He may not know it but Joe Public has just backed a massive increase in investment for adult social care.
A survey this week by the Caring Choices coalition found that almost 80% of people supported "low" or "moderate" thresholds for care, under the Fair Access to Care Services criteria.
Yet, a recent Community Care survey revealed that 76% of councils excluded those deemed to have low or moderate needs, on budgetary grounds.
Given future demographic trends, the Local Government Association predicts that care eligibility will get ever tighter, excluding people with substantial needs .
But the public's view is hard to argue with: having "moderate" needs under FACS means being unable to accomplish several personal care tasks.
So, surely a green light to increase taxation - let's hit City bonuses, remove loopholes on people with offshore accounts and introduce a 50% rate on incomes above £100,000 - to fund a revolution in social care?
Well, maybe. Single-issue opinion polls are notoriously unreliable because they don't invite people to prioritise competing goods - i.e. public service A versus public service B, or public service C versus a tax cut.
Yet, the Caring Choices poll does provide an opportunity for the government to make the case - should it want to - for devoting a higher share of national income to long-term care, as called for by last year's Wanless report.
Gordon Brown has just promised significantly more investment in housing, following longstanding calls from the likes of Shelter.
But a similar commitment for adult social care doesn't need to come tomorrow. What does need to happen, and soon, is a fully-informed national debate to gauge how highly the public values the needs of older and disabled citizens when their tax pounds are at stake.
Over to you, Messrs Brown and Johnson.