Buckingham
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 30034 (58%)
Labour: 10374 (20%)
Liberal Democrat: 9733 (18.8%)
Other: 1606 (3.1%)
Majority: 19661 (38%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 27748 (57.4%)
Labour: 9619 (19.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 9508 (19.7%)
UKIP: 1432 (3%)
Majority: 18129 (37.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 24296 (53.7%)
Labour: 10971 (24.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 9037 (20%)
UKIP: 968 (2.1%)
Majority: 13325 (29.4%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 24594 (49.8%)
Labour: 12208 (24.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 12175 (24.6%)
Other: 421 (0.9%)
Majority: 12386 (25.1%)
Boundary changes: Loses parts of some split wards from around the outskirts of Aylesbury: Aston Clinton, Quarrendon, Elmhurst & Waterhead and Coldharbour.
Profile: A solid Tory bulwark in north Buckinghamshire, along with Richmond (Yorks) the closest the Tories have to their equivalent of Bootle or Knowsley. In the distant past it was a Labour seat, held by Robert Maxwell, but back then it contained Milton Keynes and it bears little resemblance to the seat`s present boundaries. Today Buckingham is an almost entirely made up of the patchwork of affluent villages in the Buckinghamshire countryside, covering most of the Vale of Aylesbury besides Aylesbury itself. Buckingham itself is a small market town, home to the only private university in the UK. Other population centres include the town of Winslow and villages such as Cuddington, Haddenham, Ludgershall, Stewkley and Steeple Claydon.
In 2005 it had the highest numerical Conservative majority and the boundary changes render it even more safe.
Current MP: John Bercow(Speaker) born 1963. Educated at Finchley Manorhill School and the University of Essex. Former merchant banker and special advisor to Jonathan Aitken and Virginia Bottomley. Lambeth councillor 1986-1990. Contested Motherwell 1987, Bristol South 1992. First elected as MP for Buckingham in 1997. Conservative spokesman on education and employment 1999-2000, on home affairs from 2000-2001, Shadow Chief Secretary 2001-2002 and Shadow Secretary of state for Work and Pensions from 2002 until his resignation later the same year over gay adoption. Shadow secretary of state for international development 2003-2005. Bercow has undergone a remarkable transition across the political spectrum – as a student he was a member of the right-wing Monday club, and secretary of their immigration and repatriation section, when first elected he was a combatative right-winger, however in recent years he has mellowed, expressing more liberal and left wing views and resigning from the frontbench under IDS over the issue of gay rights. He was elected Speaker in 2009, supposedly largely on the back of support from Labour MPs (more information at They work for you)
Candidates: 
Nigel Farage (UKIP) born 1964, Farnborough. Educated at Dulwich College. Former commodity broker. A former Conservative he was a founder member of UKIP in 1993. Contested Itchen, Test and Avon in 1994 European election. Member of the European Parliament for South-East England since 1999. Contested Eastleigh by-election 1994, Salisbury 1997, Bexhill and Battle 2001, South Thanet 2005, Bromley and Chistlehurst 2006 by-election. Leader of UKIP since 2006.
Patrick Phillips (Independent) Educated at Merchant Taylors School and Oxford University. Retired stockbroker.
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 93936
Male: 49.5%
Female: 50.5%
Under 18: 23.8%
Over 60: 19.3%
Born outside UK: 6%
White: 97.7%
Black: 0.4%
Asian: 0.6%
Mixed: 0.8%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 77.6%
Full time students: 2.7%
Graduates 16-74: 26.2%
No Qualifications 16-74: 20.7%
Owner-Occupied: 78%
Social Housing: 11.8% (Council: 10.4%, Housing Ass.: 1.4%)
Privately Rented: 6.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 3.1%
FPTP gave Blair too big a majority, which built into the minds of many Labour MPs that they had far too much power and influence that they really had. Hence the robotic/Stepford tendencies, and the mammoth swing needed for the Tories to get a majority of one this May/June.
STV, to name just one better alternative, (heck, AV+ is a better alternative to FPTP…), would do away with the inbuilt bias of the current electoral system, do away with the “block” of Labour seats across northern England and Wales, and more importantly give the people of the UK a vote that actually counts.
I cannot fathom why anyone supports FPTP. Is the concept of an MP, of any colour, commanding a winning percentage of 37%, somehow an untarnished victory in your mind?
“FPTP gave Blair too big a majority”
AV would have given him a far larger majority
“AV would have given him a far larger majority”
Using how people vote under FPTP. So let us swing this the other way, if there was an AV system in place at the time would the electorate had voted differently?
Labour polled 43.2% UK in 1997 (44.4%) GB,
not 40%.
PR, where used in Britain, for other types of elections, appears to show the LD vote fragmenting to other fringe parties,
no doubt partly because the LDs are a miscellaneous grievance party.
I’d still expect Bercow to hold on in Buckingham.
Ok, they polled under 45%. Still not a majority of the British public is it? And they still managed a majority of 179….I would have thought that you would have rejoiced at the sight of the LD vote collapsing under PR Joe James B and therefore should be embracing it wholeheartedly….!
I agree with you here though, John Bercow to hold the seat.
“AV would have given him a far larger majority”
Using how people vote under FPTP. So let us swing this the other way, if there was an AV system in place at the time would the electorate had voted differently?
In ‘97 there seemed to be a national mood afoot to give Tories a good kicking wherever possible. Had that election been conducted under AV I very much doubt whether many 2nd preferences would have gone the party’s way. The number of Tory seats that would have been left standing under those circumstances really does not bear thinking about.
Sorry if this sounds thick, but how exactly does AV work in terms of the distribution of votes in order to get the required 50? percent needed?
Under a PR system the libs or libdems would have held the balance of power pretty well continuously since the war, and under an AV system the libdem voters would effectively end up choosing which of the other 2 won. So a party representing less than 25% of the electorate actually determine the government. Why is that more democratic than FPTP? Unfortunately, once there are 3 significant players, no system is “fair”. The big advantage of FPTP is that the extremes of left and right don’t get in – which may be undemocratic but I think is a good thing. And Bercow will win Buckibgham easily.
Joseph, in AV the voter ranks the candidates by order of preference starting by marking 1 where they would currently vote X.
At the count the ballots are allocated according who is marked as 1st preference. If no candidate is elected with 50% of the vote then the last placed candidate is eliminated and his/her votes redistributed to the candidates marked 2.
This continues with each unsuccessful candidate being knocked out and his/her votes divvied up between the remaining candidates until someone gets a majority.
STV works in a very similar way but the quota for election is lower due to multiple seats (a 1 member seat has a quota of 50%, 2 members is a third, 3 members 25% and so on.) and each elected candidate has a “surplus” to be redistributed as well.