Talk:Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)

Speaker Gain

Please See here, here, here, here and here, for the way the Speakers seat is reported.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's always been done that way doesn't mean it's right, does it? Besides, it's quite nonsensical to include a swing, or indeed a change in Bercow's vote. Wereon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, we have gone over this on your talk page. The reliable sources all describe it as a 'Speaker hold'; reverting in the face of these is disruptive. ninety:one 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No swing has been included by me of any kind. Also if it is such a problem being a Speaker gain then why has it been allowed to remain on every speaker since 1974.21:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ: [1]. Wereon (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, the ball is firmly in your court. The sources have been cited and explanations have been given. What more are you looking to discuss? ninety:one 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have cited my own precedence and sated why I think it should be the way it is. Also I am waiting for more talk than just the two of us who are going round in circles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Every gain or loss in a UK election is by party ("Labour gain", not "Thomas Smith gain"). John Bercow has gone from Conservative to Speaker Seeking Relection. "Conservative Hold" is NOT correct - once an MP becomes Speaker, he becomes neutral, loses his party registration. Therefore Buckingham IS a "Speaker Gain". doktorb _words^deeds 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources, where they give a gain/hold, describe it as a 'hold'. ninety:one 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been nearly ten days since this was last discussed, anyone have anything else to add? ninety:one 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has changed it since it was placed as Speaker Gain the Wikipedia Concensus appears to be that these are listed as Speaker Gians and not as holds regardless of what the sources say. Changing to Speaker hold would be tantamount to WP:point.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see either 1) any consensus 2) any consensus that we go against the sources. Perhaps you could highlight where this consensus was reached? ninety:one 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The concensus is bourne out in the other Wikipedia articels as linked to in this discussion. It has also been articulated by doktorb who correctly sums up the exiting Wikipedia cocensus.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We're back to where we were on the 18th May: just because something has happened in the past, doesn't mean we should do that now. Historial precedent is not the same thing as consensus. If we had established a consensus now, then that wouldn't be a problem, but we haven't and all we have is two sources that say 'hold'. ninety:one 14:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not just one article that is being given as a source for consensus. If it was just one then that would be a precedence. The articles given show the consensus on how Wikipeida articles refer to the Speaker of the House of Commons General Election results. It is done by them being Speak Gain form previous party. Also there is only one advocacy for changing the current consensus where as more than one person has said it should stay the way it is. The current consensus has been clearly demonstrated and no change to this can be clearly demonstrated. If no one else wants to change something then don't change something which is not wrong.--17:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lucy, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Consensus to gain a more thorough understanding of exactly what consensus means and how it works. As both myself and Wereon have said (in my case, repeatedly) the fact that X has happened in the past does not mean that X should happen now, because that is precedent not consensus (precedence is a different concept altogether...). Both myself and Wereon have advocated changing it to what the sources say and you have disagreed (and doctorb has made a point about Bercow not being a Conservative - a fact that is common ground). That is most certainly not consensus for "gain".

Now to the matter at hand, once again. The sources on which the results table relies describe it as a "gain". There are no sources that describe it as a "hold". ninety:one 20:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to override the sources, we would need consensus, and there is no consensus to do so. In order to overirde current concensus you need to establish more than just you think it should be changed form what it currently is I am not going to start a wikilawyeriong rant but please see the Five pillars which states that as the fifth pillar that there are no fixed rules. Also as the current article on the subject list it as a Gain that is the consensus which is the point you are missing, whihc has been very clearly demonstrated. not all sources are taken as correct and some are ignored.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My patience can only stretch so far. I have tried, several times, to explain the situation. Consensus is not: "lots of other articles do X", not is it "X is the status quo". Consensus means lots of people agreeing that a particular course of action is the one that should be taken. There is no consensus to do anything at the moment, so I shall have to call for a third opinion. ninety:one 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have googled this at length, read both arguments, and thought the matter through. Note that the Telegraph reported, "Speaker Hold" and the Guardian reported, "Speaker Gain", and there is only a single page of discussion of this on the entire Internet expect for this page (googling - "Speaker Hold" "Speaker Gain"). Therefore, I'm fairly sure there isn't a convention on the matter, and it's just two different ways of looking at it. However, Wikipedia need not try to follow journalistic convention, nor need it follow the way it has been done in previous articles. We should aim to provide the information in the clearest way. I certainly feel that the clearest way is Speaker hold, for the following reasons: The Speaker did not resign his whip immediately before the General Election, he did it upon taking the Speakership. Six months ago, the seat was held by the Speaker. The election returned the speaker. If we don't look at a party political view, John Bercow has HELD the seat. He has not GAINED the seat. One might argue that he has 'gained' the seat from the Conservative party, but this argument is weaker and makes less sense than the view that he 'held' it - since he had it before and after the election. In almost every other context, '<person> held the seat' means that the seat did not change hands, while '<person> gained the seat' means the seat did not change hands. To make the article clearer, 'held' makes more sense. The idea that John Bercow 'gained' the seat from the Conservative Party, while perhaps technically true, is misleading and unhelpful. To a reader trying to simply discover the result of the election - held is more useful than gained. Hope I was able to help. SmokingNewton (MESSAGE ME) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)—SmokingNewton (MESSAGE ME) 23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

.

I would like to refer to the existing consensus, which the third opinion has ignored, on Wikipedia as to how this is reported. The other articles relating to the Speaker as given at the start of this discussion show what the existing consensus is. There is no appetite to change this apart from ninety:one, if this article is changed then the consensus for all of the articles relating to the reporting of the speaker needs to be changed which is significant and requires a significant change in consensus. In this case WP:IAR has come into force here and it is done as a gain and not a hold even though the sources say it is a gain. This is not an issue of legality in this case as there is no possibility of any law being broken over the reporting of weather the seat is a gain or a hold. WP:V would only trump IAR if a legal issue was apparent e.g. a breech of copyright, this is more matter of journalistic style as to weather it is reported as a gain or a hold.--11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The third opinion has not ignored the 'existing consensus.' Before making my third opinion, I looked at all of the linked articles and read all of the discussion. I believe I have considered everything. I also checked the history of all of these articles and observed that User:Warofdreams added all of these results, and used the phrase 'Speaker gain' in each of them. There was no discussion on any of the talk pages. The issue was briefly observed here in 2005, and appears to agree with the hold opinion. Please be aware that all of this was considered in the Third Opinion, and was not ignored.

I think it's clear that there is no consensus on the matter. It has never been discussed, and so to refer to a consensus on the matter is a bit of a nonsense. If dozens of editors had done this on dozens of articles, perhaps there'd be a case for it. But with a single editor doing it on five or six articles, it is not a consensus. We are establishing the consensus, and we should discuss the actual issue - and not the history. It's irrelevent and unimportant. The arguement that "requires a significant change in consensus" is not one I'm accepting, there is no consensus.

Please note, I am no longer acting as a Third Opinion Wikipedian - I'm now involved in the discussion and will take part. I am of the opinion that it should be speaker hold and that whatever we agree should be applied to all relevent articles.

I completely agree that it is a matter of journalistic style. Let's discuss the actual issue - hold or gain. Let's put this 'consensus' and 'how other articles do it' stuff behind us. Thanks, SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 11:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is much wider than the Speaker's seat and involves all cases where a sitting MP changes in parliament. Off the top of my head there are two other MPs sitting in the current parliament who have changed party and successfully retained the same seat. Sylvia Hermon in North Down was an Ulster Unionist until March 2010; she left the party and sat as an independent; in the election just gone she successfully retained her seat. Jeffrey Donaldson in Lagan Valley left the Ulster Unionists and jointed the Democratic Unionist Party over winter 2003/4; he also retained his seat. There are huge number of further examples in earlier elections.

I'm trying to find a current example of an MP who left their party unsuccessfully fighting the same seat, but the only clear one I can think of in 2010 is Bob Spink and Castle Point (UK Parliament constituency) lacks the boxes completely. Andrew Pelling in Croydon Central (UK Parliament constituency) is more complicated because boundary changes made it a notional Labour seat

The MP in the last Parliament for Grantham and Stamford switched from Conservative to Labour and retired; that page shows the seat as a Conservative hold. Similarly we have Labour or Conservative hold for a number of seats where the MP either went independent or lost the whip including Birmingham Ladywood, Liverpool West Derby, Old Bexley and Sidcup, Livingston, Scunthorpe, Leyton and Wanstead, North Tyneside, Leicester West, Ashfield or Luton South. Bury North does show a gain, but Conservative from Labour not Conservative from Independent.

The aim of showing changes and gains in election results is to show whether or not the voters have changed their position, regardless of how the various personalities have switched. The amount of time between the switch and the election is irrelevant. "Speaker gain" accurately sums up the change in the votes from last time. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I don't think this issue is worth the amount of time being expended on it, I just responded to the Third Opinion request and got involved. But I don't feel that an MP changing whip and a speaker seeking re-election is the same thing - because one is a party political matter while the other is not. And the notion of gain is a party political matter. I think it's fallacious to argue that Speaker gain accurately sums up the change in the votes from last time, because it does not represent the fact that this change in votes is purely notional - it's likely the same people voting for John Bercow. As such, to say he aim of showing changes and gains in election results is to show whether or not the voters have changed their position seems wrong because, in fact, we're representing a change in voters' positions without there necessarily being a change in position. Realistically, for John Bercow to 'gain' the seat from the Conservatives, that means that the Conservatives 'lose' the seat. This is not the case, and the Conservative Party would no doubt feel that way. I'd be prepared to discuss the use of the phrase Notional Speaker Gain from Conservatives, with a footnote explaining what happened, but I'm still uncomfortable with it and feel that Hold represents the truth. I think the best compromise would be to simply not say gain or hold, and use the phrase, "Speaker re-elected." as this would probably represent what happened more clearly. Thanks, SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 13:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input (not because I agree with it, but for clearly taking the time to research the background thorughly before jumping in and making a pronouncement!). I feel that to describe an election in which the Speaker is returned as a 'gain' is misrepresentative of what happened and confusing for the reader. I agree with SmokingNewton's final suggestion and just wish I had thought of it earlier instead of getting bogged down in a to-and-fro match. "Speaker re-elected" sounds like the best option to me. ninety:one 19:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome. Can User:Timrollpickering and User:Lucy-marie agree on this? SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 20:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to get too involved, I think the first point raised in the 3O is probably the most important. The seat was "lost" to the Speaker "party" at the time Mr. Bercow was elected to the position. Therefore, the constituency went into the 2010 GE with the Speaker as its MP, and came out with the Speaker as its MP. Ergo, "Speaker hold". I don't think the "precedent" argument is a particularly strong one, since it's predicated on other stuff being right, and on Wikipedia that's rarely guaranteed. In this case, I think the previous examples have got it wrong. That said, the conventional description is "Speaker seeking re-election", so "Speaker re-elected" is not only an accurate reflection of what he set out to do, but removes any ambiguity over the result. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are just plain wrong. Glasgow East was gained by the SNP in a mid-term by-election. At the general election, Labour beat the SNP. Result? Labour HOLD. Why? Because in the UK, our general elections compare like-with-like. So compared with the 2005 result, Labour HELD Glasgow East. The SNP did NOT lose it, there was nothing to lose, they hadn't won it in the first place. So, Buckingham was STILL a Conservative seat for the purposes of comparison EVEN THOUGH John Bercow was speaker. In 2005, he was the Conservative candidate and held the seat FOR THE CONSERVATIVES. In 2010, he was the Speaker and won the seat FROM THE CONSERVATIVES because, for one thing, NO CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE WAS ON THE BALLOT. In short, Buckingham in 2010 was a SPEAKER GAIN. Anyhing else is, when all is looked at properly, PLAIN WRONG. doktorb _words^deeds 11:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the way some look at it. But you'd have to be a political anorak to understand that in the case of the Speaker's seat, which is why we're going for the compromise Speaker re-elected, with a footnote if necessary to explain the complexities and restrictions of the normal British "hold/gain" system. Doktorb, you are unlikely to be taken seriously if your comments descend into shouting. It's not particularly becoming and it looks like you are over-reacting. ninety:one 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't agree that I am wrong;

• I feel that all participants on the 'Gain' side of the debate are trying to imply some convention of journalism and politics that simply doesn't exist. The telegraph reported 'Speaker Hold' in 2010, so it clearly makes sense. The convention doesn't exist, or if it does - it is not once reported or discussed online.

• I feel that, as I have said before, 'Speaker Gain', while perhaps holding some merit TECHNICALLY, is misleading and is not the best way of representing the information. We should be looking for the best way to represent the information.

• I feel that the compromise of 'Speaker re-elected' which I have proposed and Ninetyone and 81.111.114.131 have agreed to is fair and a proper way of representing the information. As 81.111.114.131 pointed out, the phrase "Speaker seeking re-election" in a phrase used in politics for many years, and listed as the 'Party' of the speaker on the ballot form. Therefore, "Speaker re-elected" as the outcome seems to make sense, and represent what happened. I feel we've been more than fair with offering this compromise.SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I reckon "Anything else is, when all is looked at properly, PLAIN WRONG" is a misrepresentation of the facts. If the Speaker is seeking re-election, and the speaker is re-elected, then is "Speaker re-elected" not a perfect representation of the truth? SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 12:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. It is misleading to say that it is "Speaker re-elected". There was no Speaker re-elected; Michael Martin is in the Lords. Speaker Bercow stood, in that role, for the first time in 2010, in a seat where the previous MP (himself) was standing as a Conservative.

"I feel that all participants on the 'Gain' side of the debate are trying to imply some convention of journalism and politics that simply doesn't exist" But the convention DOES exist, it's just the good old British unwritten way of doing things makes it very hard to prove ;) :). The electoral system in this country compares like-with-like. Let's say the constituency of Wikipedshire was a Conservative hold in 2001 and 2005, when half way through the parliament the MP defected to the LibDems. When he (or she!) stood again in 2010 and won the seat, it would be a LibDem GAIN from Conservative. Similiarly, John Bercow stood under, if you like, a new party label and won, "beating" the Conservatives.

The gain/hold/loss system works(-ish) with political parties, but when it comes to the Speaker is is misrepresentertive and confusing. The Speaker was re-elected. Your analysis of the phrase, where the "re" relates to the performance at the previous election, is indecipherable to the average man in this context. Regardless of whether some convention exists (the claim that it is an unwritten one sounds tremendously convenient to say the least), if applied to this context it is grossly misleading to the reader. The compromise "Speaker re-elected", with a footnote that explains how he was formerly a Conservative MP, but lost his affiliation on becoming Speaker, is the best solution and the one that makes the most sense to the reader. ninety:one 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to sound like I am being funny here, but Wikipedia is supposed to collate all which is accurate, not all that which is <<citation neeed>> or <<dubious>>. On the "tremendously convenient" point, remember that the UK does not have a written constitution. My explanation has been quite consistant and clear - in 2005, John Bercow was the Conservative candidate in this constituency. In 2010 he was the Speaker candidate. He won, the Conservatives did not. Speaker GAIN. I notice, incidentally, that there is nothing like this argument in West Bromwich West, or Glasgow North East, where similar situations exist with previous Speaker elections. doktorb _words^deeds 14:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if the UK did have a written constitution, I doubt that the descriptions of election results would be found therein ;). The discussion has not occured on those pages because they were filled in after the respective elections - Wikipedia didn't even exist when Boothroyd was elected for West Brom! But yes, I suggest that the results of this discussion are applied to those articles as well.

I think you are maybe running the risk of becoming too bogged down in political terminology; regardless of how the result is described - gain or hold - the wording that makes the most sense to the average reader is "Speaker re-elected" with a footnote just below the table describing the particulars of the election, so people don't think he was elected as Speaker at the last election (which is a valid concern). All this talk about gain/hold/loss is nice, but no normal person will understand it in the case of the Speaker. ninety:one 15:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The average reader would be slightly confused with "Speaker re-elected", given that the 2005 results show the seat was won by a Conservative candidate. And if we did have a written constitution, it may suggest that Speakers are given nominal constituencies ("Palace of Westminster"), reducing this discussion to nowt ;) I fully understand why you want to re-write the result as "Speaker re-elected"...but I have a difficulty with it because it's simply not accurate or true. The Speaker was NOT re-elected in 2010, he was elected for the first time under that label. Michael Martin was not re-elected in 2010, neither was John Bercow. doktorb _words^deeds 15:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, comparing like with like usually involves comparing the new Parliament to that at dissolution. We were not able to do it that way this year, due to substantial boundary changes. What we have are notional changes, based on the 2005 results. This produces some illogical outcomes, such as losing by-election results, and handing seats to other parties (the result in Arfon is a prime example - the same MP returning to serve mostly the same area). The Speaker is a special case, because the Speaker is of no party, and merely seeking to be returned to the House to resume his duties. Mr. Bercow was elected in 2005, therefore he was re-elected in 2010, albeit under a different description. "Gains" are by one party over another. The Speaker is of no party, and therefore nobody "gains" anything. Arguably, the only reason the other pages are still reading as they are is that we are effectively deciding all their fates here. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If the list of candidates showed the official term, "Speaker seeking re-election", then "Speaker re-elected" would make perfect sense. They were re-elected, yes. The ballot paper reads "Speaker seeking re-election" and so if he's elected, it's a nonsense to say that he wasn't re-elected - as this is the official term. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 15:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, doktob, that it could be misunderstood, which is why I quite carefully set out the terms of the footnote. It's not ideal but it's less confusing to the reader than hold/gain. ninety:one 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever regret starting something? I like "Speaker re-elected", but propose a refinement: "Speaker win". It's certainly not a hold, because Bercow was elected as a Conservative last time, and I'm not sure it can really be called a gain, unless a Conservative had also been standing this time. Wereon (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is a hold. The question of holding is not what happened at the last election, but the party of the person in the seat before the election. It is illogical to say that it a gain at the expense of the Conservatives when the change happened in 2009 and the status before and after the election was identical. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is not a hold. The change happened in 2009, just like a by-election would. But in 2010, the election was to defend Buckingham - the Speaker was on the ballot, the Conservatives were not. Speaker Gain. doktorb _words^deeds 03:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was that you can't really apply something designed to deal with party politics to a poll which is non-partisan. On the point you raise, you're mistaken anyway - the hold/gain line is always taken to refer to the change in the opinion of the voters at general elections. Hence why it also ignores by-elections. Wereon (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that - my understanding is that hold/gain refers usually to dissolutions, and that this time around the other seats are not based on any actual results but an estimation based on a redistribution of the 2005 GE result due to boundary changes. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. Glasgow East was won by Labour in 2005 and 2010, but was a Labour gain in the latter year because of the 2008 by-election. Another example is Sylvia Hermon. She was elected as a UUP MP in 2005, left the party during the ensuing Parliament. If you look at the results table at the 2010 election page, you'll see she is counted as having held the seat. A seat is held when the party it belonged to before the election keeps it after the election. The fact that notional gains and losses are considered for some seats because of boundary changes is immaterial. What the notional 2005 results are trying to approximate is which party would have won the election and therefore held it on the day Parliament was dissolved. -Rrius (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow East is arguably a special case, since AIUI the boundaries in Scotland did not change, given they had been redrawn to reduce the number of seats in 2005 - so the Scottish results this time around should be literal. I understand that we also would have done this elsewhere but for the boundary changes, and that this process lost the by-election results mainly because they would in some cases involve adding wards which did not vote in the by-election. But I suspect that we're in agreement on the underlying issue, which is that nominally hold/gain refers to the situation at dissolution rather than at the previous election. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken, hold/gain refers to the situation at the previous (general) election. Wereon (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

81.110.111.164 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Doktorb, the election was not "to defend Buckingham"; it was to elect an MP. If the party holding the seat before the election continued to so after, it was a hold, not a gain. The Speaker did not increase the number of Speaker seats at the 2010 election—he held the one he already had. Indeed, the only person in a position to defend the Buckingham seat was John Bercow; the Conservatives had already lost it. -Rrius (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, I have gone through this numerous times on this page. You are mistaken. All British elections compare like-with-like. In 2005, Buckingham was held by a Conservative. In 2010 it was won by Speaker. The fact that this was the same person doesn't matter. It didn't matter when Betty Boothroyd won West Bromwich West, it didn't matter when Michael Martin won Glasgow Springhead, it doesn't matter now. It is a Speaker gain from Conservative. How can it be Speaker Hold? The Speaker did not contest the seat in 2005. doktorb _words^deeds 04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"All British elections compare like-with-like." What is your source in relation to the previous Speakers? I hope you're not referring to the existing Wikipedia articles, since that would be a circular argument. 81.110.111.164 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem! Two of our more notable politically aware editors cannot agree on the exact definition, so how can the average reader be expected to know what it means? Again, I suggest Speaker re-elected, with a footnote explaining the niceties of our system of notation. ninety:one 14:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine, except that it should be "win" (or possibly "returned") rather than "re-elected", for although Bercow was elected last time, he was not elected as the Speaker. Wereon (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I'm so inclined to the phrase 're-elected' is that in the 'Party' column on the actual ballot sheet, it says 'Speaker seeking re-election' by convention. Therefore 'Speaker re-elected' seems, basically, to sum up this (but saying it happened.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just discovered this debate and agree with the comments that this a trivial debate that should be ended with the use of Speaker re-elected. In the general case, there are two ways of defining a seat as a Gain/Loss or a Hold: one by reference to the last general election, and one by reference to the actual incumbent holder of the seat at dissolution. (The same is true of the swing: as reported in the newspapers, at least in the past, you would find "Swing from byelection" and "Swing from last GE" both printed). To describe Buckingham as "gained" by an MP who already held it is confusing to an ordinary reader, while to describe it as a "Speaker hold" will be defined as wrong by those who believe gain/loss is always from GE to GE. To describe Buckingham as gained "from Conservative" is misleading as there was no Conservative to lose it. On the other hand, there is no doubt that John Bercow (who was and is the Speaker and stood as such) was re-elected. So that or a similar phrase should be used and should be acceptable to psepho-nerds and ordinary humans alike. Sussexonian (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

By-election?

The BBC piece quoted in the article states "John Bercow says he will stand down as Commons Speaker and MP at the next election or on 31 October, whichever comes first." Given that there is no longer enough time for a general election to be held between now and 31 October, this appears to indicate that he will stand down as an MP on that date, and that there will therefore be a by-election in Buckingham. This article in the Daily Mirror says "on Monday 4 November... Mr Bercow - a former Tory - will resign as MP for Buckingham, likely prompting a by-election for his seat." (I'm not sure if the Daily Mirror counts as a reliable source?). Should the article note that, if Mr Bercow stands down as an MP, there will be a by-election? Alekksandr (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)