Vote Farage – the libertarian option. A man who doesn’t give a rat’s arse about “family values” and who-marries-who but focuses on the truly pressing issues. A man who knows economics, a man with extensive political experience across the continent, a man with a view to bringing back proper education in the UK. Farage will be a credit to Bucks!

If the best riposte this old fart can come up with is “This is true blue territory”, it shows how horribly out-of-touch he is with the political situation in the UK. All bets are off for the two-party system. People want a candidate who represents them, not just a silly rosette!

“I cannot remember if I paid capital gains tax” John Bercow !

VOTE UKIP, VOTE NIGEL FARAGE

Paragraph 1: He claims that I am “simply an alternative Conservative candidate”, that my Independent candidature “is an artifice”, and “an attempt to drive a coach and horses through convention by opposing the Speaker on behalf of the Speaker’s own party”. Nothing could be further than the truth. I am an Independent as I am not a member of any political party. No party is supporting my candidature in any way. I am running my own campaign on my own with my own money with the help of family and friends and, I hope, in due course, a band of volunteer helpers. I am not running it on behalf anybody else. Yes, I have conservative views. I have been a Conservative voter in the past and am quite likely to be one again in the future, but that does not compromise my independence. If I am elected I shall not take the Conservative whip in the House of Commons. Yes, in all probability I shall find myself most often giving my support to what I hope and expect to be a Conservative government, but when I do so I shall be making my own independent voting decisions based on my own judgments..

End of paragragh 2. Mr Howard writes “….it is self evidently dishonourable for another person (by implication, me) of the same party to campaign against him (theSpeaker)”. Well, yes it would be if that were the case but it isn’t. As Mr. Howard should know Speakers break all ties with their political parties upon election to that office. Thus Mr. Bercow who was previously a member of the Conservative party but is no longer, and I have not been one since the early 1970s.

Paragraph 3. Mr Howard may be unaware that some discussion of introducing a system by which in future a Speaker would be assigned to a notional constituency and a by-election called in his original constituency has already taken place, and Buckingham Liberal-Democrats went so far as to submit a motion to the Lib-Dem Autumn Conference calling for the current system to be reformed. And again, Mr. Howard you show your misunderstanding of the Speaker’s non-party status when you talk about him being answerable to “and in these days, to his constituency party”. He has no party.

I could go on but will end by rebutting the content of Mr. Howard’s penultimate paragraph where he states that the Speaker on constituency matters is perfectly capable of acting as any other MP, and that my assertion that by his becoming Speaker (unless opposed) the Buckingham electorate would be disenfranchised. Yes, the Speaker is capable of representing the electorate, but there is a difference between the electorate being unrepresented and disenfranchised. Being disenfranchised means being denied the opportunity to exercise one’s right to vote for who should represent you; which is precisely what would have happened at the next General Election if nobody had been prepared to come forward and contest the seat. A different matter altogther.

Patrick Phillips’ letter to last week’s Bucks Herald, reaffirming the intention to stand against John Bercow in the general election, was less clear about his actual political affiliations than his website and his contributions to many Tory blog sites this one among them. He is simply an alternative Conservative candidate. His writings on the web make clear that whilst he calls himself an independent he only does this because he thinks he is not allowed to call himself a Conservative. It is an artifice; an attempt not just to sidestep the constitutional convention, which Mr Phillips fully acknowledges, namely that the main opposition parties do not field candidates against the Speaker, but an attempt to drive a coach and horses through convention by opposing the Speaker on behalf of the Speaker’s own party! A breathtaking constitutional breach.

The justification put forward in his letter for his candidacy was both confused and confusing. The Speaker must be a sitting member of the House of Commons but upon becoming Speaker his party political career is effectively at an end. There are very few instances, none in modern times, of any Speaker resuming a party political career after ceasing to be Speaker. The need for the Speaker to maintain his or her impartiality, effectively precludes party political campaigning in general elections on National Policy issues and that is precisely why he should be free of challenge by National Parties or those who, de facto, belong to National Parties but by subterfuge put themselves up under the pretence of another name. As the Speaker is effectively precluded from campaigning on his own party’s manifesto, it is self evidently dishonourable for another person of the same party to campaign against him.

Mr Phillips’ makes a poor attempt to rationalise the breach of convention he contemplates by suggesting on this blog (but wisely not in his letter to the newspaper) that, upon election the Speaker would be assigned to a fictional seat and that his actual seat would then be subject to a further election. This is bizarre. Walter Bagehot will have turned in his grave and, anyone living, with a passing interest in the British Constitution, choked on their cornflakes at this suggestion. It is obviously crucial to the Speaker’s position that he is elected and is answerable to his constituents (and these days his constituency party) when he is called upon to exercise a vote.

The Speaker votes if there is a tie, and this has happened in recent times. When it does occur it is as often as not on a major issue of controversy or national importance. To place the casting vote, as Mr Phillips suggests, on matters of national importance in the hands of a person who is not answerable to any constituents is anti-democratic and against the fundamental tenets of the very British Parliamentary democracy that Mr Phillips says he is so keen to defend against the “Barbarians at the gate ” in Brussels.

The words Mr Phillips put into John Bercow’s mouth of a speakership of about 9 years is actually a fairly common period for recent Tory Speakers. Bernard Weatherill and Betty Boothroyd being 9 years and 8 years respectively, but way below two other Tory Speakers of the 20th century, James Lowther at 16 years and Edward Fitzroy at 15 years. Other recent well regarded Tory Speakers, like Selwyn Lloyd, was in office over two parliaments and finished after 6 years only through ill health.

For a professed Conservative, Mr Phillips’ letter and the candidacy which he sought to publicise, portrayed a startling lack of knowledge or understanding about the pivotal position of the Speaker’s office and why conventions developed so that the office was not undermined. It is difficult to conclude other than the actual reason why Mr Phillips (who does not seem to have any particular qualification to offer himself as a member of parliament-old men with two houses who have occupied a a ceremonial office that confers a frilly shirt and 18 century costume doesn’t cut much mustard in this neck of the woods) is seeking election is out of personal animus against Mr Bercow. This too is worrying. John Bercow was selected by a vote of MPs as the best person to fulfil the job. Accepting the democratic decisions of Parliament is a virtue practised by true Conservatives. Mr Phillips however appears to be happy to throw this aside. Not accepting decisions of the House of Commons is a worrying trait in a prospective parliamentary candidate and Mr Phillips might be well advised to reflect on that at the same time as brushing up on his Bagehot before he goes any further with his candidacy.

Genuine non national party candidates are however quite entitled to stand. The Speaker, on constituency matters, is able to act and campaign as any other MP or prospective MP. Mr Phillips’ assertion that Buckinghamshire’s electorate had been disenfranchised by John Bercow assuming the office of Speaker is therefore plainly wrong.

What matters in Buckingham’s forthcoming poll is who is going to do the best job for the issues that face Buckingham. Most voters (even apparently Simon)have a very clear idea of John Bercow’s strengths as a constituency MP. By contrast, there was nothing in Mr Phillips’ letter and there is nothing on the Phillips4Buckingham website about any constituency issue at all. Unless Mr Phillips can persuade the many who think John Bercow has done a good job as a constituency MP that he, Phillips is genuinely independent and has got something to say about local politics he, like the parachuting Mr Farage does not have much of anything to offer .

Unfortunately it seems many traditional Conservative voters in the Buckingham constituency don’t follow national politics, and therefore perhaps they don’t realise how much John Bercow has become a political chameleon, or to put it another way, a liberal/ new labour sympathiser in Conservative clothing whilst holding on to the safety of his Buckingham seat believing he is invincible. After all, he is a charming polite intelligent man and a good constituency MP; or at least was before he was elected Speaker of the House. But then Nigel Farage put his hat in the ring and people started to wonder could John Bercow’s long standing successful hidden scheme start to unravel? Imagine if the Speaker of the House lost his seat! Maybe many Conservatives, especially Euro sceptics might switch to UKIP, but then there are many true blue conservatives who wouldn’t feel comfortable voting for another liberal and giving UKIP a foothold in Parliament. Surely there had to be an alternative? Perhaps a ‘Independent real conservative’ who was well known in the County of Buckinghamshire.

It seems the prayers of many natural Conservatives voters have been answered with the news that the ex- High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire, Patrick Phillips is going to stand for the Buckingham seat. A man who has the respect of many. To those who know him, he is a thoroughly decent chap with many years experience in public service and he will be standing as an Independent Candidate. As he states in a recent statement on the right of centre political blog, ‘TrueBlueBlood’. ‘Electoral law prohibits him calling himself an Independent conservative’. Well from what I know of Patrick he holds traditional conservative values unlike John Bercow or Nigel Farage who it seems are both proud of their liberal values. At least traditional conservatives now have a candidate who shares their own values; so it seems Buckingham constituency will have a ‘true blue’ candidate after all. I believe if Patrick gets his message across to the Buckingham electorate he stands a very good chance of being elected. So both Mr Bercow and Mr Farage better not count there chickens just yet, as the ‘true blue’ Buckingham constituency might support the only ‘true blue’ candidate en masse!

Reasons: Get rid of Bercow (a Labour MP really), he has been upto his neck in the Mp’s Expenses

Nigel Farage MEP who make one of the best MP’s in the land, he is a fantastic speaker (no pun intended) but Buckingham really need Nigel.

In a Daily Express poll, 99% of the british public want to leave the European Union, David Cameron cannot do anything while we are in the EU club, we will just get out voted by the other EU Members.

Time to leave the EU & Buckingham needs a Voice not a Speaker.

Rid us of the curse of Bercow. Be good to see the smile wiped off his face.

But no doubt. As per the conventions he despises, if deafeated, to would be bumped up to the House of Lords

Promised a fresh wave of reform.

What’s he achieved. A fresh coat of paint in the Speakers Chambers. And a creche. and he has stopped wearing the silly wig and gowns. Apart from that? The man is a bloody joke.

Bercow is a fine MP. he has my vote.

Cut the chit chat and get on with your lives!

A delicious irony there. They had the passion to apply to stand. why not as an independent. many were infuriated by the expenses scandal.

Might be worth a few quid bet.