Will Burnley vote Conservative in 2020?

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:56 pm

Labour becoming unelectable, UKIP in terminal decline, Teresa May popular with the general public (the 'average' people who are the majority of voters).

If the Conservatives put up a well respected local candidate then the 'impossible' might just happen.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:58 pm

When was the last time Burnley voted a tory in?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:06 pm

No. Both the Liberals and the BNP have proved that if Labour is so unpopular as to lose, it won't be the Conservatives who win.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:07 pm

More chance of Tobi Legend getting voted in.

bfcmik · Post by **bfcmik** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:18 pm

Mala591 wrote:Teresa May popular with the general public

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I live in totally Conservative Solihull and even people here think she is an absolute waste of space.

I think she appears popular more because it is a case of Corbyn being a media gift from the Labour Party - though even Milliband proved to be a successful target for the one-eyed press, Lib Dems having whoever as leader (does anyone hear about them?) and UKIP demonstrating that it is really a modern day version of the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:21 pm

Based on most of the biased political drivel I read on here, the Conservatives have no chance in Burnley.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:26 pm

Given the tripe spouted by the undemocratic Farron and co., the Tories could unbelievably come a close second to Labour in Burnley, provided that Brexit has gone through. If the Lib Dems or Labour thwart Brexit I would say anything is possible in places like Burnley.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:38 pm

It always strikes me as odd when people refuse to vote for a party based simply on previous governments. Nowadays great leaders of the future have to pick one party or the other to have a chance, and if they have a set of beliefs that are neither left nor right you could see them picking either party (Blair being one example) and then working their way up. The leader shapes the policies is many senses.

May could be good, bad or indifferent but I think she has a social conscience, and that coupled with Brexit is why some Burnley folk should vote for her if they are so inclined rather than succumb to previous biases. After all, when she is gone it won't be long till a new election and they can then change their vote.

If it's her or Corbyn, the phrase being careful what you wish for springs to mind.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:57 pm

Ask me about 2 days before any future general election is about to happen, any other time is just guessing.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:03 pm

Hard to say.

I don't have 2020 vision

simonclaret · Post by **simonclaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:10 pm

summitclaret wrote:Given the tripe spouted by the undemocratic Farron and co.

Undemocratic?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 pm

summitclaret wrote:Given the tripe spouted by the undemocratic Farron and co.,.

I'm sure that if you want to debate "undemocratic with Farron or anyone else from the LibDems they'd be only too happy to engage. They are after all the party who have been grossly under-represented in Parliament for decades due to the FPTP electoral system which is a very poor advertisement for a democracy. (To give this some balance, UKip suffered from the same issue at the last Gen. Election).

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:24 pm

Three years is a long time in politics!

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:37 pm

Hipper wrote:Three years is a long time in politics!

Not when your over 60 it isn`t..

..the time just flies by!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:44 pm

Anything about Farron being undemocratic will probably be related to the recent Lords vote, upsetting the unwritten constitutional rule about not overturning manifesto commitments.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:57 pm

Leaving aside what happened during the coalition - which is a bit of grey area, because both sides had to make compromises, when have the LibDems broken a manifesto pledge?
Agree with them or not, they are the only party who have been 100% consistent in their approach to Europe.

NCClaret · Post by **NCClaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:13 pm

I think it was 1910 the last time the Conservatives had an MP in Burnley. However, in 1931 one Rear Admiral Gordon Campbell who was as a National Liberal was MP for the town. This political group merged with the Conservatives around this time so perhaps Campbell could be classed as a Conservative (??)
I have been doing research on Rear Admiral Campbell VC and his family for some time and he is an impressive person indeed. He was awarded one VC (as well as numerous other medals over his lifetime) for action in the North Atlantic. It is strongly thought he was to be awarded a 2nd VC, later in the year he won the first, but refused it so the VC went to a ballot of the crew and two of them were granted it.
Parliament could certainly do with more of his ilk and integrity nowadays.

ClaretCliff · Post by **ClaretCliff** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:15 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Leaving aside what happened during the coalition - which is a bit of grey area, because both sides had to make compromises, when have the LibDems broken a manifesto pledge?
Agree with them or not, they are the only party who have been 100% consistent in their approach to Europe.

If you leave aside what happened during the coalition then I agree that the LibDems have never broken a manifesto pledge - but that's only because they have never had the opportunity to break a pledge since they have never been in power. Even if you count the Liberals you are going back to pre-first world war since they were in power.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:28 pm

Vino blanco wrote:Based on most of the biased political drivel I read on here, the Conservatives have no chance in Burnley.

Everything i disagree with is biased political drivel - Vinoblanco's "thinking"

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:28 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Leaving aside what happened during the coalition - which is a bit of grey area, because both sides had to make compromises, when have the LibDems broken a manifesto pledge?
Agree with them or not, they are the only party who have been 100% consistent in their approach to Europe.

It's not the point of them breaking their own manifesto pledges. it's the point that if a government is elected and then proceeds to implement one of its election pledges, the strict convention is that the House of Lords won't overturn or amend it. The Conservatives promised to hold a referendum and implement the result, so under that convention, the House of Lords shouldn't overturn the House of Commons bill.

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:29 pm

The Tories second eleven did manage to win Burnley but Labour will get rid of Corbyn long before 2020 so it's not an issue to worry about.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 4:48 pm

dsr wrote:It's not the point of them breaking their own manifesto pledges. it's the point that if a government is elected and then proceeds to implement one of its election pledges, the strict convention is that the House of Lords won't overturn or amend it. The Conservatives promised to hold a referendum and implement the result, so under that convention, the House of Lords shouldn't overturn the House of Commons bill.

The House of Lords hasn't sought to overturn the referendum bill. It's proposed an amendment, and a pretty straightforward one at that. This is the role and function of the Lords and what it does all the time. (I believe that the Lords have passed amendments to Commons legislation on over 60 bills since the 2015 general election.)
If the House of Lords isn't going to scrutinize and propose amendments to legislation, then we really may as well abolish it. It would just be a waste of money.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:24 pm

The simple answer is no..

By 2020, the number of Parliamentary seats will be reduced from 650 to 600. The Boundary Commission, who are the body that enact such matters, are currently reviewing all seats. Their current proposal is that the Burnley Constituency be expanded East, to take in 40.9% of the old Pendle seat which will disappear, including 8 wards in Reedley, Brierfield and Nelson. The current Burnley Council wards of Gawthorpe, Hapton with Park ( All of Padiham basically ) and Coalclough with Deerplay will transfer to the old Hyndburn seat, to be renamed Accrington.
The result of this is to increase the electorate of the Constituency to 76,133 from 67,003, in keeping with the Commission's aim of having the vast majority of seats within 1500 voters of the nominal ideal size of 75,000.

The " number crunchers " at the " Electoral Calculus " website have run the numbers, and rerun the 2015 election based on the new boundaries. By common consent, the Labour party had a poor night, one of their few highlights being overturning Gordon Birtwistle's 2010 win, and reclaiming Burnley for the Labour party with a majority of 3,244. If the new boundaries had been in place Julie Cooper's majority would have been 10,618, and that on a bad night for Labour !! Full info is at the link below..

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi- ... at=Burnley

My personal view, for what it's worth is that the " Brexit " factor will gradually lessen over the next three years, as the process of leaving is followed. UKIP will then have to find a new purpose, or retire gracefully from the scene, having achieved it's aim. It won 4.5 million votes in 2015 & got 1 MP, by contrast the SNP got less than 1.5 million votes and got 56 MPs !! Where will these ex UKIP voters go ??

I think we could see a challenge from the Lib-Dems if anyone. In the absense of UKIP, they may resume their traditional role of being the repository for protest voters. We all know people who wouldn't vote Tory as long as they drew breath, and if Jeremy Corbyn leadership continues to hit Labour in the polls, we may see disaffected Labour voters voting L/D as well as Tories voting tactically to stop Labour..

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:48 pm

dsr wrote:It's not the point of them breaking their own manifesto pledges. it's the point that if a government is elected and then proceeds to implement one of its election pledges, the strict convention is that the House of Lords won't overturn or amend it. The Conservatives promised to hold a referendum and implement the result, so under that convention, the House of Lords shouldn't overturn the House of Commons bill.

Bloody sovereignty eh? Another enemy of the people.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:57 pm

I think it would make more 'cultural' sense for the new electoral bondaries to link Padiham more closely to Burnley - 'Burnley and Padiham' - and to link Brierfield more closely with Nelson - 'Nelson and Brierfield'.

John Johnson 1605 · Post by **John Johnson 1605** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:18 pm

People yearn for politicians with honesty and integrity.

Politicians who live modestly, amongst their constituents and forgone financial gain.

Politicians in it for all the right reasons........

Then her Majesty's Opposistion gets one and they become confused which soon turns negative and hostile, fuelled by the Sun, Mail and Telegraph etc.

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:25 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Everything i disagree with is biased political drivel - Vinoblanco's "thinking"

that's more than a bit rich

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:31 pm

John Johnson 1605 wrote:People yearn for politicians with honesty and integrity.

Politicians who live modestly, amongst their constituents and forgone financial gain.

Politicians in it for all the right reasons........

Then her Majesty's Opposistion gets one and they become confused which soon turns negative and hostile, fuelled by the Sun, Mail and Telegraph etc.

John, I don't think I'm alone on here on not doubting Mr Corbyn's sincerity...
The simple truth is that Labour are unelectable under Jeremy Corbyn, and without having power, Labour cannot meaningfully help those whom they profess to represent. Corbyn gives the impression that he's happier protesting, going on demonstrations and speaking to the converted than actually being in power, and having to make the hard choices, and yes, compromises that Goverment entails...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:57 pm

taio wrote: that's more than a bit rich

No. You only think it is.

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:01 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. You only think it is.

Aye great riposte.

Nice self-awareness by the way.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:02 pm

Nothing to do with Corbyn but Julie Cooper will not get voted back in I can assure you.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:03 pm

Probably no chance.

Labour got re-elected in Stoke which had the biggest vote in favour of Brexit.

Copland was fought on local issues (Nuclear).

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:03 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. You only think it is.

I'd be interested in your take on the original question, Imploding, and any thoughts on my amateur analysis...( post 23 )

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:06 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:Nothing to do with Corbyn but Julie Cooper will not get voted back in I can assure you.

I have my own theory on that, but could you enlighten us ?

Claret&Green · Post by **Claret&Green** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:08 pm

Doesn't really matter who gets voted in, they're only in it for what they can get out of it for themselves, won't make 1 iota of a difference to you or me

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:08 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:Nothing to do with Corbyn but Julie Cooper will not get voted back in I can assure you.

As a local constituency MP, what has she done that makes her so unelectable? (I'm not a Burnley constituent, but I'm not aware of any major issues).
If UKip become an insignificant voice, and Liberals maintain their strong anti-brexit stance, (which is a minority view in Burnley), I would imagine she would have decent chance against whoever the Tories put up.
(A strong independent might take votes from her, but wouldn't win outright).

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:10 pm

taio wrote:Aye great riposte.

Nice self-awareness by the way.

It was better than yours.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:12 pm

Clarets4me wrote:I'd be interested in your take on the original question, Imploding, and any thoughts on my amateur analysis...( post 23 )

We'll vote lib dem before Tory. We're not the smartest population but we have enough about us to not vote completely against our interests.

Edit: typo

John Johnson 1605 · Post by **John Johnson 1605** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:18 pm

Clarets4me wrote:John, I don't think I'm alone on here on not doubting Mr Corbyn's sincerity...
The simple truth is that Labour are unelectable under Jeremy Corbyn, and without having power, Labour cannot meaningfully help those whom they profess to represent. Corbyn gives the impression that he's happier protesting, going on demonstrations and speaking to the converted than actually being in power, and having to make the hard choices, and yes, compromises that Goverment entails...

Would Labour have fared any better under Liz Kendall ?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:23 pm

John Johnson 1605 wrote:Would Labour have fared any better under Liz Kendall ?

I notice that you have chosen by far the weakest of the other candidates who stood for election, but yes, even she would have held things together better, and made a better fist at holding the government to account.
No matter how wide an open goal is presented to JC, he always fluffs his lines.

John Johnson 1605 · Post by **John Johnson 1605** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:35 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:I notice that you have chosen by far the weakest of the other candidates who stood for election, but yes, even she would have held things together better, and made a better fist at holding the government to account.
No matter how wide an open goal is presented to JC, he always fluffs his lines.

Owen Smith or Yvette Cooper then.

The problem is that Corbyn has never been allowed to settle into his role due to fighting a rearguard action against the PLP. They are the problem.

Additionally, Corbyn has brought in thousands of new members and their much needed subscriptions.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:43 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:As a local constituency MP, what has she done that makes her so unelectable? (I'm not a Burnley constituent, but I'm not aware of any major issues).
If UKip become an insignificant voice, and Liberals maintain their strong anti-brexit stance, (which is a minority view in Burnley), I would imagine she would have decent chance against whoever the Tories put up.
(A strong independent might take votes from her, but wouldn't win outright).

The re-organisation of the Constituency Labour parties, following the proposed Boundary changes, together with recent manouvrings in the existing Burnley CLP will almost inevitably lead to a re-selection process prior to the 2020 General Election..

The Burnley Lib/Dems very rarely, if ever, feature their party Leader on any of their literature, and I know for a fact that several of their people were strongly for a " Leave " vote. When they were in the Coalition Govt, a friend of mine was at a lunch, sitting next to prominent member of the Burnley Lib Dems ( Not G.B. ), when he recieved a call from an aide to Nick Clegg to arrange a leader's visit. The subsequent conversation was brief and rather one sided " Keep that F*****r as far away from Burnley as possible !! " As I said in post 23, I think the " Brexit " factor will dissipate in time anyway.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:48 pm

Labour will always win in towns like Burnley because too many dinosaurs live in the past and still think they are the same party they were 30 years ago.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:50 pm

I think she has a social conscience

When is she going to show it?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:51 pm

The problem is that Corbyn has never been allowed to settle into his role due to fighting a rearguard action against the PLP. They are the problem.

The people who think that guarantee a Conservative government till, well, god knows when. The bloke is unelectable, and very unpopular in every lab stronghold apart from London.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:56 pm

Clarets4me wrote:The simple answer is no..

By 2020, the number of Parliamentary seats will be reduced from 650 to 600. The Boundary Commission, who are the body that enact such matters, are currently reviewing all seats. Their current proposal is that the Burnley Constituency be expanded East, to take in 40.9% of the old Pendle seat which will disappear, including 8 wards in Reedley, Brierfield and Nelson. The current Burnley Council wards of Gawthorpe, Hapton with Park ( All of Padiham basically ) and Coalclough with Deerplay will transfer to the old Hyndburn seat, to be renamed Accrington.
The result of this is to increase the electorate of the Constituency to 76,133 from 67,003, in keeping with the Commission's aim of having the vast majority of seats within 1500 voters of the nominal ideal size of 75,000.

The " number crunchers " at the " Electoral Calculus " website have run the numbers, and rerun the 2015 election based on the new boundaries. By common consent, the Labour party had a poor night, one of their few highlights being overturning Gordon Birtwistle's 2010 win, and reclaiming Burnley for the Labour party with a majority of 3,244. If the new boundaries had been in place Julie Cooper's majority would have been 10,618, and that on a bad night for Labour !! Full info is at the link below..

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi- ... at=Burnley

My personal view, for what it's worth is that the " Brexit " factor will gradually lessen over the next three years, as the process of leaving is followed. UKIP will then have to find a new purpose, or retire gracefully from the scene, having achieved it's aim. It won 4.5 million votes in 2015 & got 1 MP, by contrast the SNP got less than 1.5 million votes and got 56 MPs !! Where will these ex UKIP voters go ??

I think we could see a challenge from the Lib-Dems if anyone. In the absense of UKIP, they may resume their traditional role of being the repository for protest voters. We all know people who wouldn't vote Tory as long as they drew breath, and if Jeremy Corbyn leadership continues to hit Labour in the polls, we may see disaffected Labour voters voting L/D as well as Tories voting tactically to stop Labour..

Good, thoughtful post, C4me.

Boundary re-org will play a part in 2020.

Why is Burnley different from Accrington/Hyndburn? Hyndburn had a Conservative MP in 1980s: Ken Hargreaves, a "good local man" won in 1983 and 1987. (Then replaced by, I understand another "good local man" in Greg Pope in 1992...This "Pope" was, of course, Labour).

If Burnley FC remain in the Premier League will this impact on voter preferences in 2020?

John Johnson 1605 · Post by **John Johnson 1605** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:56 pm

I still ask the question

1 which candidate would have performed better ?

2 Which candidate would have swollen the membership and party offers ?

taio · Post by **taio** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:01 pm

John Johnson 1605 wrote:I still ask the question

1 which candidate would have performed better ?

2 Which candidate would have swollen the membership and party offers ?

1) All of them I reckon.

2) Irrelevant when you're well on the path to causing long term damage to the party.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:11 pm

I agree that no one would be better, but you'd struggle to find one worse.

he appeals to a majority of Lab members, and er, thats it.

John Johnson 1605 · Post by **John Johnson 1605** » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:12 pm

There is no way Smith or Kendall would have performed better. They would have generated apathy at best.

Subs are very much relevant.

Problems stem from a PLP dominated by Centre right MP's. They have undermined him and the wider party from the off.