Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First Winfrey – Trump polling has Oprah 10 points ahead

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First Winfrey – Trump polling has Oprah 10 points ahead

Boondocks

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    edited January 10
    First?

    Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843
    Second!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    This is name recognition. What does she think the rate of Federal taxes should be, what is her immigration policy, how much focus should be on infrastructure spending, should the Cities be getting more or less help from the Federal government, what can be done to improve education and the trade balance?

    Oprah seems a clever lady and she may well answer these and other questions well and articulately but at the moment we don't even know if her answers would make her a republican or a democrat. I understand that she has given some money to some members of the Democratic party over the years. But what does she think herself? We don't know yet.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,512
    DavidL said:

    First?

    Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.

    If you charged your hourly rate to PB it would, I'm sure, bankrupt the site.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.

    If you charged your hourly rate to PB it would, I'm sure, bankrupt the site.
    LOL. I am relieved to say my wife laughed too!
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,249
    DavidL said:

    This is name recognition. What does she think the rate of Federal taxes should be, what is her immigration policy, how much focus should be on infrastructure spending, should the Cities be getting more or less help from the Federal government, what can be done to improve education and the trade balance?

    Oprah seems a clever lady and she may well answer these and other questions well and articulately but at the moment we don't even know if her answers would make her a republican or a democrat. I understand that she has given some money to some members of the Democratic party over the years. But what does she think herself? We don't know yet.

    I know what you are saying but Trump got elected with no detailed policy statements -- and one problem even his Republican opponents had was that anything that looked like a policy was subject to denial or reversal in the next morning's twitter-storm.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361
    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    I think she stopped her chat show in 2011.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,311
    Remember the pizza guy:

    On September 24, 2011, Cain won a surprise victory in a Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, with 37 percent of the 2,657 votes cast. The front-runner Rick Perry, who had been leading in the polls, came in second with 15 percent.[30] Continuing with his success, on October 1, 2011 Cain won the TeaCon Midwest straw poll by a landslide with 77% of the vote.[31] Cain also won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll by a wide margin with 48.9%. The nearest contender was Rick Perry with 14.1%, followed closely by Mitt Romney with 13.3% and Newt Gingrich with 12.5%.[32] Of the delegates voting, 80% said they were satisfied with the field of candidates; asked whether they identified with the Tea Party, about half said yes and half said no.[33] A Fox News poll administered on October 23–25, showed Cain as the front-runner receiving 24%, and Mitt Romney coming in at second place with 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361

    DavidL said:

    This is name recognition. What does she think the rate of Federal taxes should be, what is her immigration policy, how much focus should be on infrastructure spending, should the Cities be getting more or less help from the Federal government, what can be done to improve education and the trade balance?

    Oprah seems a clever lady and she may well answer these and other questions well and articulately but at the moment we don't even know if her answers would make her a republican or a democrat. I understand that she has given some money to some members of the Democratic party over the years. But what does she think herself? We don't know yet.

    I know what you are saying but Trump got elected with no detailed policy statements -- and one problem even his Republican opponents had was that anything that looked like a policy was subject to denial or reversal in the next morning's twitter-storm.
    That's true and it was far from clear whether he was a Democrat or Republican too. Presidential politics are different and name recognition is important (as is having very large piles of cash). I am not ruling her out. We just have no idea what she would want yet.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    edited January 10
    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553
  • MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    Likely lose most Councils in short time
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361

    Remember the pizza guy:

    On September 24, 2011, Cain won a surprise victory in a Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, with 37 percent of the 2,657 votes cast. The front-runner Rick Perry, who had been leading in the polls, came in second with 15 percent.[30] Continuing with his success, on October 1, 2011 Cain won the TeaCon Midwest straw poll by a landslide with 77% of the vote.[31] Cain also won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll by a wide margin with 48.9%. The nearest contender was Rick Perry with 14.1%, followed closely by Mitt Romney with 13.3% and Newt Gingrich with 12.5%.[32] Of the delegates voting, 80% said they were satisfied with the field of candidates; asked whether they identified with the Tea Party, about half said yes and half said no.[33] A Fox News poll administered on October 23–25, showed Cain as the front-runner receiving 24%, and Mitt Romney coming in at second place with 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012

    Nothing will ever beat Rick Perry and the Dope diamond: https://www.mrctv.org/videos/jon-stewart-revels-rick-perrys-dope-diamond-moment
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf
  • MJWMJW Posts: 317
    Quite surprised it's not higher - although the large number of Democrats saying they're undecided or going Trump is a bit suspicious.

    I can actually see the Oprah speculation harming Democrats - it weakens their argument that Trump is an appalling aberration, not just because of his views but because you need a political expert. If she does run, slagging her off is effectively slagging off your own base. If she doesn't, no one will measure up to what might have been - especially if the candidate is male and pale.
  • MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    Likely lose most Councils in short time
    Council tax is devolved in Wales and Income tax from 2019 so irrelevant to us.

    However, as Scotland and Wales have their powers of tax devolved Corbyn may have to set rates that compete with the devolved powers or lose business to them
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,362
    That looks like Trump’s base number. Oprah’s looks very low. He’d win.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,400
    FPT:

    I'd fancy Labour to have at least two terms if they got in the at the next election.

    The Autumn and Spring terms?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,512
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.

    If you charged your hourly rate to PB it would, I'm sure, bankrupt the site.
    LOL. I am relieved to say my wife laughed too!
    I like the story of the lawyer who on his demise was told at the Pearly gate that he'd had an amazing life living for 166 years.

    He responded: "How did you work that out"

    St Peter: "We added up all the time in your life-time that you charged to clients"
  • MJWMJW Posts: 317

    Remember the pizza guy:

    On September 24, 2011, Cain won a surprise victory in a Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, with 37 percent of the 2,657 votes cast. The front-runner Rick Perry, who had been leading in the polls, came in second with 15 percent.[30] Continuing with his success, on October 1, 2011 Cain won the TeaCon Midwest straw poll by a landslide with 77% of the vote.[31] Cain also won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll by a wide margin with 48.9%. The nearest contender was Rick Perry with 14.1%, followed closely by Mitt Romney with 13.3% and Newt Gingrich with 12.5%.[32] Of the delegates voting, 80% said they were satisfied with the field of candidates; asked whether they identified with the Tea Party, about half said yes and half said no.[33] A Fox News poll administered on October 23–25, showed Cain as the front-runner receiving 24%, and Mitt Romney coming in at second place with 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012

    Nine, nine nine.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
  • FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Oprah should keep out of politics. The democrats need a Macron style candidate with political experience.

    Trump is a disaster but a luvvie could be just as bad
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,309
    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,470

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.

    If you charged your hourly rate to PB it would, I'm sure, bankrupt the site.
    LOL. I am relieved to say my wife laughed too!
    I like the story of the lawyer who on his demise was told at the Pearly gate that he'd had an amazing life living for 166 years.

    He responded: "How did you work that out"

    St Peter: "We added up all the time in your life-time that you charged to clients"
    Surely his reply was that he was just four on the basis that was how much the client had actually paid for
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,361

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    First?

    Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.

    If you charged your hourly rate to PB it would, I'm sure, bankrupt the site.
    LOL. I am relieved to say my wife laughed too!
    I like the story of the lawyer who on his demise was told at the Pearly gate that he'd had an amazing life living for 166 years.

    He responded: "How did you work that out"

    St Peter: "We added up all the time in your life-time that you charged to clients"
    Unkind. When I was a solicitor I used to record time in 5 minute units. In the morning, doing the mail etc, I used to find I was moving an hour or so ahead of "real" time. But by the time I went home my time sheet showed me being there slightly less long than I actually had been.

    Of course, this was in the days before PB. Thankfully at the bar we don't worry about time recording too much.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
    Yes but that is my point. A ten point lead in the polls the day after a high profile speech would almost certainly not be a 10 point lead after a gruelling election campaign.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    edited January 10
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
    Yes but that is my point. A ten point lead in the polls the day after a high profile speech would almost certainly not be a 10 point lead after a gruelling election campaign.
    That depends on whether Trump has improved his rating or not, at present he is headed to be the first one term, non former VP President since Carter regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Though Biden would probably be almost certain to beat him regardless
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    This is why Corbyn is so dishonest. He is having us believe that apart from the rich, there will be no tax rises affecting ordinary people to pay for his bottomless pit of election promises and expectations. He is basically lying when he says that he will fund a 1960s type spending spree on post Thatcherite levels of income tax. That he will spend vast amounts on revenue no greater than that available to Blair and Brown. Corbyn would either have to substantially increase tax on ordinary people, or abandon his promises and let millions down. Either way, it would make him unpopular.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Oprah should keep out of politics. The democrats need a Macron style candidate with political experience.

    Trump is a disaster but a luvvie could be just as bad
    They need a candidate to win the rustbelt to beat Trump, not another Macron
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
    Yes but that is my point. A ten point lead in the polls the day after a high profile speech would almost certainly not be a 10 point lead after a gruelling election campaign.
    That depends on whether Trump has improved his rating or not, at present he is headed to be the first one term, non former VP President since Carter regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Though Biden would probably be almost certain to beat him regardless
    If Trump will be defeated no matter who the Democrat candidate, then why bother with Oprah? There are better potential Democrat candidates than her, experienced politicians.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,536
    A cartoonist could do something with this:

    https://tinyurl.com/yaz5g8nn
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    edited January 10
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT:

    I'd fancy Labour to have at least two terms if they got in the at the next election.

    The Autumn and Spring terms?
    A Corbyn government would likely be so useless and could well hit the economy so badly it would be the first one term government since the Heath and Wilson/Callaghan governments.

    It took Thatcher to tame the unions and inflation and Blair to show Labour could run the economy, Corbyn could reverse both their achievememts
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,400

    Remember the pizza guy:

    On September 24, 2011, Cain won a surprise victory in a Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, with 37 percent of the 2,657 votes cast. The front-runner Rick Perry, who had been leading in the polls, came in second with 15 percent.[30] Continuing with his success, on October 1, 2011 Cain won the TeaCon Midwest straw poll by a landslide with 77% of the vote.[31] Cain also won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll by a wide margin with 48.9%. The nearest contender was Rick Perry with 14.1%, followed closely by Mitt Romney with 13.3% and Newt Gingrich with 12.5%.[32] Of the delegates voting, 80% said they were satisfied with the field of candidates; asked whether they identified with the Tea Party, about half said yes and half said no.[33] A Fox News poll administered on October 23–25, showed Cain as the front-runner receiving 24%, and Mitt Romney coming in at second place with 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012

    He also had possibly the greatest advert in the history of political campaigns:

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
    Yes but that is my point. A ten point lead in the polls the day after a high profile speech would almost certainly not be a 10 point lead after a gruelling election campaign.
    OTOH it's a 10% lead when she hasn't even declared an interest in standing. She would need to make a manifesto for herself, what she stood for and how she would look after the interests of Middle America. She has at least shown she can turn out a good political speech - something that both Obama and Bill Clinton were masters of.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
    Yes but that is my point. A ten point lead in the polls the day after a high profile speech would almost certainly not be a 10 point lead after a gruelling election campaign.
    That depends on whether Trump has improved his rating or not, at present he is headed to be the first one term, non former VP President since Carter regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Though Biden would probably be almost certain to beat him regardless
    If Trump will be defeated no matter who the Democrat candidate, then why bother with Oprah? There are better potential Democrat candidates than her, experienced politicians.
    Biden would be better than Oprah, I agree, maybe Bernie too
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    HYUFD said:

    stevef said:

    A popular high profile TV star like Oprah Winfrey, and she's only 10 points ahead of Trump? Goodness. That would collapse in an election campaign. I'd stick to chat shows if I were her.

    A 10 point win would be the biggest presidential popular vote win since 1984. However Oprah's lead is roughly where most Democratic contenders are now, a little higher than Warren's lead over Trump, a little lower than Biden and Sanders lead over Trump
    Yes but that is my point. A ten point lead in the polls the day after a high profile speech would almost certainly not be a 10 point lead after a gruelling election campaign.
    That depends on whether Trump has improved his rating or not, at present he is headed to be the first one term, non former VP President since Carter regardless of who the Democrats nominate. Though Biden would probably be almost certain to beat him regardless
    If Trump will be defeated no matter who the Democrat candidate, then why bother with Oprah? There are better potential Democrat candidates than her, experienced politicians.
    That's what Hillary Clinton said, with total justification. Fat lot of good it did her. I agree with you on the stats, however.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 900

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Perhaps - but they might not have to pay £100,000 plus a year for their social care when they need it?

    The Mayor of London's proposed council tax increase to fund police and fire services for the entire year in April is less than a frail elderly person pays in every borough for just one hour of home care from a home help which in reality ends up being less than 30 minutes.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    edited January 10

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 591
    stevef said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    This is why Corbyn is so dishonest. He is having us believe that apart from the rich, there will be no tax rises affecting ordinary people to pay for his bottomless pit of election promises and expectations. He is basically lying when he says that he will fund a 1960s type spending spree on post Thatcherite levels of income tax. That he will spend vast amounts on revenue no greater than that available to Blair and Brown. Corbyn would either have to substantially increase tax on ordinary people, or abandon his promises and let millions down. Either way, it would make him unpopular.
    An old work acquaintance of mine who was a die hard Labour supporter and member told me 'All Labour governments fail' and he was correct. Indeed it is not just Labour who fail but any political party that holds office will fail. Whether it is boredom, bonking or budget crisis something always causes supporters to become disillusioned with a party in sufficient numbers to cause a change in government. Nothing new in this. Labour spend more and the Tories usually cut spending (Not necessarily absolutely but constrain its growth and lower spending/ government activity to GDP).

    The 2017 election shows that a massive pressure is building up for more government spending, when the tide goes out for the Tories it will be interesting to see how far the tide goes out this time....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    We all know that.

    If the Tories have any sense they should be all over this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018
    Ah, and so all those who pressed for a clear answer from him were perfectly right to do so, whatever their motivation may have been.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    edited January 10

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
    Confirmation bias? What I mean is that Oprah Winfrey represents optimism while Trump represents cynicism. That's not a partisan statement.

    Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.

    Edit. Blue-collar Americans voted for Trump despite thinking him a nasty bit of work because they perceived him as a can-do businessman who would sort things out. They were wrong, which is why it will be difficult for him to win again.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,077
    FPT:

    DavidL said:

    [snip]

    Those who think that Labour cuould not do very serious damage to our economy, our public services and our standard of living in a short time are underestimating the underlying weaknesses in our economy to a dangerous extent.

    Exactly right. And we're not talking about a reasonably sensible potential Labour Chancellor along the lines of Alastair Darling or Ed Balls, who might spend more than is wise but who are not totally out with the fairies. We are talking about Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, egged on by Seamas Milne and Jon Lansman. That is another league of destructiveness altogether.
    I'm struggling to see how Labour's policies could be more malign than Brexit.
    I sincerely hope you don't have to find out the hard way.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Corbynite. But dedicated Conservatives seem determined to underestimate just how much damage they are doing to the country at present. So throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of a Labour government isn't the slam dunk they think it is.
    +1. This reminds of Cleverly actually. He seems to think the Tories issue is that they weren’t combative enough when actually the Tory Press has spent the last two years really criticising Corbyn.
    Cleverly said he cannot understand how anyone of African heritage can support the EU. Just imagine the Tory reaction if Diane Abbott had said the same thing.
    Oh yeah, I remember that comment. Tbh I find him very abrasive. The likes of Boles, Halfon understand the issues the Tories face more so than some of the other Tory MPs from the newer intakes. Halfon’s article in the Times on Young was on the money.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
    Confirmation bias? What I mean is that Oprah Winfrey represents optimism while Trump represents cynicism. That's not a partisan statement.

    Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.
    No need for the Dr Ben Carson's of the world with Trump in office.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018
    MJW said:

    Remember the pizza guy:

    On September 24, 2011, Cain won a surprise victory in a Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, with 37 percent of the 2,657 votes cast. The front-runner Rick Perry, who had been leading in the polls, came in second with 15 percent.[30] Continuing with his success, on October 1, 2011 Cain won the TeaCon Midwest straw poll by a landslide with 77% of the vote.[31] Cain also won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll by a wide margin with 48.9%. The nearest contender was Rick Perry with 14.1%, followed closely by Mitt Romney with 13.3% and Newt Gingrich with 12.5%.[32] Of the delegates voting, 80% said they were satisfied with the field of candidates; asked whether they identified with the Tea Party, about half said yes and half said no.[33] A Fox News poll administered on October 23–25, showed Cain as the front-runner receiving 24%, and Mitt Romney coming in at second place with 20%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012

    Nine, nine nine.
    He quoted lyrics from a song in the first Pokemon movie, openly, when closing his campaign. That is awesome.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 591
    edited January 10
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    It depends on who it affects, I suspect most Labour supporters live in Band A, B or C and so why are they going to be put off voting Labour? The higher bands may have some Labour supporters in them but they will vote Labour in spite of this policy. I suspect given younger age groups support Labour more than older voters Bands A, B, C will be the beneficiary. It could indeed be argued that Band A, B and C are more likely to be swing voters as well as D+ will be older and more Conservative in voting posture. I don't think this is as dumb as first perceived and I have to wonder looking at your comment whether it is personally driven by anxiety!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,796
    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    Someone has a sense of humour: a tax-freeze for the Anyone But Corbyn's.......
  • MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    I read that labour in Bristol intend applying those increases this year.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    It depends on who it affects, I suspect most Labour supporters live in Band A, B or C and so why are they going to be put off voting Labour? The higher bands may have some Labour supporters in them but they will vote Labour in spite of this policy. I suspect given younger age groups support Labour more than old Bands A, B, C will be the beneficiary. It could indeed be argued that Band A, B and C are more likely to be swing voters as well as D+ will be older and more Conservative in voting posture. I don't think this is as dumb as first perceived and I have to wonder looking at your comment whether it is personally drive anxiety!
    A large section of the increase in Labour's vote in 2017 came from the A/B social group -the very people whose Council Tax would rise substantially. If they abandon Labour because of fear of higher taxes, Corbyn will be stuffed.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
    Confirmation bias? What I mean is that Oprah Winfrey represents optimism while Trump represents cynicism. That's not a partisan statement.

    Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.

    Edit. Blue-collar Americans voted for Trump despite thinking him a nasty bit of work because they perceived him as a can-do businessman who would sort things out. They were wrong, which is why it will be difficult for him to win again.
    If Blue Collar wages continue to rise during Trump's term, why would they not vote for him again?
  • FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    May is under attack from both sides in Brexit, one who fears a hard Brexit, the other a soft Brexit.

    She has many flaws but at present there is no other choice
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 900
    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    Well we have choices to make. Police cuts, elderly care cuts, fire cuts, children's services cuts and more - or higher council tax. What do people value more?

    I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.

    Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.
    It's something that does seem to be more common over the past few years. I don't doubt that when UC starts to bite support will evaporate, but in general being tough on welfare is not an automatic turn off.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
    Also, the Conservative Party itself is quite well-regarded.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
    Interesting: "
    • And Theresa May’s reputation is much weaker than the reputation of the Conservative Party – suggesting that a new leader could change the dynamic considerably"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    Trump has immense flaws, but he did work out that there was a path to victory that didn't require a battle of attrition in Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018
    brendan16 said:

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    Well we have choices to make. Police cuts, elderly care cuts, fire cuts, children's services cuts and more - or higher council tax. What do people value more?

    I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.

    Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
    Yes it does, but at the moment we still mostly reward those who promise both together - parties may make the occasional noise about being more realistic with people about the tough choices, but does it help them? Even if they dare do so, their opponents will simply say they can deliver without such cost, or that the proposer is too incompetent to manage it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,133

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    It depends on who it affects, I suspect most Labour supporters live in Band A, B or C and so why are they going to be put off voting Labour? The higher bands may have some Labour supporters in them but they will vote Labour in spite of this policy. I suspect given younger age groups support Labour more than older voters Bands A, B, C will be the beneficiary. It could indeed be argued that Band A, B and C are more likely to be swing voters as well as D+ will be older and more Conservative in voting posture. I don't think this is as dumb as first perceived and I have to wonder looking at your comment whether it is personally driven by anxiety!

    According to Chris Williamson they know that they would have get this past local referenda. Also I thought that the relationship between the bands was fixed by law so I don't think this can be introduced without there being primary legislation first.

    But in answer to this - "I suspect most Labour supporters live in Band A, B or C and so why are they going to be put off voting Labour? " - it is possible that they may fear that the tax increases will not be limited to the better off but will inevitably end up hitting them. They may also worry that it places a limit on their aspirations.

    I don't know whether this will be the case. I just raise it as a possibility.

    The issue for Labour is that it would not take many voters who might have voted Labour not to do so for them to fail to win a majority. So even if something like this only changes a relatively small number of votes it might be enough to deny them victory.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    brendan16 said:

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    Well we have choices to make. Police cuts, elderly care cuts, fire cuts, children's services cuts and more - or higher council tax. What do people value more?

    I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.

    Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,641
    edited January 10
    Sean_F said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    Trump has immense flaws, but he did work out that there was a path to victory that didn't require a battle of attrition in Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado.
    I don't think that he did have that plan. Corbyn did the same, having mass rallies of adoring fans to create a buzz, feeding them what they want to hear, never mind the detail. The nationwide buzz then carries into the marginals and swing voters.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,382
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
    Confirmation bias? What I mean is that Oprah Winfrey represents optimism while Trump represents cynicism. That's not a partisan statement.

    Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.

    Edit. Blue-collar Americans voted for Trump despite thinking him a nasty bit of work because they perceived him as a can-do businessman who would sort things out. They were wrong, which is why it will be difficult for him to win again.
    I know you're not seeing this, but you're displaying confirmation bias in your response there.

    Never mind.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    Sanders may well have won the rustbelt
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,088

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
    Confirmation bias? What I mean is that Oprah Winfrey represents optimism while Trump represents cynicism. That's not a partisan statement.

    Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.

    Edit. Blue-collar Americans voted for Trump despite thinking him a nasty bit of work because they perceived him as a can-do businessman who would sort things out. They were wrong, which is why it will be difficult for him to win again.
    I know you're not seeing this, but you're displaying confirmation bias in your response there.

    Never mind.
    This is a good article which counter's FF43's final point:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/26/to-beat-president-trump-you-have-to-learn-to-think-like-his-supporters/

    Normal politicians collapse in the face of scandal because it shows them dozing on the job or falling short of their promises. To get elected, they offer a bargain: “Vote for me. I will make you richer/fight for your rights/assure your progress.” Scandals reveal that they can’t do that, and thus, they tumble. However, like all populists, Trump offered a much different deal: “Vote for me. I will destroy your enemies. They are the reason you are not rich/have fewer rights/America is not great anymore.” Scandal is the populist’s natural element for the same reason that demolishing buildings makes more noise than constructing them. His supporters didn’t vote for silence. They voted for a bang.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    Well we have choices to make. Police cuts, elderly care cuts, fire cuts, children's services cuts and more - or higher council tax. What do people value more?

    I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.

    Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.
    Plus national insurance but there is a limit to how much of their wage packet people will see lost in taxes, especially with wage rises still relatively low
  • BBC reporting Catherine Deneuve is one of 100 Fench women to sign an open letter defending the right for men to flirt and #MeToo is creating a new wave of puritanical women
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
    Interesting: "
    • And Theresa May’s reputation is much weaker than the reputation of the Conservative Party – suggesting that a new leader could change the dynamic considerably"
    May's own poll ratings are not good (in the mid thirties) but they're not unusually bad either. They're not comparable to the kinds of ratings John Major had in 1993-97, or Gordon Brown in 2008-10.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018
    Sean_F said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    Trump has immense flaws, but he did work out that there was a path to victory that didn't require a battle of attrition in Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado.
    Worked out a path or got lucky that there was a path? Or a bit of both?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
    Also, the Conservative Party itself is quite well-regarded.
    As is the royal family
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,672
    edited January 10
    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    Well we have choices to make. Police cuts, elderly care cuts, fire cuts, children's services cuts and more - or higher council tax. What do people value more?

    I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.

    Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.
    As I commented previously Corbyn has no say over Council Tax in Wales now or Income Tax from 2019

    So it is an English issue and he will lose huge parts of middle England if he proposes higher council tax, indeed it could be his dementia tax
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
    The focus was really housing benefit with some getting big houses on benefits.

    Though interestingly homelessness was also a big concern, so it was not opposition to welfare per se as much as excessive benefits paid from their taxes
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,077
    edited January 10
    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    BritainThinks focus grouped

    Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.

    Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc

    At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.

    http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf

    Jesus. That's awful for May.
    Interesting though how right-wing some young people are on welfare. They just want their hard work fairly rewarded.

    I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
    Interesting: "
    • And Theresa May’s reputation is much weaker than the reputation of the Conservative Party – suggesting that a new leader could change the dynamic considerably"
    May's own poll ratings are not good (in the mid thirties) but they're not unusually bad either. They're not comparable to the kinds of ratings John Major had in 1993-97, or Gordon Brown in 2008-10.
    Neither are Corbyn's ratings as good as Blair or Cameron's
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018

    dixiedean said:

    brendan16 said:

    MikeL said:

    MikeL said:

    I wonder how popular this proposal from Chris Williamson (Lab MP, friend of Corbyn and McDonnell) will be?

    "Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553

    One way or another, everybody will pay a load more tax under Corbynism.
    Indeed.

    And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.

    Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.

    Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.

    Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
    Well we have choices to make. Police cuts, elderly care cuts, fire cuts, children's services cuts and more - or higher council tax. What do people value more?

    I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.

    Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.
    As I commented previously Corbyn has no say over Council Tax in Wales now or Income Tax from 2019

    So it is an English issue and he will lose huge parts of middle England if he proposes higher council tax, indeed it could be his demetia tax
    That depends on what the Tories offer as an alternative, since more cuts seems too difficult to gain support now. If both are offering some real unpalatable options, it's a bit of a crapshoot.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    Trump has immense flaws, but he did work out that there was a path to victory that didn't require a battle of attrition in Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado.
    Worked out a path or got lucky that there was a path? Or a bit of both?
    Both, I suppose.

    But, blue collar whites have been shifting Republican at a rate of knots, over the past generation, therefore the Republicans should be focusing on places with lots of blue collar whites, but which were historically Democratic. Blue collar White voters in the US overall are now about as Republican as they were in the Deep South 25 years ago.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 13,433
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    Trump has immense flaws, but he did work out that there was a path to victory that didn't require a battle of attrition in Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado.
    I don't think that he did have that plan. Corbyn did the same, having mass rallies of adoring fans to create a buzz, feeding them what they want to hear, never mind the detail. The nationwide buzz then carries into the marginals and swing voters.
    He put a lot of effort into the rustbelt "blue firewall" states that he won narrowly. Something Clinton conspicuously didn't.

    Check the comparative number of visits each candidate did to those states specifically.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    That difference can be exaggerated. The young are as supportive of the NHS as the old and both want law and order, no generation likes paying tax and gay marriage is even now accepted by most pensioners. The main difference is probably on immigration but even most young people would support more high skilled and fewer low skilled migrants
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749
    edited January 10
    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
  • kle4 said

    'That depends on what the Tories offer as an alternative, since more cuts seems too difficult to gain support now. If both are offering some real unpalatable options, it's a bit of a crapshoot.'

    I think we can agree dementia tax is dead and buried but the wider point is he cannot raise revenue in council tax in either Wales or Scotland or general tax post 2019
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    Yet, the Conservatives have done remarkably well in Watford (not a seat I expected them to win in 2010). They've gone from 29% in 2005 to 46% in June.
  • dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    But they lose the house now apart from £23,000 if they contract dementia but not cancer. That is not something that can be kicked down the road and if anyone can find an acceptable solution they will reap big rewards.

    I believe Hunt thinks he can and that is why he refused to go and insisted Social care was added to Health. He was very assured at the dispatch box today
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,077
    HYUFD said:

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    That difference can be exaggerated. The young are as supportive of the NHS as the old and both want law and order, no generation likes paying tax and gay marriage is even now accepted by most pensioners. The main difference is probably on immigration but even most young people would support more high skilled and fewer low skilled migrants
    I want law and order; most people want don’t want a lawless society. I’d never call myself a social conservative though.

    The NHS thing isn’t related to the socially liberal/socially Conservative divide I’m talking about. That’s more of a Left/Right thing. Re gay marriage - I don’t know what attitudes pensioners have to it nowadays, but Tory members weren’t that supportive of it according to Tim Bale’s survey.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,018

    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road.
    Presumably there will come a time when that is no longer possible, but as with so many other issues, kicking the can is one thing we have managed very well indeed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    Except that is precisely the point, a dementia tax or mansion tax is not a tax on the old, who will be dead anyway in the case of the former when it is paid but on their middle aged children who will lose out on most of their inheritance. With millennials set to get the biggest inheritances of any postwar generation 'generational inequality' skewed towards the old becomes 'inheritance windfall' for the young through inheritance, especially as 52% of first time buyers also now buy through parental support. Indeed the biggest shift to Labour at the general election was from 35 to 55 year olds, over 65s actually shifted to the Tories.

    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,077
    Sean_F said:

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    Yet, the Conservatives have done remarkably well in Watford (not a seat I expected them to win in 2010). They've gone from 29% in 2005 to 46% in June.
    I don’t think it’s that surprising they’ve done well here tbh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    But they lose the house now apart from £23,000 if they contract dementia but not cancer. That is not something that can be kicked down the road and if anyone can find an acceptable solution they will reap big rewards.

    I believe Hunt thinks he can and that is why he refused to go and insisted Social care was added to Health. He was very assured at the dispatch box today
    They only lose the house if they need residential care, not personal care at home
  • Chelsea v Arsenal about to kick off. If Chelsea win over the two legs Arsenal season is virtually over with fourth place their minimum requirement and/or winning the Europa cup
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749
    edited January 10

    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    But they lose the house now apart from £23,000 if they contract dementia but not cancer. That is not something that can be kicked down the road and if anyone can find an acceptable solution they will reap big rewards.

    What do you mean it can't be kicked down the road?

    Dementia patients pay for their care since the days of New Labour. The phrase Dementia Tax was first used by the Alzheimer's Society to describe the New Labour reforms.

    The can has already been kicked down the road for a decade and a half.

    The curious thing about the treatment of dementia patients is most people now believe the Tories are responsible for an appalling set of New Labour reforms which left dementia patients in this predicament.

    New Labour left a huge bucket of shit. And Theresa May spectacularly managed to upturn the bucket of shit all over the Tories.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    That difference can be exaggerated. The young are as supportive of the NHS as the old and both want law and order, no generation likes paying tax and gay marriage is even now accepted by most pensioners. The main difference is probably on immigration but even most young people would support more high skilled and fewer low skilled migrants
    I want law and order; most people want don’t want a lawless society. I’d never call myself a social conservative though.

    The NHS thing isn’t related to the socially liberal/socially Conservative divide I’m talking about. That’s more of a Left/Right thing. Re gay marriage - I don’t know what attitudes pensioners have to it nowadays, but Tory members weren’t that supportive of it according to Tim Bale’s survey.
    There was a poll before Christmas showing older voters are bit more sceptical of gay marriage and climate change than younger voters but still supportive, the main difference was immigration. Polling has also shown young voters surprisingly sceptical about legalising drugs too
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,480

    Sean_F said:

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    Yet, the Conservatives have done remarkably well in Watford (not a seat I expected them to win in 2010). They've gone from 29% in 2005 to 46% in June.
    I don’t think it’s that surprising they’ve done well here tbh.
    I thought that Ian Oakley's behaviour would have totally wrecked their chances in 2010.
  • dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    But they lose the house now apart from £23,000 if they contract dementia but not cancer. That is not something that can be kicked down the road and if anyone can find an acceptable solution they will reap big rewards.

    What do you mean it can't be kicked down the road?

    Dementia patients pay for their treatment since the days of New Labour. The phrase Dementia Tax was first used by the Alzheimer's Society to describe the New Labour reforms.

    The can has already been kicked down the road for a decade and a half.

    The curious thing about the treatment of dementia patients is most people now believe the Tories are responsible for an appalling set of New Labour reforms which left dementia patients in this predicament.

    New Labour left a huge bucket of shit. And Theresa May spectacularly managed to upturn the bucket of shit all over the Tories.
    It plays big time into Social care and the overall crisis in health. That is why it has to be addressed
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    But they lose the house now apart from £23,000 if they contract dementia but not cancer. That is not something that can be kicked down the road and if anyone can find an acceptable solution they will reap big rewards.

    I believe Hunt thinks he can and that is why he refused to go and insisted Social care was added to Health. He was very assured at the dispatch box today
    They only lose the house if they need residential care, not personal care at home
    The problem with dementia is that it not only ends up needing very specialist care but also can be needed for many years. When my sister needed a nursing home for her cancer I saw many that had dementia patients and indeed some that had only dementia patients and it is a very challenging environment for everyone including the nurses and relatives
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,749
    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,077
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    I had to laugh when I saw the focus group was in Watford. It’s where I live.

    That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

    Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.

    But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.

    Yet, the Conservatives have done remarkably well in Watford (not a seat I expected them to win in 2010). They've gone from 29% in 2005 to 46% in June.
    I don’t think it’s that surprising they’ve done well here tbh.
    I thought that Ian Oakley's behaviour would have totally wrecked their chances in 2010.
    Just googled him....bloody hell. Well, that story is quite unique.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,615

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:



    Indeed. The appetite for cuts appears to have abated. Either we put up with what we have now, or someone, somewhere is going to have to cough up something.
    And some of those people are going to moan about it.
    Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
    Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.

    It simply adds to the already gross intergenerational unfairness to pay for social care & dementia care by taxes on the working young and middle-aged.

    The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.

    And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.

    My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
    But they lose the house now apart from £23,000 if they contract dementia but not cancer. That is not something that can be kicked down the road and if anyone can find an acceptable solution they will reap big rewards.

    I believe Hunt thinks he can and that is why he refused to go and insisted Social care was added to Health. He was very assured at the dispatch box today
    They only lose the house if they need residential care, not personal care at home
    The problem with dementia is that it not only ends up needing very specialist care but also can be needed for many years. When my sister needed a nursing home for her cancer I saw many that had dementia patients and indeed some that had only dementia patients and it is a very challenging environment for everyone including the nurses and relatives
    Indeed so but as you already point out the home of a dementia sufferer already has to be sold to pay for residential care costs (as opposed to care visits in the home where it is protected from sale) with only £23 000 of the estate protected from liability
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,133
    The other issue about taxes is what they are spent on. And value for money.

    I can see the need to pay more for social care, for instance. And I have no objection to doing so.

    But what would mightily piss me off is to pay the higher tax and see that money wasted so that not only do I not get social care when I need it but I also cannot pay for it myself because of all the higher tax I have had to pay.

    I do not have confidence that Labour are concerned about value for money. I fear that they will just spend and that the spending will not be directed sensibly and that additional taxes raised will be just frittered away. So we could end up both personally poorer and without the wonderful public services we have been promised.

    Corbyn makes a good case when he says to the rich that they too will need the NHS one day. But he really needs to address how money raised will be spent so that it really leads to a measurable improvement for patients - and not merely higher wages for staff or more jobs for union members or whatever.

    It is this side of the equation where Labour usually fail. They seem to think that spending, per se, is good without ever asking themselves the question: what are we spending the money on? Is it good value? What does it achieve for the end user? i.e. the patient, elderly person, etc. There is absolutely no evidence so far that Corbyn's Labour has even thought about these questions let alone come up with any convincing answers.
This discussion has been closed.