Under A Month To Go In The Rochester And Strood By-Election: So Who Are The Candidates?

I was trawling through my favourite corners of the internet earlier, looking at the usual, when I stumbled across the Britain First post on Facebook about their candidate in my local elections, at which point it suddenly dawned upon me, I have no idea who the candidates really are and what they stand for. I looked for a while and couldn't find a page that outlined all of their manifesto's and pledges to the constituency, something for which I do not know whether it is my fault, for looking in the wrong places, or if it simply is not there. I thought to myself, for once do not just moan about this woman and her politics, make one page devoted to the candidates in the Rochester and Strood by-election, to the best of your limited abilities, which might help (at least some of) the people make an informed choice among the THIRTEEN options. So here we go, into the unprecedented territory of a relatively unbiased post (only because it is already clear I am not a fan of BF).

Mike Barker MBE: Independent
Bomb disposal expert.
Twitter: @MikeBarkerMBE
Received MBE for Gallantry in 1972.
Convicted in 2008 of making 'Threats to Kill'.
Imprisoned in 2010 for non payment of Council Tax as a protest.

Is concerned by the unexploded ordinance on the SS Richard Montgomery in the Thames Estuary near Grain, which has 10,353 bombs onboard and has not been made safe for the nearby public. Other concerns include the continued existence of nuclear weapons.
That is pretty much all I could find out about him, other than that he originally wanted to run as a Respect Candidate but was not replied to by George Galloway and his party. So I would assume that his politics would be in line (at least in part) with those of the Respect party.

Christopher Challis: Independent
Cambridge educated Accountant
Twitter: @Chris_Challis

Couldn't find too much on him so this is taken from his tweeting; Appears to be a keen supporter of free-market capitalism. States that he is pro-free NHS. Believes lower tax rates will inevitably produce higher tax intake. Is against the Inheritance Tax and would like to see it eventually scrapped when no longer needed. Mentions the EU referendum, and it being blocked by the House of Lords previously, Although not explicit that implies a pro referendum stance. Tweeted support for an article arguing against the legality and ethics of Multi-National Tax Avoidance.

Hairy Norm Davidson: Monster Raving Loony Party
Woodsman and Log Supplier

Couldn't find much on this chap other than he ran in Faversham and Mid Kent at the 2010 elections gaining 398 votes coming last (I would argue still more sensible than what some of those other voters in that region chose).
Here is the Monster Raving Loony Party manifesto.

Jayda Fransen: Britain First
Director of Britain First Merchandise

Main concern appears to be the construction of a Mega-Mosque in nearby Gillingham. They are an Anti-Islam group whose issues appear to be that of Islam in the UK, immigration in general, 'declaring war' on the Westminster establishment, and our EU membership. Here is the Rochester section from their website. As a bonus here is a video of her charming confrontation with rather bemused groups of Tories and Muslims.

Stephen William Goldsbrough: Independent
Lay Preacher
Twitter: @StephenGoldsbro

Tweeted this petition to stop Nestle patenting a cure-all flower. Also retweeted a tweet from 38degrees in support of a change to the gagging law. That's all I could find on him. Only two tweets.

Clive Gregory: Green Party
Bass Player
Twitter: @clivebassman

Clive's main policies include the following: Opposing the proposed development of Lodge Hill, the re-nationalisation of the railways, calling for a people's constitutional development, full monetary reform, £10 per hour minimum wage, protection for the NHS, and of course environmental sustainability (including opposing fracking in Kent). Read about them in a bit more detail in his local manifesto. His blog is a useful tool to use if you want to learn about his politics too, particularly this post. Here is the full 2010 Green Party manifesto, unfortunately it is an old one but it will be a good indicator of their core values. For slightly a more up-to-date, but more focused on Europe, manifesto there is one from the European Elections available.

Geoff Juby: Liberal Democrats
Medway Councillor for Gillingham South. Contested Rochester and Strood in 2010.

Surprisingly hard to find information on considering he is a candidate for one of the 'traditional big three'. Here is a rather wishy washy interview from 2010 for Rochester People and his profile on the Medway LibDems website. Because of his lack of online presence (like many of the other candidates) I am going to have to assume his politics are completely in line with the parties. As such I will base it on the Lib Dems pre-manifesto. These policies include: Balancing the nations books (the austerity program), raise tax free allowance to £12,500, protect education spending from early years to college (and education promise, forgive me for this one slip up in bias.... but... haha as if that will happen... it sounds familiar and is still a sore point for me and my bank balance), more free childcare, stronger border checks, greater devolution, and more... for more information check out their full pre-manifesto.

Naushabah Khan: Labour
PR Consultant and Kickboxer
Twitter: @naushabahkhan

Unsurprisingly, her twitter is useless as a guage of her policies... as it is pretty much just PR friendly photographs. Thankfully, she has a personal website devoted to this campaign. It makes me searching a little bit quicker as I do not have to trawl twitter, news sources or dubiously constructed websites, and hopefully I will be able to get on with my evening much sooner than I feared. Her concerns do make her seem committed local issue, real grass-roots politics in the community she wishes to represent. Her website lists as her campaigns a commitment to save Strood Library from closure (or relocation), fighting against 'Boris Island' in the Thames Estuary, fighting for the betterment of train services for commuters and improving their rights, and she wants to know about local people's experiences with GP waiting times to boot. You can read about it all on her website which handily includes a blog too. In the interest of fairness I will also include the Labour party manifesto? Or issues?... Heck I don't know what this is meant to be, but it does include some key promises so it will do. It's all on that website.

Nick Long: People Before Profit
Housing Officer

@nichopbp (found him after this post was completed... Check it out if you want to know more)

A party based out of Lewisham, this will be (as far as I can tell) their first foray into politics outside of the capital. Very left-wing. I could not find anything on Nick Long or his personal policies and concerns, the best I have is the website for the party. Have a look around and you'll be able to understand what they are about. Admittedly the focus of the website is upon Lewisham but I'd imagine they would take a similar stance with Medway's local services.

Dave Osborn: Patriotic Socialist Party
Also stood in Clacton?

Taken from their Facebook page "The Patriotic Socialist Party is pleased to announce that Dave Osborn has been selected to stand for the Rochester and Strood Parliamentary by-election. A former member of both the Labour Party and, more recently, UK Independence Party, Dave has shown himself to be committed to fighting for the Patriotic Socialist cause."

As confusing as that statement is (socialism and UKIP in my mind are completely antithetical) I feel I should provide some information on who they are and what Dave Osborn stands for. His manifesto on their Facebook page states that the Patriotic Socialists will: Prtoect public services, oppose austerity and fight for the poorest and most vulnerable in society, introduce a living wage, nationalise the railways, Royal Mail and energy companies, take control of the monetary system in the UK (creating debt free money), withdraw from the EU and get tougher on immigration, advocate environmentalism and animal rights. For more information on the parties policies take a look at their 10 point plan manifesto.

Mark Reckless: UKIP
Former Banker and Barrister
Twitter: @MarkReckless

The man who triggered all of this by switching from the Tories to the New Tories UKIP. It is Mark Reckless, so what does he stand for now that he has taken that small step to the right? His own website should shed light on it, thankfully there is a post there entitled "Why I am leaving the Conservative party and joining UKIP". Unsurprisingly, he talks of UKIP's 'outsider' status and taking on the old Westminster elite who have caused the public to feel disenfranchised with politics. Further into it, and after his dig at the tories, he gets to the nuts and bolts of his policies, in it he states that he wants to: Cut immigration, deal with the deficit (continue the austerity program), bring down taxes, make MP's more accountable to their constituents, localise local issues (an example he gives is housing at the Lodge Hill site), and of course get Britain out of the EU. You can read about UKIP's wider interests on their website.

Charlotte Rose: Independent
Sex Worker and Sexual Trainer (also ran in the Clacton by-election)
Twitter: @_Charlie_rose

Previously appearing on the Channel 4 TV series 'Love For Sale'. She won the award Sex Worker of the Year in 2013. She is primarily concerned with the need for greater 'sexual freedom'. She has hit out at the governments failure to deal with problems including porn addiction and the Rotherham child exploitation scandal, she has also called for a comprehensive sex education overhaul.

Kelly Tolhurst: Conservative
Businesswoman and Marine Surveyor
Twitter: @KellyTolhurst

Selected via an open primary, contested between her and Anna Firth. She has a six point plan to "secure a better future for Rochester and Strood" which includes: Action - Not just talk - on immigration, getting Medway Hospital out of Special Measures, a housing development plan that works for us (Lodge Hill again), more police officers on the streets, more jobs and better infrastructure (keeping businesses taxes low and sorting out traffic in Medway City Estate), and finally improving the local schools, something she will definitely know about having attended Chapter School (I jest of course). And finally, here is the Conservative Party plan? I guess it's too early for a proper manifesto anyway, but its pretty much all there. As it stands it might all be pointless for her whatever the result, as an article on the Channel 4 website claims that judges could over turn any conservative victory in Rochester and Strood due to a breach of the legal spending limits. I guess time will tell if she does win.

Her page on the Conservative party website is also asking you to voice your opinion on capping welfare payments further, which I strongly urge you to disagree with, it is extremely harmful to those who are in the unfortunate position of needing it to survive, whatever your politics are more extreme levels of poverty is not a good idea.

Right that's your lot, I'm tired, I've been doing this post for untold hours, I have work early in the morning, and quite frankly I am now bored of it all.

Hope this helps anyone who is confused by all the 'options'.

If you want my two pennies... I'm still sticking with the Greens.

Obsessed With Islam: Facebook and Widespread, Unchallenged Racism

Racism on Facebook is something I have touched on before, a constant thorn in my side, that itch which never ceases despite how often you attempt to scratch it away. Whilst every form of racist posts on Facebook send me up the wall, it is the obsession with sharing 'stories' which focus upon the supposed irrational, barbaric, or otherwise antithetical aspects of Islamic beliefs with the 'enlightened' western world, which brings forth my wrath more than annoy other.

Why should I choose to reserve more anger about one form of racism on Facebook than any other? The answer is simple, I do not get more worked up about anti-Islamic posts than other forms. I do despair at how easily nearly every one of these posts go unchallenged by the majority of my 'friends' or even their friends. When these posts go ignored it is implicitly condoning the belief that Islam and the Islamic people being targeted are incompatible with civilised society. It further marginalises a large stratum of society already quite marginal in terms of relative power.

Ironically, many of these posts criticise Islamic people for not wanting to accommodate another religion or set of societal values whilst simultaneously neither wishing to accommodate their beliefs or values. Of course the people who make and share these posts often do not realise this inherent hypocrisy. When they are on occasions forced to acknowledge this, usually (although far too rarely) by someone challenging their choice to spread marginalising or racist propaganda, many go through a process of reconciliation in an attempt to bring their beliefs in line with the acceptable. Tellingly, this process usually involves warping the non-racist position more than the racist one in order to concede as little ground as possible, thus in (their minds at least) validating their beliefs.

Most of these techniques are easily recognisable. It might involve projecting their own privileged position onto Islam, thus switching the blame for the perceived incompatibility of coexistence within one society from the majority group onto the minority one. They might ridicule an aspect of Islamic belief to show its irrational nature therefore relegating it below their 'superior' culture, whilst ignoring how perfectly reasonable the request or concession would be if it was coming from a group not currently the subject of such unconditional hatred. More often than not they simply will not have to bother.

The only reason I mention the way these posts are made compatible with acceptable views is because within these techniques the truth of why they are so frustrating to see go unchallenged everyday surfaces. They are in all forms only used as a way to reaffirm the poster's racist beliefs. Even when hiding under the guise of something 'humorous' or 'banter', such as the inspiration for this post.

Whilst boredom scrolling through Facebook I came across this innocent looking photo of a London cabbie grabbing his door handle, which I must have passed on half a dozen occasions, before noticing two words that jumped out at me on screen, they were "Arab Muslim". Knowing Facebook posts are usually fall into one of four categories; reactionary, inflammatory, incorrect, or just plain boring, I knew I was onto something. 

Accompanying the generic looking photo were these words:

London cab driver's answer to a request from a Muslim to turn of the radio. (You just got to love the Brits.) A devout Arab Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.

The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door. 

The Arab Muslim asked him, "What are you doing?"

The cabbie answered, "In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so piss off and wait for a camel.."

Many people would wrongly argue that this is just a humorous anecdote, that it is a reasonable response to someone trying to force another person to adhere to their religious beliefs, and that those beliefs are clearly irrational and incompatible with a developed, modern, and (without even a subtle hint of irony) tolerant society. 

But would this be interpreted the same way if it were a story about a Christian taking offence to a piece of music? I would argue no. Instead of laughing it off and agreeing with what it, the likely reaction from the very same would be to meet it with huge amounts of hostility. There is plenty of evidence of this if you look at stories in the many racist, right-wing mouthpieces about 'good ol' Christians' being subject to discrimination where Muslims would ALWAYS be accommodated. Such as in the wording of this article and the comments scribbled with crayons by the readers.

Additionally, the "Arab Muslim" in this (I suspect fake) story was not just anybody asking something unreasonable. He or she is a paying customer and most of the people who are sharing or posting this rubbish most likely adhere to the old adage that "the customer is always right". If that saying holds any truth and the "Arab Muslim" was paying for this service, why should he or she not be allowed to ask for something they find offensive to be switched off? 

The only reason that is is differentiated so much from what someone who posts this would expect for themselves can be because the subjects are an "Arab Muslim" and a Londoner (who is white if you look at the picture). Its is all about location and race, Western European versus Middle Eastern, Christianity versus Islam, Normal versus Abnormal, Right versus Wrong and nothing else.

As with all of these posts, it marks Islam out as the antithesis to Western Culture. To ignore and leave it be, is to condone and to agree. Opposing racism online is becoming increasingly pertinent as more and more of our social interactions and knowledge dissemination are being conducted on social media platforms such as Facebook. So next time you see one of these posts ask yourself... who will challenge their racism if not you?