown and New Labour. If the picture is from 2004, which you assert, the symbolism remains absolutely relevant to 2013. Don’t you agree?
Jim Jepps: Nope, I don’t agree. First I don’t agree that believing in factual accuracy is “anger” nor has anything I’ve said here been anything close to anger. Second I don’t think this picture speaks to anyone who is not already convinced and adds nothing to the arguments they can deploy. In fact it relies on a very tired cliche that this government is uniquely posh, which may be true but also makes the fact that the picture is from Brown’s days particularly relevant. If you have to rely on a picture from 2004 to show the 2013 government is out of touch or are hypocrites then it isn’t exactly speaking truth to power is it? Facts matter, and those who look for any stick to beat a dog are more easily undermined, are less likely to be believed even when they are right and are more prone to being completely unaware when their arguments are either making no headway or are actively damaging the cause they seek to promote. We need concrete facts to help those who are making the arguments and these facts need to be reliable.
John Wight: Jim, this blog contains a plethora of articles containing a plethora of concrete facts on everything to do with the state of the economy, inequality, social issues, crime, and so on, written of course from the particular stance of its contributors. But propaganda and symbolism also matters in politics. The iconography of this picture is more effective than a thousand words. But your anger is for what has passed rather than what is. Why is that?
Uncertain that he’s won the encounter and with no further input from Jim Jepps, the sneering starts
John Wight: Jim, given that you’ve succeeded in diverting the discussion on this thread with your veracity bomb, do you have a link to the original story you could post – just, you know, in the interests of substantiating your assertion? Because it strikes me that that is some turbo-charged memory you have there, being able to remember a newspaper picture so vividly from 9 years ago. I have to confess to being so sad as to devote half an hour last night to trying to find it from back in 2004. I was unable to. Any chance you could help me out? After that, you can get back to checking the tax discs on the cars parked in your street to make sure they’re all valid and correct.
It took me about 10 minutes to find, as, as I noted above, the photo did have an AP imprint, and AP do have a website. But then the facts aren’t important to Wight. He’s stated quite clearly that he believes it’s perfectly valid to fake photos or hide their origins if it serves a propaganda purpose. In other words, it is okay to lie.
What follows is a blueprint for far-left’s strategy when they’re exposed as liars.
Step 1: When you’re exposed as a liar, turn the tables on your accuser and to demand what interests they are serving in attempting to expose your falsehood.
Step 2: Question your accuser’s psychological state. Ask them about their “anger”. When they deny they are angry, use this as evidence of more psychological instability, or simply repeat that theymust be “angry” until people stop questioning your assertion.
Step 3: Sneer and mock. Attempt to rail the mob against them.
Step 4: Question whtehr their accusation isn’t itself the lie “I was unable (to find any evidence to back up your claims, therefore you’re obviously lying yourself)”
Step 5: Repeat your original lie and carry on.
Jim Jepps is just lucky he isn’t Citizen Jepps and John Wight isn’t Commissar Wight, which is of course where we would be if any of Wight’s far-left sects came to power. Denounced as an angry supporter of the old regime, he’d be off to the salt mines.
It would be funny if people like John Wight were simply contained in shrinking sects and cults, but they’re not. In fact as their sects die out, like fleas, they find new host bodies. Soon your organisation, your party, your union might be itching and scratching.
