Will Burnley vote Conservative in 2020?

[Quickenthetempo]

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).

After the floods in Padiham last year she came down to the town for the clean up operation, got her photo taken in the press and did one which left a sour taste in the volunteers mouths. The local FB community groups who get people reporting things that need doing always end up with Alan Hosker getting it sorted within a couple of days. He plans to run as a UKIP MP and will be popular in Padiham and Hapton.
Gordon Bertwistle seems to be doing a lot as well but Cooper is non existent. I haven't heard a good word said about her in the town.

The asian vote might sway it between Lib Dems/Labour but UKIP could be close as they have a councillor that does a lot for local people.

[Imploding Turtle]

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

The only way Labour get my vote is if the Lib Dems put up Birtwistle again, or anyone else who opposes equal rights.

[LS7]

On the FPTP point - there was a decisive referendum.

The labour position will not last .. my hunch is a defection to a revived lib dem. Or a labour split. Long term Scotland will not be a 1 party state either .. so opportunities for any party with a plan.

[Imploding Turtle]

On the FPTP point - there was a decisive referendum.

No there wasn't. Nothing about the result of that referendum can reasonably be interpreted as a decisive thumbs-up for FPTP. In fact, even if AV won it still wouldn't have been a decisive thumbs-up for AV, only that it was better than the only alternative available.

[Clarets4me]

On the FPTP point - there was a decisive referendum.

The labour position will not last .. my hunch is a defection to a revived lib dem. Or a labour split. Long term Scotland will not be a 1 party state either .. so opportunities for any party with a plan.

On FTFP, I agree.. although I think the result may be very different now...

It seems you're predicting a latter day SDP breakaway from Labour, linking up with the Lib/Dems, trying to form a progressive " Centre-Left " party, thus isolating Corbyn and his ilk. Trouble is with that, is that the " Labour " brand still has some life left..
BTW...Tories now polling 2nd in Scotland pushing Labour into 3rd according to some pollsters...interesting times..

[ontario claret]

Ted Heath supported us, and officially opened the Bob Lord, although he represented Bexley in Parliament. Does that count?

[COBBLE]

[quote="Clarets4me"]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..

What are the recent manoeuvrings in the existing Burnley CLP that could lead to a re-selection process, and, in favour of what group or individual?

[RingoMcCartney]

On the FPTP point - there was a decisive referendum.

The labour position will not last .. my hunch is a defection to a revived lib dem. Or a labour split. Long term Scotland will not be a 1 party state either .. so opportunities for any party with a plan.

You're spot on . The referendum saw 16.5 lose to 17.5 million (roughly)

A million people is massive. Especially after the lies of Operation Fear.

I genuinely pity those that are still crying inside about such a black and white result.

[Clarets4me]

Should 40.9% of the present Pendle CLP membership be drawn in to the Burnley CLP, I suspect they'll want a say on the Candidate for the 2020 Election. Assuming Burnley remains a women only shortlist, then there are probably two likely Candidates, both of whom will have familiar surnames to those of us who've followed local Politics over the last 20 years...

[nil_desperandum]

You're spot on . The referendum saw 16.5 lose to 17.5 million (roughly)

I genuinely pity those that are still crying inside about such a black and white result.

Ringo: You're so obsessed with Brexit and related issues that you are now irrationally dragging it into a totally different debate. What have the Brexit figures got to do with the "FPTP" referendum that we are discussing, in which AV was decisively rejected??

(For the record AV was rejected by 13,000,000 to 6,000,000)

Edit: You even edited to post your usual stuff about Project Fear etc. whilst I was typing.
Brexit - you won - get over it.

[Imploding Turtle]

You're spot on . The referendum saw 16.5 lose to 17.5 million (roughly)

A million people is massive. Especially after the lies of Operation Fear.

I genuinely pity those that are still crying inside about such a black and white result.

I genuinely pity someone who makes such an embarrassing mistake as to accuse Remain voters of not being able to let an issue go in response to a post that had absolutely nothing to do with the EU referendum.

Man, i'd be so ******* embarrassed right now if i was you, but i'm not sure shame is something you can feel.

[CnBtruntru]

Anybody who says not a chance please look at the American and Brexit votes, anything is possible, just have to get enough people putting their bets on the same time

[Lancasterclaret]

The big difference in the AV debate now is that Labour would decisively campaign for it and support it.

Course, someone would have to win an election with FPTP to kick the tories out, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[Imploding Turtle]

The big difference in the AV debate now is that Labour would decisively campaign for it and support it.

Course, someone would have to win an election with FPTP to kick the tories out, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Neither Corbyn nor Smith supported electoral reform away from FPTP for parliament. Corbyn was indecisive on it and Smith was definitely opposed to it so I wouldn't be too sure about Labour not being hypocites on this issue like they have been, along with the Tories, for decades.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog ... tic-reform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BobSykes]

Interestingly the Tories came very close in 1983:

Party Candidate Votes % ±
Labour Peter Pike 20,178 39.8 −11.0
Conservative Ian Bruce 19,391 38.2 +2.8
Liberal Michael Steed 11,191 20.0 +7.2
Majority 787 1.6
Turnout 50,760 76.3
Labour hold Swing −6.9

That has parallels with now. A toxically unelectable Marxist as Labour leader, Labour plumbing the depths in the polls, a very popular female Tory PM, and a third party (SDP/Liberals, today UKIP) swallowing up Labour votes. And look what nearly happened in Burnley.

Won't happen in 2020. Even if the boundary changes don't happen, and I have a feeling they won't, the demographics of Burnley have changed a lot since 1983.

[Clarets4me]

In the big Conservative win of 1979, their Candidate in Burnley was a certain Anne Widdecombe, which could have been interesting !!

[Spijed]

As long as UKIP have Paul Nuttall as their leader they haven't got a chance of winning any seats around the country.

Unless he's able to produce the VC he claims to have won at the Battle of the Somme, in which case voting for a party led by a war hero might go down well.

[Quickenthetempo]

As long as UKIP have Paul Nuttall as their leader they haven't got a chance of winning any seats around the country.

Unless he's able to produce the VC he claims to have won at the Battle of the Somme, in which case voting for a party led by a war hero might go down well.

I vote for councillors/MPs who will do the best for our area.

[Spijed]

I vote for councillors/MPs who will do the best for our area.

You'd think that should be the case, but at the moment Labour has an image problem with Jeremy Corbyn and UKIP the same with Paul Nuttall.

[nil_desperandum]

I vote for councillors/MPs who will do the best for our area.

Fair enough, but your local councillor is unlikely to be standing at a General election. What if Nuttall decided to stand for Burnley?

[RingoMcCartney]

After the floods in Padiham last year she came down to the town for the clean up operation, got her photo taken in the press and did one which left a sour taste in the volunteers mouths. The local FB community groups who get people reporting things that need doing always end up with Alan Hosker getting it sorted within a couple of days. He plans to run as a UKIP MP and will be popular in Padiham and Hapton.
Gordon Bertwistle seems to be doing a lot as well but Cooper is non existent. I haven't heard a good word said about her in the town.

The asian vote might sway it between Lib Dems/Labour but UKIP could be close as they have a councillor that does a lot for local people.

Ive had dealings Gordon Birtwistle and he was good to deal with.

I've also had dealings with Alan Hosker more recently . He's sound as a pound and genuinely gets stuff done.

[AndrewJB]

To go back to the original question of whether the Tories can win Burnley; what have Tory governments done for Burnley in the past? Not just the town of course, but for people like Burnley people all over the country?

Since 2010 we've had austerity for most people and tax cuts for the richest. The deficit is still there, and now we have a far larger debt than Labour has ever created. It's no surprise when you consider who funds the Conservative Party - the rich - so they will have to say and do things to persuade people to vote against their own interests. Who will they demonize next?

[Lancasterclaret]

The same question though can be levelled at Lab.

They have took seats like Burnley for granted for far too long.

[claretandy]

Under the new boundary propasals Burnley is being split in half with Padiham and Hapton going with Accrington and Burnley joining with Pendle, so I'd expect the new Accrington seat staying Labour and the new Burnley seat could stay Labour as well as all the rural pendle bits are joining the Tory Ribble valley seat.

[HatfieldClaret]

So what will happen first, an away win for Burnley or a Tory win for Burnley

[ontario claret]

How about "Never"?

[Imploding Turtle]

Ive had dealings Gordon Birtwistle and he was good to deal with.

Voted against marriage equality though, so he's a ****.

[Clarets4me]

Voted against marriage equality though, so he's a ****.

I have no strong views either way on " same sex marriage "...

However, I do know that MP's were told that this was a free vote, untroubled by the whip system. As a Roman Catholic, approaching his 70th year, Gordon Birtwistle checked with his party officials that this was indeed the case, and voted against. The next day, he was sacked as a PPS by his " Liberal Democrat " minister, as a punishment for voting according to his conscience..

" Imploding Turtle " continues on his merry way, not conceding that sincerely held views that contradict his own have any merit, and resorts to abuse and vitriol when they are expressed !!

[Imploding Turtle]

Sincerely held bigotry is still bigotry.

[The Enclosure]

My gran used to say if labour put a monkey up then Burnley folk would vote for him

[joey13]

Ive had dealings Gordon Birtwistle and he was good to deal with.

I've also had dealings with Alan Hosker more recently . He's sound as a pound and genuinely gets stuff done.

Top lad is Alan , unfortunately I could never vote for his politics.

[joey13]

My gran used to say if labour put a monkey up then Burnley folk would vote for him

They have done !

[dsr]

Sincerely held bigotry is still bigotry.

But you have a very narrowly defined definition of "bigotry", turtle. It's an easy definition to apply - does turtle agree with you? If not, you're a bigot.

[Imploding Turtle]

But you have a very narrowly defined definition of "bigotry", turtle. It's an easy definition to apply - does turtle agree with you? If not, you're a bigot.

Back to this stupidity are we? If Turtle disagrees you're stupid, if turtle disagrees you're racist, if turtle disagrees you're a bigot, if turtle disagrees you're a fascist. It's pretty easy to spout this bullshit, much more difficult to actually defend. Can you explain what it is about "sincerely held beliefs" that makes them more acceptable than insincerely held beliefs?

Until you can do that i see no reason to believe anything other than "sincerely held beliefs" is just a bullshit term made up by people who want to discriminate against certain groups based on their own prejudices, but also don't want to be called homophobes, or bigots, for doing so. It's basically a dressed up version of "my opposition to equal rights if OK because it's on religious grounds". I'm sure a lot of people in the early 1900s had "sincerely held beliefs" about voting rights, that doesn't absolve them of sexism. Likewise in the 1800s and before when it comes to owning people.

Now this is the bit where you distract from the point i'm making about discrimination based on "sincerely held beliefs" and get all outraged that i'm referencing slavery in a post about equal rights.

[dsr]

My post was nothing to do with sincerely held beliefs, it was to do with bigotry. Legality of sexual relationships has always been fluid, and the idea that the position of one country at one moment in time is correct, and all other countries and all other eras was bigotry, is actually pretty narrow-minded.

You (or at least I - I'm not sure about you) can accept that there are things you don't like and wish didn't happen, but are the will of the majority and so be it. Gay marriage apparently being one of them. Throughout much of the history of Britain, there has been no legal provision for gay marriage, a position by and large supported by the population as far as we can tell - it doesn't mean that virtually every person in Britain until now has been a bigot. Not in any practical understanding of the word, anyway. Similarly, someone who all their life has held a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman does not automatically become a bigot just because the law has changed.

People who think that gay marriage should not be allowed, are no more of a bigot than people who think incestuous marriage should not be allowed. That's my point.

[Man of Kent]

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

Is that what you're thinking too I wonder...

[JohnMcGreal]

People who think that gay marriage should not be allowed, are no more of a bigot than people who think incestuous marriage should not be allowed. That's my point.

Jesus christ...