I wrote exactly what I meant. Which is my views are closer to the heart of the traditional Conservative Party of my youth than yours are. That's the truth.

Not today's Tory Party, which is nothing like the one I admire, and not your type of "conservatism" which is way out on the extremes, beyond even the current mob, who are bad enough.

What do I believe in? Fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets and not living beyond your means. Hard work. Full employment. Rewarding enterprise. I also believe in a meritocracy and a society which protects the vulnerable but is intolerant of laziness. I believe in upholding the law and our values. In joining others in preserving peace and in helping other nations to grow, be healthy and happy.

I refuse to correct your slanders about my views on the grooming gangs again. I have done it countless times, but it makes no impression on you at all. I will just say, for the avoidance of any doubt, that these assertions are untrue. You revert to them whenever you run out of arguments and look for some mud to throw. It's pathetic.

So do the lazy also get a share of the wealth the left would gobble up and distribute amongst the masses.
There are plenty of high protectors of these type of people of which there are a great number.

I no more speak for the left than I do for the right, but I have never heard anyone of that persuasion suggesting we reward the lazy.

What's difficult is squaring the circle of ensuring, on the one hand, that the genuinely needy get protected, and ensuring that the scrounger doesn't. When it costs more resource to determine the absolutes than accept some errors, you end up with some cheats getting rewarded. That's not a left/right problem. It's just reality.

He just wasn't. That he worked for the Soviets didn't mean he was a communist at all. His avowed motivation was to destroy imperialism. Trace his life, and you will find no socialistic beliefs at all and several that indicate he was much closer to fascism.

[Link]

He was according to his wife.