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

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.

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.

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.

DecrepitJohnL said:

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.

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

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

Big_G_NorthWales 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

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

FPT:

TheJezziah said:

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

The Autumn and Spring terms?

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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

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.

MikeSmithson said:

DavidL said:

MikeSmithson 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.

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

Big_G_NorthWales 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?"

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

A cartoonist could do something with this:

https://tinyurl.com/yaz5g8nn

Richard_Nabavi 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

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

https://youtu.be/lwawPMSJins

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

FrancisUrquhart 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.

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.

FrancisUrquhart 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.

FrancisUrquhart 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.

We all know that.

If the Tories have any sense they should be all over this.

Casino_Royale 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.

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale 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.

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.

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.......

The_Taxman said:

MikeL said:

FrancisUrquhart 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.

Casino_Royale 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.

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

Casino_Royale 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.

Casino_Royale said:

Casino_Royale 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.

Casino_Royale said:

Casino_Royale 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"

brendan16 said:

MikeL said:

FrancisUrquhart 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.

brendan16 said:

MikeL said:

FrancisUrquhart 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.

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale 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.

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

Casino_Royale 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.

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_F said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale 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?

dixiedean said:

brendan16 said:

MikeL said:

FrancisUrquhart 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

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

brendan16 said:

MikeL said:

FrancisUrquhart 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.

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Casino_Royale 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.

The_Apocalypse 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.

HYUFD said:

The_Apocalypse 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.

YBarddCwsc 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.

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

Big_G_NorthWales said:

YBarddCwsc 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_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse 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.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

YBarddCwsc 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

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Sean_F said:

The_Apocalypse 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.

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.