Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

Big Pharma is the most evil and immoral part of the entire capitalism system - astounding profits, pushing dependencies on useless drugs, while under supplying/putting huge mark-ups on useful ones

It's the first thing global Britain should be striving to break the cartel of

 

[scaramanga]

Big Pharma is the most evil and immoral part of the entire capitalism system - astounding profits, pushing dependencies on useless drugs, while under supplying/putting huge mark-ups on useful ones

It's the first thing global Britain should be striving to break the cartel of

Dislike of "Big pharma" is the clearest example that somebody doesn't understand how business works!

 

[SpurMeUp]

I have a problem with wasting time. Ironic I know Discussion is good however, you get to pull apart ideas, hear other people ideas, that's at least a little productive. But this Brexit tripe is doing my nut. It is all a total waste of time. Our government is not focused on the important stuff. And as Danish and I have been predicting for some time, it probably won't even happen.

------

Currently outside the EU, and the amount of people who tell me they would love to visit London but can't be bothered with our visa application process, is significant. I wonder how much it costs the UK in lost tourist income? To come and spend money in our country, many people have to go through a protracted application process, some even have to go to an interview. It must cost the UK hundreds of millions in lost foreign income pa.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Dislike of "Big pharma" is the clearest example that somebody doesn't understand how business works!

It shouldn't be a business. They just exploit publicly-funded university research.

Should anyone really be allowed IP over a medicine?

 

[scaramanga]

It shouldn't be a business. They just exploit publicly-funded university research.

Do you really believe that? All the major pharmaceutical companies are publicly listed entities. They publish all of their financial data for free, every single year.

The evidence is all there to disprove that belief. In fact, if you look carefully, what you will see is a massive research spend every single year, most of which gets written off - which leads me to......

Should anyone really be allowed IP over a medicine?

Yes, absolutely. When 90%+ of what a research company researches gets thrown in the bin, when the lead times from concept to sale are measured in the years or decades, when it takes £Ms to even explore the possibility of a product working, those businesses need to be able to protect their profits for long enough to ensure that shareholders will see a return. If those shareholders don't see a return then they won't invest. If they don't invest then there's no money to spend on research. If there's no research there are no drugs.

 

[scaramanga]

Or "if you criticise the actions of the state of Israel, you obviously hate Jews" akin to "if you criticised Idi Amin's Uganda, you obviously hate black people."

Labour has to make sure they get rid of anti-semitic cranks from the party. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time -- this issue is blown up by Corbyn's opponents not because they really think he's the 2nd coming of Hitler, but because they hope to bring him down and get their own faction back in charge of the party. And also, because Corbyn thinks the Palestinians shouldn't be treated so badly by Israel, nothing he says or does will be good enough for the 'Labour friends of Israel' and their associated MPs. For example, when Corbyn spent passover with a Jewish organisation, he was criticised -- as these were simply the wrong type of Jew (ones that were supportive of the Labour Left).

It's like clockwork, Labour goes 5% ahead across various polls and the anti-semitism stuff goes back into the news cycle again.

I don't think it's nearly that calculated.

I think that for Corbyn and many of his ilk, anti-Semitism is just a small cost of fighting what they see as some kind of bigger evil (Israel). And for many, that old trope of Jews running the world in some kind of secret financial cabal, under which the world's leaders are controlled is a truth - even if they know that admitting so is not politically expedient.

 

[the dza]

I don't think it's nearly that calculated.

I think that for Corbyn and many of his ilk, anti-Semitism is just a small cost of fighting what they see as some kind of bigger evil (Israel). And for many, that old trope of Jews running the world in some kind of secret financial cabal, under which the world's leaders are controlled is a truth - even if they know that admitting so is not politically expedient.

If anyone thinks that, then they should get kicked out of the Labour Party. But I do think people should be able to criticise the actions of Israel (more accurately, their government) without being lumped in with those racist nutters and I don't see why that should be a bone of contention. Me saying that isn't defending anti-Semitism, but to some in the Labour Party, it is. I don't agree with them. I don't think the actions of any nation should be beyond reproach.

 

[scaramanga]

If anyone thinks that, then they should get kicked out of the Labour Party. But I do think people should be able to criticise the actions of Israel (more accurately, their government) without being lumped in with those racist nutters and I don't see why that should be a bone of contention. Me saying that isn't defending antisemitism, but to some in the Labour Party, it is. I don't agree with them. I don't think the actions of any nation should be beyond reproach.

I absolutely agree. To feel the need to add that to their antisemitism charter and mark it out for special attention cheapens the good work their bill is trying to achieve.

As I said above - it appears that they feel more strongly about being able to screech about the Israeli government than it is to act correctly with regard to antisemitism.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The present Israeli government are a bunch of fascists. Does that make me anti Semitic?

 

[scaramanga]

The present Israeli government are a bunch of fascists. Does that make me anti Semitic?

No, but insisting on inserting the ability to say that in your antisemitism bill does.

 

[parklane1]

Or "if you criticise the actions of the state of Israel, you obviously hate Jews" akin to "if you criticised Idi Amin's Uganda, you obviously hate black people."

Labour has to make sure they get rid of anti-semitic cranks from the party. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time -- this issue is blown up by Corbyn's opponents not because they really think he's the 2nd coming of Hitler, but because they hope to bring him down and get their own faction back in charge of the party. And also, because Corbyn thinks the Palestinians shouldn't be treated so badly by Israel, nothing he says or does will be good enough for the 'Labour friends of Israel' and their associated MPs. For example, when Corbyn spent passover with a Jewish organisation, he was criticised -- as these were simply the wrong type of Jew (ones that were supportive of the Labour Left).

It's like clockwork, Labour goes 5% ahead across various polls and the anti-semitism stuff goes back into the news cycle again.

Very good post.

 

[the dza]

No, but insisting on inserting the ability to say that in your antisemitism bill does.

No it doesn't:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/40...d&utm_campaign=Main&__twitter_impression=true

Thirty-six Jewish groups from around the world have signed a statement condemning the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.

“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular,” the statement says. “These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of anti-Semitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid.”


Among the U.S.-based groups to sign the statement are Jewish Voice for Peace, which initiated the statement; Jews for Palestinian Right of Return; Jews of Color & Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews in Solidarity w/ Palestine; and Jews Say No!


Jewish groups from Israel, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Spain, South Africa, Argentina and the United Kingdom also signed the letter.


The letter calls on their governments to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which it says “is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.”


The groups signing on support BDS to varying levels, the letter notes, including some that take no position.


“Israel does not represent us and cannot speak for us when committing crimes against Palestinians and denying their UN-stipulated rights,” the letter says.

________________________________

Obviously, these are the wrong sort of Jews. Best just leave it to Hodge, Streeting et al to decide. Perhaps a public execution of Jeremy Corbyn and the promise to only elect a Blairite as leader of the Labour Party, by way of apology.

 

[scaramanga]

No it doesn't:

https://forward.com/fast-forward/40...d&utm_campaign=Main&__twitter_impression=true

Thirty-six Jewish groups from around the world have signed a statement condemning the conflation of anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel.

“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular,” the statement says. “These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of anti-Semitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid.”


Among the U.S.-based groups to sign the statement are Jewish Voice for Peace, which initiated the statement; Jews for Palestinian Right of Return; Jews of Color & Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews in Solidarity w/ Palestine; and Jews Say No!


Jewish groups from Israel, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, Spain, South Africa, Argentina and the United Kingdom also signed the letter.


The letter calls on their governments to reject the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which it says “is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.”


The groups signing on support BDS to varying levels, the letter notes, including some that take no position.


“Israel does not represent us and cannot speak for us when committing crimes against Palestinians and denying their UN-stipulated rights,” the letter says.

________________________________

Obviously, these are the wrong sort of Jews. Best just leave it to Hodge, Streeting et al to decide. Perhaps a public execution of Jeremy Corbyn and the promise to only elect a Blairite as leader of the Labour Party, by way of apology.

That's not what I said. Conflating the two is not the issue.

When you have a bill that's only purpose is to stop antisemitism, bringing in an unrelated subject (the actions of the Israeli government) is, in itself, relating those actions to Jewish people in general. There's simply no need for it unless those who oppose occupation are associating that with Jewish people in general.

Also, take a look at those "Jewish groups" who have signed on to that letter. They are groups of Jewish people, not groups whose purpose is to fight antisemitism. In fact, most of them are groups who exist purely to oppose the actions of the Jewish government. If you want an opinion on antisemitism, ask a group set up to fight antisemitism. If you want criticism of Israel's foreign policy, ask some left wing crank group about it.

 

[the dza]

That's not what I said. Conflating the two is not the issue.

Yes, it is the issue. Labour members don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism for criticising Israel, but also want to root out anti-Semitism from the party.

When you have a bill that's only purpose is to stop antisemitism, bringing in an unrelated subject (the actions of the Israeli government) is, in itself, relating those actions to Jewish people in general. There's simply no need for it unless those who oppose occupation are associating that with Jewish people in general.

See above.

Also, take a look at those "Jewish groups" who have signed on to that letter. They are groups of Jewish people, not groups whose purpose is to fight antisemitism. In fact, most of them are groups who exist purely to oppose the actions of the Jewish government. If you want an opinion on antisemitism, ask a group set up to fight antisemitism. If you want criticism of Israel's foreign policy, ask some left wing crank group about it.

AKA these Jews are the wrong sort of Jew. I found that link on the Jewish Voice for Labour Twitter page. They are a group that actively fights anti-Semitism. They are probably also the wrong sort of Jews.

 

[scaramanga]

Yes, it is the issue. Labour members don't want to be accused of anti-Semitism for criticising Israel, but also want to root out anti-Semitism from the party.

I've seen a few anti-racism policies in my time. I've signed them for companies I've worked for, associations I've joined, I've approved one or two for my own businesses and even helped write one when I worked in Compliance.

I have never once seen a need for, or a policy with any such caveat as the one insisted upon by Labour supporters. There's just no need for it, the two issues are entirely separate. Bringing in the caveat shows that in their eyes, the two issues are somehow linked.

AKA these Jews are the wrong sort of Jew. I found that link on the Jewish Voice for Labour Twitter page. They are a group that actively fights anti-Semitism. They are probably also the wrong sort of Jews.

They're just not the people I'd rely on to create the most relevant definition. You want a definition of antisemitism? Ask the organisation whose prime responsibility it is to fight it. You should know you'll never get 100% agreement from any large group of people - you can find exceptions in any group.

What you've found is a list of groups who are already motivated towards a certain cause, trying to insert that cause into another one. That they share the same heritage is of no relevance. If there's a group of the size and profile of the IHRA whose primary goal is fighting antisemitism and who don't have the ulterior motive of fighting the Israeli government's foreign policy, who disagree with the definition - let's talk about them.

 

[scaramanga]

As a side note, it's interesting to see that the BBC completely failed to pick up on the story of Corbyn being accused by Hodge of being an antisemite, but they're front and centre on the story of action being taken with her.

 

[the dza]

I've seen a few anti-racism policies in my time. I've signed them for companies I've worked for, associations I've joined, I've approved one or two for my own businesses and even helped write one when I worked in Compliance.

I have never once seen a need for, or a policy with any such caveat as the one insisted upon by Labour supporters. There's just no need for it, the two issues are entirely separate. Bringing in the caveat shows that in their eyes, the two issues are somehow linked.

So let's say Labour take the definition as is (despite those unworthy Jewish groups also being against it, for the reason that they feel it conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism). And then someone in the Labour Party (likely on the left) makes a legitimate criticism of Israel. What will happen? The people in the party against Corbyn will start foaming at the mouth, calling for action against those members because "well, we as a party have accepted the definition as written! This IS anti-Semitism!" So then they have to turf out members for no good reason or, not take action against them and have the faux outrage warriors (who are motivated primarily by being anti-Corbyn) dominating the next media cycle for Corbyn's failure to combat anti-Semitism.

They're just not the people I'd rely on to create the most relevant definition. You want a definition of antisemitism? Ask the organisation whose prime responsibility it is to fight it. You should know you'll never get 400% agreement from any large group of people - you can find exceptions in any group.

What you've found is a list of groups who are already motivated towards a certain cause, trying to insert that cause into another one. That they share the same heritage is of no relevance. If there's a group of the size and profile of the IHRA whose primary goal is fighting antisemitism and who don't have the ulterior motive of fighting the Israeli government's foreign policy, who disagree with the definition - let's talk about them.

I'll say it again, the wrong type of Jew. The only Jewish people allowed to be listened to are those who take any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism, and anyone who contradicts them, even if they are Jewish, are anti-Semites.

 

[the dza]

As a side note, it's interesting to see that the BBC completely failed to pick up on the story of Corbyn being accused by Hodge of being an antisemite, but they're front and centre on the story of action being taken with her.

It was on Newsnight, last night.

 

[scaramanga]

It was on Newsnight, last night.

Sorry, when I say "The BBC" I mean their website. I don't really watch TV.

 

[the dza]

Sorry, when I say "The BBC" I mean their website. I don't really watch TV.

Says it right there on the bbc news website, front page: "Labour takes action against MP Hodge: "Dame Margaret Hodge is reported to have called Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitic'."