The actual question Kuenssberg had asked during the interview was: "If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"
The previous question in the interview, in a section that was not used on the News At Six, he had been asked specifically about his response to a Paris-style attack if he was prime minister and whether he would "order security services onto the street to stop people being killed".
In answer to that question, Mr Corbyn had replied: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."
The retraction tucked away in entertainment and arts section
LK: "If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people - police or military - to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"
JC: "I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive."
LK: "If you were the resident here at Number 10, would you be happy for British officers to pull the trigger in the event of a Paris-style attack?"
JC: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society."
That bottom answer evades the question in my opinion. Is there a video? Maybe I need to hear it to properly digest how he's saying it, maybe I'm reading it wrong as such.
Cheers for the link once again, as I thought though, to me he avoids the question as such, he says of course he'd bring people onto the street to prevent it but he doesn't say 'I will stand by the shoot to kill policy' or something to that effect so, hopefully, you can understand my scepticism
Chuming up with Hamas and the IRA must trump being homophobic in '80's Britain surely, specially considering Ruth Davidson and Justine Greening are gay and if we must compare
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
MI5 were concerned enough to have a file on him and now it's possible he could be PM in 4 days
Corbyn wanted talks with the IRA because he wanted to help the peace process and to reduce as much bloodshed as possible.
May went out of her way to demonize children due to their orientation because she was following a hard-right agenda and thinks the government ought to be interfering in what are manifestly private matters, an attitude she still appears to hold given her policies on data collection and internet use monitoring.
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
MI5 were concerned enough to have a file on him and now it's possible he could be PM in 4 days
MI5 had files on half the trade union movement and most of them illegal.
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
MI5 were concerned enough to have a file on him and now it's possible he could be PM in 4 days
That means absolutely nothing - Peace was obtained because politicians did what many would have said was unthinkable - talk to the IRA. It would not have been a popular approach for quite a few on here and MI5 in the past, but it was proven to be the correct approach.
We teach history in our schools where it is all about remembering dates - learning from it seems to be secondary. We should all try to learn from history.
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
MI5 were concerned enough to have a file on him and now it's possible he could be PM in 4 days
You again fail to mention his meetings with UVF terrorists, why would that be?
Chuming up with Hamas and the IRA must trump being homophobic in '80's Britain surely, specially considering Ruth Davidson and Justine Greening are gay and if we must compare
Many people just can't get it out of their heads that you cant spend what you don't have. But America has been in deficit since before the 1860s, 60m dollars in 1860 and around 440 bn today. Not having a deficit is intuitive and logical as it mainly applies to household finances. But it does not apply to government spending. America is far richer today then it was in 1860. The argument that you can't spend what you don't have says this can't be.
To simplify try to imagine a world in which there is no government and no foreign countries. All economic activity would take place domestically and be carried out by our private sector firms and households. As a group, they would earn what they spent. If all firms and households spent £1000, then–because one of them was standing on the other side of the till for each of these transactions– firms and households would earn £1000. It is logically impossible for them, as a group (though not as individuals), to spend more or less than what they earned–the values must be identical because it’s really double-entry bookkeeping. Every transaction that takes place is both spending (for the person buying something) and income (for the person selling something).
Now let's create a government. It is only at this point that it becomes possible for one sector (private or government) to spend more than they earned or earn more than they spent. For example, say over its first year in existence, the government takes in £100 in tax revenues but doesn’t spend any of it. You might have something like this:
Government Budget Surplus and Private Sector Deficit Private Government Total Income £1000 £100 £1100 Spending £1100 £0 £1100 Balance -£100 +£100 £0
In this case, the private sector spent £1000 on the goods and services it created (which is what created the £1000 in income for them), plus they spent £100 for taxes. The government, meanwhile, earned £100 in income (via taxes), but spent nothing. The government budget is thus surplus, while the private sector has gone into debt–by the exact same amount, of course. It is impossible for it to work out any other way. The balances must add to zero because, as the last column indicates, total spending must equal total income in a closed system. And with the government in surplus, the private sector goes into debt.
On the other hand, look at what happens when the government spends in deficit:
Government Budget Deficit and Private Sector Surplus Private Government Total Income £1100 £0 £1100 Spending £1000 £100 £1100 Balance +£100 -£100 £0
Now it is the private sector that gets the surplus! In this scenario, the government has collected no taxes, but spent £100 on goods and services produced by the private sector. This creates enough income for the private sector for them to actually save money rather than go into debt.
What the above means is this: government deficits create private sector wealth, while government surpluses drain it. This is the clear maths not trickery. When the government spends in deficit, it does so by putting financial assets, usually in the form of Treasury bills, in the hands of the public; when it spends in surplus, the net quantity of Treasury bills held by the public declines. Thus, government deficits create the extra demand necessary.
This is not an example to show why governments should not collect taxes - of course they should, but rather why increasing the deficit in the right way is not the issue some politicians would have you believe.
The problem is, despite this simplification, it is still a bit long and more complicated than you can't spend what you don't have - it takes less than 10 seconds to say that and makes you feel smart because a lot of supposedly clever people including the top economists in the world, don't get it! How can anybody explain this when you are only ever allowed 30 seconds to answer questions as is the case in our election contests - better to trip politicians up for not knowing the price of milk!
I think Keynes was making this point when he explained about digging holes and filling them in, but of course it is better to spend money on things that benefit us, and Keynes would have said that too.
I'm disapointed nobody has tried to pick holes in this. Especially as I took a while to write it - grateful if somebody could do better than me and explain the same principle but shorter! I believe a vote for Corbyn would result in a fairer and more prosperous economy. As a small buisness owner and capitalist, the prosperous bit is extremely important to me.
I rung the number as a joke and I have inadvertantly booked a May, Farage and Johnson gang bang starting at mine in 30 minutes. Fortunately the pig was sick so Cameron wasn't available!
I rung the number as a joke and I have inadvertantly booked a May, Farage and Johnson gang bang starting at mine in 30 minutes. Fortunaely the pig was sick so Cameron wasn't available!
I watched that film Legend last night. Sounds like the kind of party Ronnie Kray would go to
Corbyn has never chummed up with the IRA - he is a pacifist and the IRA was an organisation which was all about death and violence. The peace process - the reason we don't have regular IRA terrorist attacks on our land anymore, was brought about because politicians were willing to hold their noses and talk. If you want to argue against that stance, you are arguing against history.
MI5 were concerned enough to have a file on him and now it's possible he could be PM in 4 days
You again fail to mention his meetings with UVF terrorists, why would that be?
Can you post a link to show evidence of this? First time I've seen anywhere he spoke to loyalists
#1 trending video on YouTube: Amber Rudd shuts down my speech about arms sales to Saudi Arabia
"At a hustings in Rye on 3 June, where I am standing as an independent anti-corruption parliamentary candidate, a question was asked about law & order. Home Secretary Amber Rudd, in answering it referred to the Manchester terrorist attack. I took up the theme and referred to UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia & HSBC business there. She spoke to and handed a note to the chairman who removed the mic from me."
Comments
Corbyn wanted talks with the IRA because he wanted to help the peace process and to reduce as much bloodshed as possible.
May went out of her way to demonize children due to their orientation because she was following a hard-right agenda and thinks the government ought to be interfering in what are manifestly private matters, an attitude she still appears to hold given her policies on data collection and internet use monitoring.
We teach history in our schools where it is all about remembering dates - learning from it seems to be secondary. We should all try to learn from history.
From a party that doesn't like to spend money.
LOL Freudian slip of the year.
Only leader talking about the real elephant in the room, our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
"At a hustings in Rye on 3 June, where I am standing as an independent anti-corruption parliamentary candidate, a question was asked about law & order. Home Secretary Amber Rudd, in answering it referred to the Manchester terrorist attack. I took up the theme and referred to UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia & HSBC business there. She spoke to and handed a note to the chairman who removed the mic from me."