A ruthless dictator, failed negotiations and a fragmented and disjointed opposition have plagued the ongoing crisis in Syria. Learning from mistakes made in Libya, stronger efforts must be made to bring the different rebel groups together in order to strengthen the opposition. Rebel groups in Libya were, admittedly, much stronger than in Syria today, yet also divided. In arming them before all other possible means were exhausted, the West completely risked undermining the revolution and promoting extremism as well as causing an even bigger loss of life amongst the population.

On Tuesday, France became the first of the European countries to recognise the Syrian rebel coalition fully. But what does this recognition actually mean for Syria and a conflict that has to date reportedly killed almost 40,000 civilians, seen some 400,000 flee to neighbouring countries and, according to the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, internally displaced 2.5 million people?

In reality, the coalition is still extremely weak. It is a huge umbrella of several differing rebel groups both within and outside of Syria, who have failed to secure any safe zones in the country. Furthermore, the coalition was formed after the Syrian National Council agreed to widen participation under increasing pressure, in the hope of attracting more support both from the West and the Arab League.

In fully accepting the coalition, French President François Hollande also said he would reconsider the question of arming the opposition. British Prime Minister David Cameron has also expressed his wishes to end the 2011 arms embargo that was imposed on all sides in Syria, which would allow Britain to directly arm the Syrian rebels. His statement came as he travelled across the Middle East in the hope of selling arms in the Gulf region.

Lifting the embargo and arming the rebels now, because there is a paper-thin coalition, would be no different than having armed them 6 months ago. The rebels continue to not be united and arming them could be disastrous. As in Libya, the state and regime are indistinguishable in Syria; recognition from France, the Arab League, the US and other countries, therefore, could help to greatly empower the opposition by helping to unite the different groups and giving them the strength to establish political legitimacy and create a sound and centralised operational structure. This kind of acknowledgment places pressure on the group to succeed and to show that it has support within Syria, without this legitimacy and the ability to secure support from the divided armed opposition, the coalition will eventually fail.

The urgency for a solution for Syria is ever more pressing with reports of increased attacks on the civilian population, nevertheless there are no quick fixes and any attempt at such would only further endanger the lives of the Syrian people.

Step 1

Fear. Without it your security policy will mean nothing. How will the general public accept your plans to invade their telephones, Internet calls and private emails unless there is a lurking threat of imminent danger? There’s no need to be exact about who this enemy is, the usual “suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals” followed by a vague “keeping our country safe” will suffice.

Step 2

Be vague. Never, EVER be precise. The more vague you sound, the better. Ambiguous terminologies such as “plug the gap” mean nothing but sound like something. Inserting positive words such as “respect” here and there will also help to calm the nerves of those few individuals who feel as though the new policies will be infringing on their civil rights by letting them know you are aware there is a line. As long as they know you are aware of it, you can safely cross it without anyone really noticing.

Step 3

Blame modernity. It is not enough to just blame an invisible human enemy. Everyone knows that technology will be the end of mankind. So make sure you blame these “difficult” and “sensitive” issues on the biggest technological threat of all. The Internet. Mention that people are now “making telephone calls through the internet, rather than through (a) fixed line”, which invariably means that your hands are tied and you have no choice but to start dropping in on Skype calls to make sure that nothing untoward is being discussed.

Step 4

Cover your tracks. As the saying goes, “back that shit up”. Whatever happens, it wasn’t your fault. Mention the numerous discussions you’ve had with several different ‘specialists’, don’t actually use their names though, we all know what happened last time you trusted a ‘specialist’. But make sure you don’t give them all the credit in case this thing goes down well. End your speech with some sort of Byronic, selfless statement such as “That’s my responsibility. And it’s one that I intend to fulfil.”

What dangers could this fund pose to charities and local social associations? In one word: bureaucracy.

Read George Thomas’ blog post on what the fund could mean here.

Several commentators at the time of and shortly after the riots noted that they were there result of an endemic problem related to the deprivation in the areas and the ‘forgotten society’. These comments were interpreted as sympathising with the rioters and trying to politicise a situation that apparently had nothing to do with government, police or local authorities. The Prime Minister was quick to label the riots a “ mindless violence”, stating that it was “wrong to say there is any justifiable causal link” between the shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham and the subsequent protest the ignited the riots.

Studies conducted shortly after the riots revealed a deeper problem. The interim report published in November pointed to deeper social issues, sweeping away comments such as “criminality pure and simple” that David Cameron is most likely (or not) eager to forget

But what has the report really told us?

As already suspected, these were not race riots, the majority of rioters convicted were not in gangs. What the panel did find was that nine in ten of the 4,000 plus rioters arrested, were already known to the police. This points to the inefficiency in dealing with reoffenders (an issue already much discussed). They suggest that some of the resources currently being spent on custody should be instead, diverted into supporting effective community sentencing. The accountability, they say, needs to include the local community. This can be done by involving local residents in deciding what projects these reoffenders should work on.

What is the key point here?

Communication.

Although the majority of those interviewed said they wished to see the rioters appropriately punished, they also expressed their views of the need to provide a structure through which these offenders can come to play a positive role in their society. Communication with the local community is paramount. They need to know that their concerns are being addressed, that there are opportunities for them and their children. But without trust between the community and the authorities there can be none of this.

One in three people interviewed said they thought the police were corrupt; one in four who said they had recent contact with the police expressed their unhappiness with the way they were treated.

This won’t change by increasing the number of police on our streets, or introducing tougher laws to deal with rioters. You can have all the police you like filing up and down Tottenham, that won’t address the issue of getting the local residents to respect or have faith in them. The problem can only be tackled through the building up of trust. For this, the report suggests that the Department for Communities and Local Governments work with local areas to develop better engagement.

But it is not all the fault of police and largely clueless government.

Parents, of course, have the biggest and most important role in developing the character of their children. Whilst the panel point to the work of the Troubled Family Programme that deals with 120,000 disadvantaged families, they reveal that the overlaps of these families with rioter families was limited. They state that the 500,000 ‘forgotten families’ fall under the radar of government authorities and social services. Again this isn’t new. People have spoken for years about the ‘underclass’, the issue is that nothing has been done to address these problems.

Without local programmes targeted at residents, these forgotten families will remain forgotten. The youth needs to be targeted first. Support to teenage mothers is essential; the lack of recourse for struggling young parents feeds into the cycle of deprivation and underachievement in these areas. According to the report, first time mothers under the age of eighteen should be the priority for the Family Nurse Partnership, and eventually this should expand to include all young mothers under the age of twenty.

Working with schools is also paramount. Children are key and working with them at an early age vital. The number of primary school aged children finishing their first years of school without being able to read or write at the correct level is frightful. The panel has suggested that schools be held to account for the performance of the child. It is essential that schools be more transparent about how they deal with children with both behavioural and learning difficulties.

The report has highlighted was has already been obvious to so many. How can it be that half a million families can be forgotten, that deprivation in these areas go ignored? If there is anything good that can come out of the awful events of last August, let it be that these forgotten families are finally remembered.

Read my reaction to the riots in the Huffington Post here: Big Society : Forgotten Society

It’s not just about the cuts to our system being generously dished out by the coalition government, or the unceremonious stripping of our NHS, or the botched budget that takes from the old to give to the rich. I am also referring to the un-ethical behaviour of all our politicians, left, right and centre.

As news broke of the cash for access scandal on Sunday morning I think few people were genuinely surprised by the revelations. Sad proof of how the British public has become used to political dishonour. What got under my skin the most during the fallout of the story exposed by Sunday Times journalists was the reaction of ministers in Parliament.

As Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office, addressed the House yesterday afternoon, I had to strain my ears to hear what he was saying over the strange four year old garbling that seemed to be emanating from his mouth. The Conservatives lost no time in making two main arguments: “yours was worsestest than ours” and “well you get trade union funding, which is worser”. Or something along those lines.

The main issue at stake here isn’t whether the Labour cash for policy scandal was ‘worse’ and it is unsettling that the best defence that grown up elected government officials can come up with is “you did it first”. It is completely unacceptable that a government in power cannot or will not offer substantial answers to the questions being posed about something as serious as party funding.

In spite of this, a good point could be heard echoing amongst the poor excuses being thrown about yesterday. Parties have become too comfortable with big donations and have subsequently lost touch with the ordinary people they are supposedly representing. It is no coincidence, therefore, that membership numbers have declined and that a growing part of the population no longer feel an immediate affinity to any party.

Policies and events in recent years have undoubtedly had a massive role to play in this. People have found other ways of being involved in policy decision-making that don’t involve the political parties. However there are some other points to be made here:

Firstly, and most importantly, people are disillusioned with the behaviour of politicians. Politics in the UK is nastier and more personal than it has ever been. It is has become normal to hear one MP badmouthing another MP outside of Parliament’s walls (not that personal jibes are acceptable within those walls either, mind).  Politicians degrade themselves by engaging in tittle-tattle, on the radio, in the papers; and using the appearance of the opposition leader against him has become legitimate practice, apparently. This kind of behaviour is what you would expect to find in a school playground not an elected government.

Secondly, parties no longer strive to really connect to their electorate. Who even knows what their MP or local council members look like anymore? I think I may have caught a glimpse of David Lammy in Tottenham once, about thirteen years ago or so, but he has definitely never been on my doorstep.

All the parties need to go back to the basics and really get out there. Bring back door-to-door campaigning in full vigour, hold regular events in local town halls, make themselves more accessible and tangible.

The points of access to politicians at the moment exist on the premise that people are already interested (or that they can afford to pay). Something needs to be done to increase the number of people involved in this country’s politics and this in turn could provide a solution to the party funding question on everyone’s lips today.

The responsibility of a political party is first and foremost to represent and mirror its electorate. The political parties in the UK are fundamentally failing to do this and disgracing their names as they continue to fall short, to the point where us ordinary folk no longer want anything to do with them.

Within a week of launching this blog and posting my woeful outlook on youth unemployment, I had been hired and was in Africa on my first mission with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

I stopped blogging, not because I didn’t care about the issues I’d written about as an unemployed person, but because access to news was difficult, time outside work scarce, internet stability untrustworthy and the experience all too surreal.

I am on a break now, between missions, and I am determined to continue what I started with this blog in January and will try my hardest, now that I know what to expect, to continue to write about publish about the important things going on in our country and worldwide. I don’t even know where to start right now with everything that has happened just in the last few days, never mind weeks.

Here I go…

The UK is going through the worst unemployment rate in 20 years, the extent of which was further highlighted in an article today in the Independent. However the rest of the world seems to be doing just as badly, in some cases worse.

Of the European countries, Spain and Greece have the highest levels of unemployment and Germany the lowest. According to the figures published in The Week, the UK and US are more or less a the same level of unemployment across the board, however the UK youth unemployment levels are higher. In fact, the UK youth unemployment percentage is higher than every other country listed, even Spain. Australia’s unemployment has raised slightly, as companies have been impacted by the economic situation in Europe. Take a closer look at the figures here.

No more jobs. Photo: allybeag via Flickr

The doom and gloom of 2012 has well and truly arrived. Whilst the next few months may bring with them warnings about the impending doom that is the end of the world and everything you must do to protect yourself and your loved ones (everyone get your old ‘How to Survive the End of the World – Y2K edition’ out), I, along with just over a million other young people, will spend time worrying about the immediate doom of unemployment.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has estimated that this year will bring with it the worst rate of unemployment since the early 1990s, increasing from 2.64 million to 2.85 million across the board.

The number of ‘old’ graduates still looking for jobs remains worryingly high; I’ll use myself as an example. I graduated from the University of Nottingham in 2009 and subsequently from LSE in 2010 having gone straight into a Masters because I was sure it was the only way to better my job prospects. Here I am…still looking.

As it goes, blame is being placed on everything and everyone instead of really looking into how the cuts and austerity measures introduced by this government, and now supported by its opposition, have contributed to the loss of jobs.

The past year has seen me take on numerable unpaid internships, as well as juggling countless applications for every type of employment you can think of. I’ve worked part time in a pub, as a secretary, and at one point as a domestic cleaner…all to get me by. There is no shame in taking on these jobs, they are honest and respectable employment (even if you are left frustrated by the fact that years of study and mountains of debt seem to be leading you no closer to your career ambitions) but even these jobs are becoming scarce. The fact is that there are now 23 people for every job (up from 17 in October), a number likely to increase as cuts continue to affect every part of society.

Prime Minister David Cameron tells me that he ‘gets it‘, but what he doesn’t seem to ‘get’ is that his government has given no real solution for the millions of people that have started the new year by entering into a tunnel of unemployment with no visible light at the end of it.

As young people struggle to find work, many give up trying all together, returning to studies or internships whilst they wait for the job market stabilise. It is a dark prospect for both the population and the government.

Age and experience are major factors that employers take into account when selecting successful candidates. I have been turned away from jobs for being under the age of 25 for example, having been told that they were looking for someone with more experience. Ironically, I have also been turned away from other jobs for having too much experience and too many qualifications (they felt that someone who had not had the same ‘opportunities’ as me should be allowed to have the chance).

As we enter into this New Year, the coalition government, the opposition and employers have a duty not to accept the predictions that unemployment will not fall below 2.5 million before the middle of the decade, and concentrate instead on new ways to tackle this problem. The more the youth of this country are isolated from employment, the less this country is investing in its future.

The result? A stagnated economy and an even gloomier prospect for the next generation who will be facing the long-term effects of the lowest employment rates in 20 years. If we ever make it out of 2012 that is…

Originally published at The Huffington Post

Newt Gingrich is currently polled in second. But can he really defeat Romney? Photo: Don Irvine Photos/Flickr

The last few weeks have seen Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney come under attack in every which way; a film has been released about his time as CEO of Bain Capital; he has been accused of being a moderate (god forbid) and yesterday’s debates backed him into a corner over his tax returns and his ever changing political stances — once again using left leaning ammunition to attack the frontrunner may not have the exact desired effect for the other candidates.

Nevertheless, Romney’s weaknesses have in fact become his strength. He is not even a particularly good debater, and his tendency for flip flopping could put Havaianas out of business. However, it has revealed more pressing weaknesses (from the conservative view point) in his fellow candidates.

Newt Gingrich is perhaps the biggest example of how this criticism has gone wrong. His pitiful results in New Hampshire caused him to back track on his original anti-Romney stance after it played into the hands of the Democrats and angered staunchly conservative voters. His performance at Monday’s debate earned him the crowd’s standing ovation; it may be too little to late for the former House Speaker to bump Romney from first place but it may help him cruise into second.

The two Rick’s will probably head the same way as the former governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman, who has now dropped out of the race and pledged his support to Romney. All three have had one thing consistently in common, invisibility (apart from Santorum’s almost (freak) win in Iowa — a feat unlikely to be repeated).

But what about Ron Paul? Polls have shown him to have earned a significant amount of support from independents and other not-usually-republican voters, mostly for his anti-war stance. He did well in New Hampshire securing second place six points ahead of Huntsman. However, South Carolina polls now have him in third behind Gingrich with a 6 point margin. This is perhaps not surprising in the traditionally conservative state. He may not win come January 21 but he could potentially go on to pick up all the ‘in betweeners’ who do not want to share their vote with either Romney or Gingrich.