Therese Coffey (Conservative) 25,475

Daisy Cooper (LibDem) 16,347

Adam Leeder (Labour) 8,812

Stephen Bush (UKIP) 3,156

Rachel Fulcher (Green) 1,103

The UKIP vote was 5.7% of the total vote, comfortably exceeding the 5% threshold to save the candidate’s deposit.  This was an increase of over 50% in vote share and actual votes compared with the 2005 General Election.

In the country as a whole in 2010 (2005 figures in brackets) UKIP:

• fought 560 seats (498)
• saved 101 deposits (36)
• obtained 917,000 votes (603,000)
• scored 1637 votes per seat (1211)

Professor Bush would like to thank all those who voted for him and the five policies which UKIP stood for in the election, viz:

• A permanent end to mass immigration
• A long-term programme for rebuilding our manufacturing industry
• Withdrawing Britain from the undemocratic European Union
• Recovery of our fishing grounds and industry
• An urgent start on building a secure nuclear-based future for our energy supplies.
• Opposition to mass house building projects in Felixstowe and Martlesham
• Giving parish councils the final say in all housing planning issues
• Replacement of Natural England’s and DEFRA’s policy of “managed” retreat of our coastline by a national long-term programme of river flood and coastal erosion defences, adequately financing local initiatives and building them into the overall design for Britain’s coasts.

Stephen would like to thank all those who worked for the campaign’s success, including those who displayed posters in their windows or on boards, and most particularly his Campaign Manager, Gillian Bush, June Larter (Secretary and Treasurer of Suffolk Coastal UKIP branch), Ann Downing (his Agent), Ron Whitmore (UKIP branch Chairman for Suffolk Coastal), Barbara Shout in Felixstowe, Colin Hodson in Martlesham and Clive Boot in the Woodbridge area.

Thanks are also due to the organisers of the 7 hustings, which I as the UKIP candidate was invited to take part in with the other four candidates: St John’s Church, Woodbridge, United Reform Church, Halesworth, Church of St Peter and St Paul, Aldeburgh, St Edmund’s Hall, Southwold, Ben Greatorex, Woodbridge School, Market Hall, Saxmundham, St Felix School, Southwold.  Also the visit to the mock election at Saxmundham Middle School (Kevin Minton) where my alter ego, Leanne Wallace, was standing as the UKIP candidate, was very much appreciated.

The Exclusion of UKIP and the Green Party from the hustings arranged by St John’s church in Felixstowe was a regrettable breach of the democratic process, but was more than made up by the interest generated in our stalls outside the Owl and Pussycat and on Felixstowe’s promenade in the days just before the election. 

Of particular note from the media was the courteous and fair-minded intereview conducted by Trevor Lockwood of Felixstowe Radio and the interview by Felixstowe TV.

Thank you again to all those who voted for me and helped in the campaign.

UKIP’s main four policies which have direct relevance to East Anglia and Suffolk Coastal in particular are:

(1)  to provide 50 GW of nuclear power electricity to replace the imminent loss of North Sea oil as Britain’s national energy mainstay by 2050.  This would reduce CO2 emissions by 40%, the biggest single reduction that any party is showing how actually to achieve.

A “quick-as-possible” start on Sizewell C is the subject of a petition which we have been running on our street stalls for several weeks.  Work on the road “system” between the A12 and the Leiston area, and on the A12 itself is an integral part of UKIP’s vision for the new power station (see the Q&A section on this website for answers to people’s queries on fuel reprocessing and waste disposal).

(2)  For UKIP’s plan to adopt a 30 year £1.5 billion p.a. programme for national flood and coastal defences [one of our 5 Long Term Programmes (LTPs)] see the Manifesto, Section 2 – Jobs, Enterprise and Skills.

A National Rivers and Coastal Agency (NRCA) would be established to take responsibilities for this away from the Environment Agency, DEFRA and Natural England, which latter quango would be abolished.  The NRCA would concentrate on building comprehensive, properly engineered and managed defences agains major inland river flood risks and severe coastal erosion as on the East Anglian coasts, parts of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, Sussex and Kent.

It would aim to build on local initiatives such as those in Suffolk Coastal at Southwold, the coast to the North of there, Felixstowe, Aldeburgh and Ore and along the Suffolk and Norfolk coastline.  NRCA would have the funds to establish comprehensive coast models to see that all initiatives, both existing and new would not shift a problem from place to place.  Offshore dredging operations and access channels for shipping would come within its remit, as would helping to establish local supply chains to carry out the work involved.

(3)  Excessive wind generated electricity subsidies will be reduced to a common level applicable to all non-fossil fuel sources of electricity, and UKIP will ensure that farms with more than 5 turbines are built offshore to protect our landscape and villages from massive visual intrusion and noise.

(4)  Wildlife conservation.

(See Q&A to Suffolk Wildlife Trust on this website for our policies on the countryside, marine protection and land management generally.)

As the LibDems are the beneficiaries of the “performance” of their leader in these debates, it will repay every voter to look at their policies carefully, particularly on immigration and defence, which has not so far figured very much in the election.

On immigration the LibDems want to give an amnesty to unknown numbers of illegal immigrants, which the Home Office estimates place anywhere between 600,000 and one million.  Given the history of systematic underestimation of immigration, the figure is more likely to be a million or even more.

Given that current policy allows each granted asylum seeker the right to bring in at least one claimed dependant, Clegg’s policy, which he apparently defended yesterday, May 3rd, as a courageous act of equity to (yes you have guessed it) asylum seekers who have all been at the mercy of evil people smugglers, will end up by doubling or tripling this figure.

Hasn’t Clegg ever gone to Calais and spoken to the French authorities there or even our own Home Office?  Talk of a few dozen people smugglers is throwing dust in the eyes of the British people.  You have to ask why do LibDems and their allies have such a regard for immigrants that they want another two million or more of them in our country on top of the current annual flow of 500,000?  England, where overwhelmingly they settle is already the most densely crowded country in the industrial world – more than Japan and the Netherlands.

On defence, the LibDem policy of throwing doubt on the continuance of the Trident deterrent beyond its current replacement date of 2020-24 will simply increase pressure on Britain to give up its permanent United Nations Security Council seat, a seat we have held since we, the USA and the former Soviet Union co-founded the United Nations in 1945.

In fact Clegg is personally committed to handing over our seat to the EU, which with his nuclear policy would leave France as the only credible independent country in Europe.

One or two former political figures like David Owen, who helped found the LibDems, and who have close contacts now with them, have advanced the idea that the nuclear deterrent could be carried more cheaply by cruise missiles.  Unlike the Trident ballistic missiles whose route to target is set in the submarine in a vertical parabola, which cannot be interfered with after launch, cruise missiles are basically horizontal in flight, continuously corrected by the guidance they carry with them and therefore continuously exposed to electronic jamming and redirection.  This is all apart from the colossal systems of communications, research, maintenance, dock systems at Faslane and Devonport which would have to be built from scratch for the new cruise missile submarines, but which are already built for Trident systems and their replacedments.  But then these “details” are of no concern to politicians, acting out roles on the national stage or, in Owen’s case, trying to stage a comeback.

So vote LibDem with its European obsessions added to its defence illusions, UN Security Council Seat surrender and policy of uncontrolled immigration and you will end up with Britain ceasing to be an independent, self-governing country in any sense at all.

UKIP’s policy on waste is, as in all things we do, based on efficient and prudential use of resources. 

As always we start from the facts.  For any artefact there are four possible outcomes (Table 1): (1) recycle, (2) convert to energy/electricity, (3) incinerate to atmosphere,(4) disposal in landfill. 

1          RECYCLING:

We follow the 3 R’s precept to:

(i)  reduce                   primary use where possible by good design (e.g. of packaging)

(ii)  reuse                    either directly (non-food only) or by simple  adaptation (e.g. pipework)

(iii)  reprocess            plastics can often be compacted, melted and formed into other lower grade uses such as fencing and board without costly energy intensive cleaning.

Having said this, there will always be an irreducible minimum where other means of disposal are required.  The three remaining options are:

2          Energy from waste (principally incineration or bio-digestion into space heating)

3          Incineration to atmosphere

4          Landfill

In line with our fundamental efficient and prudential principle, UKIP strongly favours option 2.  Here as in so many matters of production and conservation Switzerland sets the bench-mark for the rest of the world.  Referring to household waste (around 460 kg per person in the UK) some international comparisons for 2002 (latest available) are:

Table 1: Waste disposal by countries and type of disposal

As can be seen the UK is enormously behind in making some use of waste – behind even the USA with 60 times the area of England.  This is the consequence of 50 years of gross mismanagement and neglect by the Labour and Conservative governments.

Our policy is to promote by all possible means, using our Production Enterprise Centres, but not confined to them:

(a)        redesign-for-reuse products [options 1(i) and also 1(ii) and 1(iii)]

(b)        direct-from-householder-to-user collection systems (options for 2 and 3)

(c)        compaction systems for plastics, paper and board to provide fuel brickets for electric generators and local heating systems (option 2), including dual fuel systems for remote localities.       

Needless to say, I hope, I am totally opposed to the abandonment of Trident, either completely or in favour of some cut-price, totally unconvincing system, based on cruise missiles, somehow carried on Hunter-Killer submarines.  This arrangement is advocated by David Owen (BBC2 Newsnight on 21st April) former foreign secretary in the Labour government 1978-79 until he broke away in 1981 to form the Social Democrats, who later merged with the Liberals to form the LibDems.

In this brief comment, I won’t go into the technical details of the impracticability of David Owen’s proposal (like the impracticability of most of the current LibDem policies), but restate the national interest in this matter, which is also UKIP’s standpoint.

As an aside one might observe that to a considerable extent this is an argument against Trident by the generals and some in the RAF who have never got over the fact that it is the Royal Navy which is responsible for Britain’s ultimate weapons system.

One might also observe that the cost of £80 billion being bandied about is the whole life cost over 40 years.  The capital cost of the four submarines and their missiles and warheads is about £20 billion spread over 10 years of construction and commissioning.  So we are basically talking in cost terms of about £2 billion per annum, which would pay for at most 1,000 extra soldiers (if they could be recruited and properly equipped), fewer than this if we allow for real wage inflation over 40 years.

By contrast if we abandon Trident, we shall leave France as the only strategic power in Europe, and we shall come under irresistible pressure to give up our permanent seat on the UN Security Council, while France will continue to retain hers. 

A nuclear submarine armed with ballistic missiles is the only weapons system that allows pressure to be brought on an enemy state anywhere in the world. Coupled with the two planned carriers, an updated Trident system will give the UK the most potent force projection that can be bought for the money (as stated above about £20 billion spread over 10 years for the capital cost of the equipment).  This should be compared with the £10 billion net per annum we shall soon be spending in direct contributions to the EU or £3 billion plus per annum on local authority “cultural services”.

Can anyone seriously suggest that we will derive better value as a nation from these other expenditures?

Stephen and Trevor discuss issues affecting the nation and Suffolk Coastal. Touching on  such subjects as UKIP’s place in the political arena, manufacturing & industry,  ecconomics,  exports.

The interview is available to listen again on their web site:

http://www.canstream.co.uk/felixstowe/index.php?id=294

New Thames Gateway Port To Rival Felixstowe

Further to my email yesterday (15 March) questioning the population basis of the Regional Spacial Strategy (RSS) and its derivative, the Local Development Framework (LDF), DP World have given the go-ahead for work to start today on the dredging necessary to accommodate the new ultra-large generation of container ships to and from the Far East.

The new container port is to be built at Thames Haven, Thurrock, Essex on a 1500 acre brown-field site plus additional reclaimed land, using the 23 billion cubic metres being dredged out of the Thames to make the necessary channel.  There appears to be a lot of enthusiasm and no opposition to this project, which includes a 60 trains a day freight terminal and doubling of the single track rail connection.  DP World claims it will remove 2000 lorries a day from our roads (many of which would be from the A14) by having more direct access to London and the South and West via the M25 (much of which is presently served from depots in the Midlands fed by Felixstowe and the A14).

Clearly this new port will be, as it is intended to be, a direct competitor to Felixstowe as Britain’s largest container port.  Hopefully Felixstowe will be able to hold on to the goods traffic actually needed in the Midlands and North as distinct from that currently transhipped to London and the South.

Plans are to complete the new port in 10 years’ time, i.e. in the same time frame as Felixstowe’s planned expansion.  However, at the very least this undermines the development assumptions about Felixstowe and surroundings implied by the RSS and LDF documents, and is surely another major reason for putting on hold on Thursday 18^th March the LDF plans for major new housing developments, as I urged in my letter yesterday.

Yours sincerely

Professor Stephen Bush

UKIP Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Suffolk Coastal Constituency.

I am surprised and alarmed that your Council appears set to approve the Local Development Framework (LDF) proposals at your meeting on 18^th March.

In essence the LDF has been formulated in the light of the Regional Spacial Strategy (RSS) which has in turn been drawn up by the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA).  This body has no democratic mandate whatsoever, and the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Conservative Party are both committed to abolishing the EERA and its counterparts in the rest of England.

The authority that EERA has for planning derives from the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act which was promoted by John Prescott, former Labour minister, along with a variety of Labour’s favourite social engineering objectives.  Under this Act the LDF sets aside specific protective policies for areas in the Felixstowe peninsula and Martlesham Heath (e.g. AP28, AP212 and 214) which are being designated to receive some 3,000 new housing units as part of Suffolk’s “allocation” under the RSS of around 50,000 new housing units over the next 20 years.

The projection by the Barker report (2004) of 70,000 additional homes per annum needed in England to bring down real house price rises by 0.6% per annum and 120,000 to bring them down by 1.3% are themselves projections based on projected population increases, all of which are essentially theoretical and matters of hot dispute and contradicted by the experience of the last 6 years.

It must be clearly understood by Suffolk Coastal District Councillors and planners alike that the Suffolk 50,000 figure itself derives from the RSS estimate of around 500,000 new homes “needed” in the East of England, which in turn derives from a National Statistical Office (NSO) projection of a further 9 million more people in England by 2031.  This purely theoretical increase is predicated almost entirely on immigration into Britain at a continuing rate of around 250,000 per year, plus the natural increase of the predominantly young immigrants.

I need hardly tell you that continued immigration on anything like this scale is a General Election issue and is opposed by virtually everyone in the country.  As a resident of Suffolk, I am personally totally opposed to housing development on anything like the scale envisaged in the RSS.  I believe that greatly improved transport links should come before any large schemes of housing are allowed.  The RSS figure of 0.5 million houses in the East of England is based on the NSO projection, which is itself likely to be revised substantially downwards whoever is in power at Westminster over the next five years.  UKIP’s policy, which has a great appeal to the electorate, is for a complete freeze on immigration for settlement for 5 years, followed by a referendum of the British people on how much, if any, immigration would be allowed beyond the 5 year period.

By any standards the evidence for housing “need” 20 years forward is thus extremely slender and unconvincing.  I would have thought that as prudent, realistic people, the Council would have put on hold the LDF and any other matters deriving from the likely-to-be-defunct RSS and its parent body the EERA.

I therefore strongly urge you to do just this at your meeting next Thursday, 18^th March, pending decisions by the incoming government about the EERA, the RSS, and the population projections on which it is based.  You will thereby relieve a great deal of anxiety in the minds of the people of Suffolk Coastal District and specifically the most populous area between Martlesham and Felixstowe.

Yours sincerely

Professor Stephen Bush

UKIP Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Suffolk Coastal Constituency.