Which of the Cambridge Five spies was your favourite?

[6EQUJ5]

Burgess?
Blunt?
Philby?
McLean?
Cairncross?

[griff]

Frank! FRANK!

[Psaw]

Like Liverpool or Manchester, Cambridge is disgustingly left wing. Unlike the rest of Anglia which is true blue. At the local fair, it has " rebel radio" blaring out, and a booth where you can throw darts at a board with pictures of Margaret Thatcher.

I went up to the woman and told her i vote conservative. Her shock was profound. Thats how bad things are. Socialists are stuck at the A nal stage of development, crying, stomping, victims, wanting it there way, paranoid, delusional, tantrummy, screaming, hateful, and power mad. They have sold their souls to the devil.

Does that describe you? I hope not.

[griff]

I’d have taken the darts

[Kessler]

Like Liverpool or Manchester, Cambridge is disgustingly left wing. Unlike the rest of Anglia which is true blue. At the local fair, it has " rebel radio" blaring out, and a booth where you can throw darts at a board with pictures of Margaret Thatcher.

I went up to the woman and told her i vote conservative. Her shock was profound. Thats how bad things are. Socialists are stuck at the A nal stage of development, crying, stomping, victims, wanting it there way, paranoid, delusional, tantrummy, screaming, hateful, and power mad. They have sold their souls to the devil.

Does that describe you? I hope not.

I'm a socialist and I reject everything you've said there. Most of us just want to be paid a fair wage for the work we do. That doesn't mean everyone being paid exactly the same. I'm against communism as I support the general principle that people who take more risks or work more, deserve a bit more pay. The thing is, I think there should be a balance. They can get paid more, but not so much more that there's hardly anything left for everyone else. I feel that is a bit unbalanced right now. I take the view that if you are in employment, you should be paid enough to be able to live comfortably and never struggle. Someone has to serve you your coffee, someone has to clean the toilets. It might be unskilled work but you (not just you personall but all of us in society) benefit from those jobs being done. So in return, I think we should ensure they are paid enough that they aren't struggling. I appreciate you may have a different take on this but your generalization on socialists is simply incorrect.

I think Thatcher caused a lot of unnecessary suffering with her policies but I don't agree with throwing darts at her picture.

[Psaw]

Britain is socialist, thats why every one wants to come here. If you are poor, you get free housing, free health care, you dont pay income tax below a certain level, free school meals, food banks, benefits of all descriptions, ETC.

And its still not enough.

The problem is that the poor think that the state should also pay for tobacco, gambling, mobiles, alcohol, holidays......

Its not about that though is it. Its about the communists, like the BBC and Labour undermining a free society. A free society to be rich or poor, you decide, thats freedom.

You really will be POOR under a Labour government. It will bankrupt the country to be replaced by Marxism, we are all in trouble then. You could substitute Marxism for the Nazis.

I see people like you being fooled into thinking its about the rich and poor, it is not. There are no genuinely poor people here, and if there are, its not the governments fault.

As for Thatcher, lets leave that alone, you wont get it. She took on the communists, etc,

AND WON. Without her this country would be in big big trouble. I could explain it, shall i ?

Nah. You find out.

[Kessler]

Britain is socialist, thats why every one wants to come here. If you are poor, you get free housing, free health care, you dont pay income tax below a certain level, free school meals, food banks, benefits of all descriptions, ETC.

And its still not enough.

The problem is that the poor think that the state should also pay for tobacco, gambling, mobiles, alcohol, holidays......

Ok so the point you're making there is basically that benefits should be restricted to essentials? I see where you're coming from, as I agree the state shouldn't fund holidays etc. But at the same time, I think there should be a little bit left over for small treats. You talk about freedom, but it seems you want to deny people on benefits the freedom to enjoy life, instead only having the bare minimum to survive and nothing more. In my view, that's inhumane. I'm not saying they should have a life of luxury funded by the taxpayer, but I think they should have a little bit to treat themselves now and then. Not just because that's more humane, but because I think there's been studies or at least theories that having a bit of normality in their life improves their mental health and makes them more likely to find work.

You really will be POOR under a Labour government. It will bankrupt the country to be replaced by Marxism, we are all in trouble then. You could substitute Marxism for the Nazis

I disagree. I think the vast majority of people would be better off under a socialist government. Certainly anyone who earns less than £80k would be substantially better off than they are now. There wouldn't be many billionaires but I am of the opinion that nobody needs that amount of money anyway, not when it can be put to better use improving everyones life. That doesn't mean I think we should seize everything business and impoverish those who built them up. What I would do is implement a maximum wage and maximum wealth cap of around £100 million. Anything above that would be taken by the state and used to improve the lives of the less well off.

By the way, when griff said frank, are you franksidebottom from the other forum?

[Psaw]

Point A, If you want to make more money get an education. Those with money did. You can make money by living within your means. When you hit the black you can enjoy the fruits of life, but not to the extent of getting into debt. Britain is as close to communism as it gets, you can be poor and still live well.

Point B,

Im dont want to upset you but that is wronger and wronger. Anything above 80k will be taken by the state, and above 100 million.

Thats Nazism.

People who run successful businesses create wealth for everybody. You obviously dont remember the 60s and 70s, when income tax for the rich was 70 percent. Or was it higher.

You dont get how money generates money, money develops society, provides for the poor, the sick, social services etc, develops infrastructure like railways, research, trade, roads, etc.

Limiting profit limits everything. Im sure you have the idea of Sherlock running away with swag bags of money, to count it somewhere private. Money is re invested to make more money, more jobs, more cars more everything. To cure cancer, to develop a better mouse trap, to travel to the moon. etc.

The world revolves on it. Yet Labour want to destroy it. Every socialist government has failed, every time. You are young arnt you.? Money is the oil society runs on.

[Kessler]

I can see we won't agree frank so I'll leave it there. I think you are extremely naive in your view of the world though. It's all very well saying people shouldn't go into debt but many have no choice. They need to in order to make ends meet. That's how unfair our society is at the moment. Personally I don't begrudge the idea that people on benefits should have a little bit for luxuries now and then. In my view, the real scroungers are people like Philip Day and Mike Ashley.

We'll leave it there as I don't want to hijack many threads on here like I used to on the other one. Have a good day.

[griff]

No, Kessler, our Frank is a different Frank to the one on the other board. He thinks I’m a Communist. In fact, he thinks that everybody’s a Communist except him. You’ll learn.