We’re in the middle of a housing crisis. There’s no way of escaping that. Despite a population twice the size of Canada, housebuilding in Britain is half theirs.  The Tory plan to extend the ‘right to buy’ to housing association tenants will be hailed by some as an example of how the Conservatives are on the side of the low paid working-classes. These are after all, supposedly, the tenants of housing association properties. The reality is far different. And the Conservatives’ resurrection of ‘right to buy’, jolted into life as if a zombie Thatcher walks the halls of Downing Street, is only going to make things worse.

I spent the first five years of my life living in a housing association terrace. I don’t live there any longer, and nor does my family. My parents saved up a bit, waited for their wages to increase, and when they finally scraped together enough for a deposit thanks to a bit of family assistance, they got a mortgage and bought their own house.    When we moved out, a new family moved in. No loss to the housing stock. This is how social housing is meant to work.

Like Rowntree’s cycle of poverty, there’s a cycle of housing. And from this cycle, a scapegoat appears: the tenants that prefer to stay in their homes. These tenants are being used to make the extension of ‘right to buy’ a catch-all solution to the housing crisis. The line of argument goes as follows; these tenants are (stubbornly) staying in their houses that they love too long, and are crying out to be allowed to buy their houses and free up capital for more houses to be built.

Never mind the fact that successive governments since Thatcher have failed to build enough social housing, local authority housing continuing to decrease year-on-year. Never mind the fact that many of these tenants can’t afford, or just can’t have (for employment reasons) a mortgage. Never mind the fact that these people are paying rent already. “Let these tenants buy their houses, and all will be well.” These tenants are being used as a means of fulfilling a costly manifesto pledge, to build more housing.

And let’s not forget that the only people that will be able to afford their housing association terraces will be the more affluent of the working-classes. As these workers buy their homes, how can we be sure that the money will actually be spent on new homes? Housing associations are actually in a large amount of debt which rents primarily service. The Tories would have to force housing associations to build more homes, which is ideologically the same as forcing the Co-op to build more stores.

If the housing stock is progressively sold-off to the better-off workers, we run the risk of ghettoisation and marginalisation. If you’re a fairly well-off young family with small children, you’re probably not going to want to buy a house on a street of problem families or drug addicts. Whereas the nicer streets will be quickly snapped-up. The result will be housing associations with housing stocks comprising of the marginalised in society, with declining house values, while the nicer streets will be quickly rising in value. This is just what happened in the 1950s and 1960s under Macmillan, as ‘new estates’ hailed as bastions of a ‘classless society’ were quickly carved up into no-go streets.

Of course, this is exactly what some hard-right Tories would surely like. With some form of Benthamite Victorian relish, social housing becomes a deterrent, like the rest of the welfare system, to get people to aspire out of their class. The streets of the working-classes, once slums, now council estates, become slums again. The extension of the ‘right to buy’ is just a further example of divide and rule. Dividing between property-owners and tenants. Last year, Britain built 141,000 homes, far short of the abandoned 240,000 target set by Labour in 2007. Can the Conservatives really be trusted to ensure more social housing is built with money that isn’t even theirs? We’ll find out on May 7th.  

According to the BBC’s investigation into ‘Jihadi Brides’, there are currently around 550 Western women living in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. This vicious warzone appears a less than ideal place to bring up a family, yet more and more women are choosing to leave the West to do so. I realise that it is only a very small proportion of the Muslim population that is choosing to partake in such means of religious and political advancement, and am baffled as to their motivation.

For starters, it would be incredibly misguided to conclude that the young women who choose to leave behind their entire livelihoods (and consequently create a divide between themselves and the vast majority of British Muslims who adhere to a far more moderate set of beliefs) are unaware of what they are getting themselves into. Indeed, what is particularly remarkable is that according to one of the most popular jihadi recruiters, a young woman from Glasgow who goes by the name Umm Layth (Mother Lion), “most sisters I have come across have had many promising paths, with happy families and friends.” However, what is telling is that while acknowledging the ability to live a comfortable life in the West, the Scottish blogger also recounts the struggle to reconcile devout Islamic beliefs with the increasingly secular society she inhabited.

This internal conflict was examined as early as the middle of the 20^th century by the Islamic scholar, Sayyid Qutb:

“If a Muslim seeks to live in a non-Islamic ambience, their desire to live a Muslim life will be hard to actualize. This is due to [the fact that] the laws they consider defective…the culture they consider ridden with immorality, the education system they consider horrible, will be imposed upon them…If they do not become part of the effort to change the situation, they prove themselves to be false in their faith.”

These feelings are exacerbated by the zealous teachings of radical preachers and stories of the trials of fellow Muslims around the world. In light of this, it is unsurprising that some British Muslim girls are left feeling that they are simply not doing enough to advance a faith they so dearly love and earn the approval of a god they so desperately want to please.

Social media plays a vital role in enlistment, with many of the recruiters being incredibly media-savvy. Bloggers such as Umm Layth are crucial in persuading fellow western women of the essentiality of casting away their concerns and taking up the journey of hijra (migrating to another country for the sake of Allah). On top of this, recruitment videos such as ‘There’s No Life Without Jihad’, which features three Britons who have joined ISIS encouraging Western Muslims to join the fight to establish the Islamic caliphate, are proving highly effective.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11479%%[/mm-hide-text]

The process of recruiting people to join the ISIS cause is mixed up in both politics and religion. The combination of the two hits on one of the deepest areas of the human psyche: the desire for acceptance. Perhaps not so much acceptance from friends and family (jihadists are forced to leave these behind upon joining the Islamic State), and certainly not acceptance from the western public or laws. The acceptance sought is that of their god.

This is hardly surprising, as underlying the Quranic principle of jihad is the belief that if a Muslim dies whilst advancing an Islamic cause, they will receive the eternal acceptance of Allah and will live with him forever in Paradise. Surah 61:10 of the Quran states the following:

‘You who believe, have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle for His cause with your possessions and your persons and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph.’

I certainly do not claim to be an expert in either human psychology or Quranic verse, but I’m pretty sure that the idea of being allowed entrance into an eternal, picturesque landscape by the omnipotent being responsible for your existence is more than enticing to those who subscribe to such a view. Can I therefore conclude that the concept of Paradise is the main reason why an increasing number of women are supporting the Islamic State? Of course not. A whole range of other factors such as the emotional and mental vulnerability of the person must also be taken into account. However, I do believe that the concept of approval- a clear requirement for entry into Paradise- sheds a lot of light on an incredibly complex issue.

Without a doubt, any attempt I make at attempting to identify the principal reason behind the radicalisation of a small minority of the female Muslim population will most likely face difficulties. But I’ll have a go. I would argue that one of the main contributors to radicalisation is a factor that is familiar to humans worldwide, regardless of their faith: the desire to be known, loved and accepted by the one whose approval you crave more than anything on Earth.

No matter the cost.

Over the holidays the English Defence League organised a march in Oxford protesting against “Muslim grooming gangs”. In the same week Katie Hopkins attacked Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk for posting a photo of himself at a Pakistani flag raising ceremony, tweeting, “Your Pakistani friends saw young white girls as fair game when they abused them.” Both cases reflect the discourse and lexis of the vitriolic right-wing tabloid press, where through constant focus on “Asian sex gangs” the implicit assertion is made that sexual abuse of children is a problem indicative of ‘Asian cultures’ and not what papers like the Daily Mail would term ‘traditional British culture’.

What makes this so insidious is how the mid-to-far right tabloid papers are attempting to use the exploitation of children as a tool to create fear and hate of minority groups by developing false, racist narratives. Underlying these attacks is an incredible failure to recognise that the problems they cite are universal. While the recent cases of Rochdale and Oxford are horrific, sexual abuse of children takes place around the world and is perpetrated by people of all cultures and ethnicities. This is just as true of white men born in England as of people born in other countries or of different races.

I saw this for myself last summer. Sitting in a bar on a beautiful Cambodian beach at sunset it would be easy to describe the scene as idyllic. However, the feeling was anything but. In the next bar along a group of loud, English men were surrounded by a larger group of small Cambodian women (most didn’t yet look adults). Sitting long enough to finish my drink it became fairly clear that the English guys were probably going to end up sleeping with some of these (very) young sex workers.

Pattaya, a city on the Thai coast, receives around 1.5 million Western visitors; famous for its sex industry the Thai government estimates a large minority travel to the city for that reason. The sex tourism industry, born when US soldiers left a demand vacuum behind after the Vietnam War, is booming. And with totally unregulated prostitution in very poor countries comes abuse.

This is acutely relevant to the discussion of child abuse because it is thought that one third of prostitutes in Cambodia and over one in six Thai prostitutes are children. The demand for pre-adolescents has been highlighted in cross-national surveys in which 38 percent of women and girls in the industry reported that they had entered it when their virginity had been bought. The result of this demand is that there are now estimated to be over 40,000 child prostitutes in the region, thousands of whom have been illegally trafficked away from their homes to touristy areas.

Although it is true that the demand is not purely Western, it is the money of Westerners which makes the industry so profitable and hence so hard to shut down. While in most cases the grooming is done by those born in these countries, the fact remains that some travel each year to abuse children in the region.

The crimes committed by British tourists in South East Asia demonstrate how the problem of sexual exploitation of children is one which cannot be accurately depicted as one peculiar ‘Asian groups’ and not to the Mail’s conception of traditional British groups. In a desperate attempt to stigmatize non-white communities the mid-to-far right reveals its total disregard for reality in their assertions that sexual predation in the UK has foundations in culture or ethnicity. As a result, it seems clear that it is quite simply lies when we read that with greater immigration these problems will be further introduced into our society, because quite clearly they are already here. 

“People think campaigns are about two competing answers to the same question. They’re not. They’re a fight over the question itself”. Whilst expressed by the fictional Josh Lyman in ‘The West Wing’, this maxim has constituted the foundation of both the Labour and Tory strategic outlook in this election so far. That is, until this week.

In the months running up to the General Election, and indeed into the Election itself, both parties pursued contrasting strategies which were identical in their conception; to ensure that the election campaign was constructed around certain issues, framed in a particular discourse, so that it would be impossible for the opposing party to ever evenly compete. For the Conservatives, this meant focussing on areas where they consistently polled higher than Labour: trust in running the economy, cutting the deficit and delivering the promised ‘Long Term Economic Plan’. For Labour, it meant re-framing the entire debate into one where the marker of economic success was not in the structural growth of the economy at a macro level, but a tangible improvement in the lives of ordinary people. And in this area- of bettering living standards and improving people’s personal prospects- they consistently rate higher than the Tories. 

The campaigns have been unsettled by the growing spectre of the SNP across the border in the case of Labour, and for the Conservatives, the inability to reduce the share of the UKIP vote to below 10%, thereby punishing them in vital swing seats. But leaving these problems aside, one of the key reasons why both parties have firmly consolidated around 33-35% of the vote, yet have been unable to make sufficient breakthroughs out of this margin, is precisely because of their campaign strategies.

The Conservatives have done enough to convince a portion of the electorate that they are the party of economic competency and fiscal discipline, yet have still been unable to convince enough voters that, if elected for a second term, they can deliver on raising living standards. Similarly, Labour have done enough to persuade a section of voters that they are the party that understands their concerns over the cost of living, the NHS and delivering a fairer society, yet have still been unable to convince enough people that they have a credible plan for delivering fiscal discipline.

Each party has fortified its core support by appealing with very distinct messages, yet has failed to make the necessary inroads with voters whose priorities differ from their own. Such distinct political messages are only useful insofar as they can deliver a parliamentary majority in the ‘First Past the Post’ electoral system. With the Conservative vote fragmenting in England, and Labour joining the Tories on the funeral pyre of political parties in Scotland, it simply isn’t enough to sure up a core vote that cannot deliver an electoral victory.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11236%%[/mm-hide-text]

It is this realisation that has made this week, with the release of the Party manifestos, so interresting. For the Conservatives this move could be potentially decisive in delivering their campaign director’s (Lynton Crosby) long-promised ‘cross-over’ period, where the polls will finally give momentum to the Tories. Up until this point in the election, both parties have largely stuck to their original campaigning strategy. Labour have continued to argue how they will deliver better living standards and create a fairer society, by focussing on their policies to abolish “exploitative” zero- hour contracts, raising the minimum wage and abolishing the  ‘Non-Dom’ tax status for British residents.

The Conservatives, meanwhile, have focussed on continued economic success (delivered by none other than that ever so helpful ‘Long Term Economic Plan’) such as the fall in unemployment and the rate of economic growth. This has been complemented by gimmicks such as the newspaper letter, signed by over 100 business leaders in support for their economic policy and the startling (albeit totally misleading) revelation that Labour would raise taxes on ordinary families by up to three thousand pounds. Both campaigns have simply established that each party is strong on their respective issues, but has done little to shift the momentum either way.

However, this could all very well change within the next few days. Labour’s manifesto was anchored in their primary cause to appear fiscally responsible; shown in their promise to balance the current budget and having a “triple lock” on their spending plans, thereby ensuring that they do not make a single unfunded spending commitment. The pinnacle, perhaps, of Labour’s new fiscally responsible tone is Ed Milibands’ personal pledge, on the front cover of the ‘The Mirror’, to commit to no extra borrowing in the next Parliament. The Tories, conversely, focussed on delivering a “good life” to the people of Britain. Emphasising not their plans for fiscal control, but rather a huge set of financial commitments- including an extra 8 billion pounds of funding for the NHS, legislation to take people who work 30 hours a week on the minimum wage out of tax, and pledging to provide 30 hours of free childcare a week. Labour is presenting themselves as a party of fiscal responsibility and the Conservatives as one that can deliver higher living standards. Perhaps this reversal in message and tone is best encapsulated in the sight of Ed Balls openly criticising George Osborne for failing to come clean on his fiscal commitment to spend more money on the NHS.

Will these new strategies work? Perhaps. There is, however, a huge amount of credibility on the line should it fail.