It was relatively easy for the Prime Minister to look good in Tripoli last week. It was a savvy move by the No.10 press office and will certainly encourage Conservatives and, more importantly, the electorate. The risk, however, is that complacency sets in not just about Libya, but about the Government here in Britain.

In Libya, fighting is ongoing. Whilst Cameron and Sarkozy were making their speeches (vive Libya!) the once rebel-now-government forces were bombing the towns of Sirte and Bani Walid. Gaddafi’s whereabouts are still unknown. He may well still be in Libya, but there is a chance he has fled. Either way, as long as he is active and free he will be a problem. He may not pose a direct threat, but he still wields power and influence. The speeches and the adulation Cameron offered were stirring and important, but complacency and pre-emptive victory could be dangerous in the long run.

At home, the Coalition faces an important period. Things have calmed down somewhat, and the attacks from Labour have become pointedly less sharp. Ed Miliband’s reluctance to mention the economy too much of late in response to claims made by Alistair Darling in his book show how weak the opposition can be. A recent poll of Labour party members did not give much comfort, with almost 50% saying they did not think Ed Miliband was cut out to be the Prime Minister.

The brief return to Parliament after summer and before conference season has been good for the Coalition, but there is still work to be done. Every policy that has been announced has been strongly challenged and the majority have been drastically changed and adapted in order to pass. To take but on example, the proposed changes to the pensions reform have riled the unions so much that they are holding another day of strike action in November. Labour have been hitting the Government on this even though the proposals were made by Lord Hutton – a former Labour minister. The irony of the pensions issue is that the unions seem just as cross with Labour as they are with the Tories, and see Miliband as jumping on the anti-Government bandwagon rather than being a dedicated supporter.

Above all, the eurozone crisis is getting worse and worse each day. Each morning brings with it a new warning about the fragility of the economy and the chances of defaults. Greece is insolvent and looks more and more likely to default. Italy is teetering, although has been boosted by an austerity deal signed this week. Looking further afield the economy in America is disastrous, with 40% of economists polled in a recent survey predicting a return to recession.

There is a lot of work to be done for David Cameron. He is leading the country at a key time, and he must not make mistakes. He did so in his handling of the riots, and it showed. His handling of the next month is key. It is conference season and a time for the Tories to set out their next steps. It is a time for a statesman like appearance, with the gravitas and severity that the situation requires. In November there will be more protests, with murmurs of another winter of discontent.

There is a real concern among some Tories that David Cameron’s premiership will become dominated by all the wrong things – riots, a eurozone collapse, victories abroad but decline at home and policies that are so heavily attacked and changed that they bear no relevance to their original form.

Now is the time for Mr Cameron to show the party, the country and the world what he is made of. Only a year into his stay at No.10, it is quite possible that the next few months will be Cameron’s make or break moment. Time will tell how he will handle it.

Alongside the national elections, the Government is also trying to keep control of a rapidly escalating situation in Libya. The announcement of Liam Fox’s trip to Washington to discuss the military intervention is surely a sign that we are not going to see an end to this conflict for a while. What was promised as an intervention that would last a short amount of time is looking more and more like a long-term commitment, something which almost everyone would say we don’t want or have the resources for. The situation in Syria is also becoming extremely volatile, and there are questions beginning to emerge as to what involvement Britain should have there, if any.

Internally, the Coalition also faces a tough test. The honeymoon period was never going to last forever, and it seems as if things are beginning to unravel between the Tories and the Lib Dems. Tuition fees, NHS reforms, internships and AV are the policies grabbing the headlines, but behind the scenes there is unrest aplenty. Chris Huhne’s inflammatory comments at the weekend may be toward the extreme end of the spectrum, but they show that there is serious unrest in the Coalition. Nick Clegg’s claim that he and Cameron are “not mates” seems incredibly far removed from the press conference in the garden in Number 10 last summer, but that is a sign of how things have changed.

In the midst of all this, David Cameron needs to show some serious leadership, not just of the Coalition but of the country as well. The Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons to announce the intervention in Libya was statesman-like, delivered with the right amount of gravitas, severity and credibility. However since then, a lot of Cameron’s time has been spent making off-hand comments about his Liberal Democrat partners and stoking the dangerous fire that is growing under the Coalition.

At a time when the country is becoming more involved in conflicts in the Middle East, when the electorate are about to decide on the voting system of this country, and when the effects of the spending cuts and the plan to reduce the deficit are beginning to hit home, David Cameron needs to show strong leadership.

He needs to be clear about Britain’s position with Libya, how far we will go and what parameters are in place for the potential situations that could arise over the next weeks. He needs to have a plan for Syria, and that plan needs to be not only explained but stuck to. He needs to be focused not only on the elections on May 5, but on what will happen afterwards. If – as is looking likely – AV is rejected by the voters, Cameron should move on, but without giving huge concessions to the Lib Dems. They should be left to sort out their own internal misgivings and issues. If Mr Cameron gives out consolation prizes by the dozen, it will look like he is apologetic about the result of the vote, which he should not be.

One of Cameron’s strengths is his leadership. When he really shows it, he is a true leader of this country. Now is not the time for half-hearted leadership. Now is the time for Cameron to show his true colours.

The parallels between David Cameron and Barack Obama are often unseen. Too much of the time, people focus on the differences rather than the similarities. Yet as Obama prepares to get his campaign off the ground for the 2012 election, it would be worth David Cameron keeping a close eye on how his American counterpart fares.

Both came to power on the back of a failing incumbent. In America, the frustration of having George Bush in power for eight years was one of the biggest momentum shifters for the Obama campaign. What the Democrat team did extremely well was take advantage of the fact that at large majority of Americans had had enough of George Bush, and expand that to the whole Republican Party. As soon as the lines were drawn between Bush and his party, the GOP stood little chance of retaining the White House.

In Britain, the fact that Gordon Brown’s government was so unpopular by the time an election was called was a huge boost for Cameron. Had Brown called that snap election in 2007, rather than pulling out at the last minute, he would almost certainly have won, and we would still have a Labour government. As it was, he allowed other politicians – notably Cameron – to get themselves into the game. As Brown’s premiership self-destructed over the next few years, Cameron solidified his image as responsible, trust-worthy and the man to rescue broken Britain. He told the country that ‘We’re all in this together’, and used the Labour party’s massive implosion to re-enforce that message.

However, whilst Cameron and Obama owe a lot of their political success to the failings of their predecessors (as to a certain extent all politicians do), this route to power becomes, over time, a dangerous one.

Coming to power on the back of someone else’s failure is not what any politician wants. Politicians want to be able to show that it is by their merit, charisma and policies that they have been elected. David Cameron is the perfect example of this. People were fed up with Brown for sure, and wanted a change. Yet the Conservatives could not secure a majority government and were forced into coalition. This raises the suggestion that people did not so much vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat because they believed passionately in what was on offer; more that they voted for them for the simple reason that they were not Gordon Brown and Labour.

This means that, on wining power (eventually), Cameron was faced with the expectation of the nation, but the lukewarm support of the majority. Hence why the eleven months he has so far spent in charge have been quite tough on him. People were fed up with Brown, and expected Cameron to change things – even though many only voted for Cameron because he wasn’t Brown.

Obama has fared little better in America. His policies have come under attack, he suffered heavily in the mid-terms and lost control of the House of Representatives. Yet as he gears up for the 2012 election, he is still the favourite to win, and enter the White House for a second term. This is because, despite having low ratings in the opinion polls and having had a relatively uneventful first term, Obama still faces no real threat from the Republicans.

David Cameron should therefore be watching events on the other side of the Atlantic with interest. Whilst he might not share political agreements with Obama, he can learn a lot from his electioneering, his organisation and his ability to connect with the electorate.

David Cameron faces a tough few weeks. May 5 will be a key moment for his premiership, and will either be a huge boost or a major setback. The paused in NHS reforms, increasing British involvement in Libya, anger over tuition fees and coalition splits are all starting to take their toll on Cameron. He should not be completely disheartened, as polls today show that the Conservatives are equal with Labour on 40% if there was an election tomorrow. There is still a lot of work to be done, however, and David Cameron could do much worse than learn from Barack Obama.

But we aren’t alone. Sure, Germany has had a good economic recovery but it is facing a serious skilled labour shortage made worse by a population becoming more and more skeptical to immigration, increasingly divided.

America – once seemingly destined for a century of global dominance – is also deeply divided socially and is having to face with a mountain of a deficit which makes the UK’s look like a mere mole hill, not to mention military commitments which are stretching resources to their limits.

No matter where you look across Western civilization, since the economic crisis, things are looking pretty tough one way or another.

The Big Society is important because it is an attempt to try and turn this around. We need to create an economy which can grow collaboratively and not leave in its wake new inequalities which can hold populations back. We need a more united society, one where all citizens can feel that they have a stake and one which can meet the challenges of tomorrow.

The Big Society seeks to empower and encourage, not emasculate, civil society. It would rather decentralize and not direct. It is hoped by achieving this we can create new citizenry which is active, higher in attainment, more competitive and stronger than today.

But we are not living in a bubble. We don’t have a hundred years to solve these issues. We might not even have ten.

We are making these changes in the face of unprecedented competition globally, especially in the East.

The point is that we don’t a choice in terms of trying to solve these problems. Those that would try to blow off the Big Society as a fad and oppose any effort to radically change the broken economic and social system (be they on the left or right) that we presently operate are living in denial.

We cannot merely go on believing that the world owes us a living – to use perhaps one of the most tired clichés in politics. It doesn’t and it won’t keep paying unless we can pull our weight.

If we allow our public debt to rise, we will be crippled under its weight and ship billions in interest every year to the sovereign wealth funds and state banks abroad. If we allow our society to remain divided and under achieving then we will continue to see jobs pour out of our country to the more competitive (and younger) populations elsewhere. If we do not create a more efficient and effective welfare system – then we will have fewer and fewer resources each year to put into looking after the most vulnerable.

This is not a call for open free market fundamentalism. Of course we need competition, private sector growth and ambition – but we also need to lift everyone up together – otherwise we will create a wave of social, economic and political problems which are incredibly costly in the long term and costs which will force us to raise taxes to pay for them, killing off future economic growth.

The Big Society project has a clear economic dimension as well as a social and political one and Britain is leading the way in seeking to pioneer this rejuvenation of western democracy – to create a system which can compete with the economic juggernauts of China and India, without compromising our democracy or standards of living.

We need to rise to this challenge and David Cameron needs to be firmer in articulating it.

This isn’t just about saving the local charity shop down the road – it is trying to save our very way of life. So everyone should be hoping that the Big Society succeeds.

The only other alternative is the slow but inexorable decline of the economic and political governance of the West to be replaced by a new uncertain global system governed from the East.

I know which I’d rather choose.

This week also marks 100 years of celebrating International Women’s Day – another anniversary that has been elbowed into relative obscurity by recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and beyond (despite the prominent role that female academics, activists and politicians have played in the protests) but no less important for all that.

As a British citizen, I am lucky enough that I don’t need to protest about living in an undemocratic society, though I am sure that some of the Conservative party’s more obsessive Eurosceptics would disagree. But, when we get down to the fundamentals, I am lucky.  We all are.

As a British woman, I didn’t have to worry about what I ate at school because it might have been poisoned by a man who disagrees with my right to be there.  Caroline Spelman may have put up with the odd Labour heckle during her apology over the forest sell-off, but she never has to endure daily screams of “kill her, kill her” from fellow MPs.  And although there are concerns over how child custody arrangements are handled in UK courts, mothers do not operate within a judicial system that automatically grants custody of a child, once they have reached the “age of custodial transfer” to the father.  Women in Afghanistan are not so fortunate.

I know what some of you will be saying right now – yes, the situation for women in Afghanistan under Taliban rule was horrendous.  But didn’t it get better in 2001 once Western forces invaded? Yet everything that I described above has actually been taking place in Afghanistan in the last few years.

There are some promising statistics: Today, 2.4 million girls are enrolled in schools in Afghanistan, compared to 5,000 in 2001.  Women currently make up 24% of healthcare workers and 10% of the judiciary.   But these figures mask a somewhat more precarious reality.  Nearly 20% of enrolled girls do not regularly attend.  And why would you, when you run the risk of insurgents throwing battery acid in your face for daring to get an education?  Why seek enlightenment when you could be killed in order to protect your family’s ‘honour’ or treated as a possession and given away to warlords to pay off opium debts.

These statistics also paper over a growing urban-rural divide in women’s treatment – with those in rural regions treated far, far worse than those in the cities.  And the vast majority of experts agree that this divide is, at least in part, due to the recent resurgence of the Taliban in certain rural regions.

Which is why it is so worrying that Taliban forces have recently been gaining in strength, and that President Karzai has entered talks with leading Taliban figures, with the prospect of inviting them to share power in his government.  Karzai – and his only female Cabinet member Dr Hussan Ghazanfar – may talk of the safeguarding of women’s rights in negotiations, but there are concerns that the Taliban militia (who reject the Afghan constitution and insist that no political law should contradict the laws of Islam) will continue to reject these rights.  Will Karzai let them as he seeks to shore up political support?

After all, Karzai has a less than shining record on womens’ rights.  It was only two years ago that he supported a Shia personal status law that would have effectively legalised marital rape.  And earlier this year, he and Dr Ghazanfar accused Afghan women’s shelters of corruption, something that observers insisted was an excuse for a new law that would enable the government to seize control of this area, forcing women to undergo compulsory virginity tests prior to admittance and allowing government interference in specific cases.

In both these situations, the Afghan Government watered down these proposals in response to the international condemnation that ensued.  But how long can we count on that happening?

Despite the gracious smiles that adorned the faces of David Cameron and President Karzai when they met last week, there are significant tensions emerging between the Western powers and the Afghan government.  Just this week Karzai very publicly rejected an American apology for the accidental killing of children.  And we have already seen how Karzai’s decisions while in power are at odds with Western values.

The best chance of a stable Afghanistan is still almost certainly through helping it to become a democratic nation with a strong civil society.  But – and somewhat understandably – other pressures seem to be exerting greater influence than before.  The British public lack the appetite for more casualties among our servicemen abroad.  And the austerity measures mean that we simply cannot sustain these kinds of troop numbers abroad like we used to, especially not if we are considering intervening in Libya and elsewhere.

So when Coalition government rhetoric seems to become less about Britain having a “long-term relationship with Afghanistan… train[ing] their civil society” and building democracy and more about a “hard-headed” approach to the conflict with a great focus on safeguarding national security, you can understand how it might be politically astute to shift the tone of the rhetoric in this way.

But we should all be deeply concerned if this rhetorical change is indicative of an underlying shift in policy.  How, as a nation that supposedly cares about the plight of people abroad, can we even contemplate leaving the women of Afghanistan to their bleak fate as possessions of Afghan men, to be abused and starved and locked away?  We went into Afghanistan promising to help build a better society – helping women was a fundamental part of this.  If we withdraw too quickly and without devoting sufficient energy and resources to fulfilling our promise, then we risk losing everything that our incredibly brave servicemen fought and died for – and the fine and worthy sentiments spouted by our politicians will really have been shown for the empty gestures that dictators like Gaddafi always said they were.

Gaddafi has only appeared before the UN once. His theatrics, in 2009, included tearing pages out of its founding Charter.  In renaming the Security Council, he replaced the word security with terror.  In his speech, Gaddafi told assembled delegates that “superpowers have interests and they use the power of the United Nations to protect their interests.”

For a country with significant oil reserves, it is important any fledgling democratic movement in Libya is not seen to be a puppet of the west or paid for by western governments. This would take the emphasis away from an internal fight for freedom and an attempt to overthrow a dictator and leave the Libyan revolution open to the charge that it was part of a western race to secure oil.  UN Resolution 1970 has the power to influence Libya, its enemies and allies without direct intervention, which  could potentially compromise the integrity of a Libyan revolution.

In Resolution 1970, the Security Council has called for state sponsored killers to be held to account. Further steps include an asset freeze, a travel ban, an arms embargo and the threat of prosecution for war crimes. The Security Council has, for the first time, unanimously referred a case of state terror to the International Criminal Court. Aside from the pressure this puts on Libya, this sets an important precedent and illustrates a return of power and influence the UN after it’s emasculation during the run up to the Iraq war.  Extraordinarily, this UN show of force is even supported by the Chinese and the Russians, both often so keen to scupper the efforts of the British, French and Americans.

Good arguments have been made for a no-fly zone and possible military involvement but it was crucial, with events developing so quickly, that a resolution was passed without delay and that any quagmire caused by UN infighting over more a interventionist resolution was avoided.

“We want a decisive, rapid and courageous resolution” said Libya’s ambassador to the UN, who has defected from the Gaddafi regime.  This is what has been achieved.  Decisive, the resolution was agreed unanimously; rapid, drafted and passed in a matter of days; courageous, referring incidents to the ICC in concord with countries not even signatories of the Statute of Rome, which established the Court.

The steps taken by the UN will almost certainly not influence Gaddafi and his increasingly desperate and delusional family. Crucially, however, his associates and fellow governors, military generals and friends in business may well be persuaded that the time has come to change sides if they see that the game is up. As Saif al-Islam, Gadaffi’s son and the ever optimistic Comical Ali of the whole affair, said, if people see the whole rotten lot is sinking, they’ll jump ship. They have the chance to build a new Libya and if they’re lucky, any murky past associations will be forgotten, any 10 per cent cuts to themselves or their family will be left alone and any murderous dealings over the last few decades will be excused.

The resolution will not stop the killing in Libya. For a man who detests the UN, it will make no difference to the beleaguered leader. But for those fighting for democracy it will show the world stands beside them and is taking their plight seriously. For those more concerned with self interest, it will encourage the continuing abandonment of the old regime and the support of a swiftly established new system of government. For the UN it could spell a new chapter in how it reacts to international crises and its ongoing response to the evolving situation in Libya has the potential to define its role in international engagement for years to come.

While mass murder by a bloodthirsty despot gathers pace in Libya, the international community looks toothless.  The United Nations once again resembles nothing more than a talking shop, with the protection of human rights seemingly well down its list of priorities.  Just as Tony Blair had to act to stop genocide in Kosovo in the teeth of the opposition from parts of the UN Security Council, it also appears that any action to prevent a human rights catastrophe in Libya may be taken despite, not because of, the United Nations.

Over the years, the UN has shown itself to be impotent in the face of humanitarian disasters caused by its own members.  Warnings of human rights abuses are met with stern but toothless words and any action tends to be reactive, following the human rights abuse, rather than proactive to prevent the abuse in the first place.  All too often, some members of the UN Security Council have put narrow economic national self interest ahead of the protection of human rights and the upholding of democratic values.  After multiple failures and endless vacillation, it is amazing that so many progressives still place so much faith in this institution.

The UN has, time and time again, shown itself to be almost powerless and utterly inflexible in the face of human rights abuses.  So it is proving again over Libya.  Hopefully, the United Nations will, for once, move on from its normal sluggardly pace and take decisive action to protect Libyans from their tyrannical maniac of a leader and prevent him using chemical weapons on his own people (I made the case for a no-fly zone on Thursday).  We should hope that the ineffectiveness of the United Nations does not results in too much blood being spilt of Libyans fighting for freedom from tyranny.

Whilst the news coverage in the past 24 hours has focused on the attempts to get foreign nationals out of Libya, we must also consider how the international community should act to remove the potential of humanitarian catastrophe brought about by a bloodthirsty tyrant.  The West should not stand on the sidelines and watch Gaddafi use escalating force against his own people.

The situation in Libya is moving quickly and Gaddafi is growing increasingly desperate to use whatever means necessary to preserve his dwindling powerbase, even if that includes getting foreign mercenaries to shoot at his own people.  The West has stood by before as tyrants use force against their own people.  In the past, as the talking has gone on and on, we have repeatedly (such as in Yugoslavia) seen humanitarian catastrophes unfold.  We must not allow the same situation to happen in Libya.  A Libyan bloodbath with the West standing on the sidelines would be morally indefensible.

Lord Owen was right when he argued for a ‘no-fly zone’ to prevent Gaddafi using conventional bombs or chemical weapons against his own people in a desperate attempt to cling on to power.  NATO has many bases close to Libya and clearly has the infrastructure to enforce a no-fly zone.

The international community should act quickly and decisively to ensure that the despot does not use force against the people of Libya as his regime crumbles into the ground.  The West must not stand idly by as the potential of a Libyan bloodbath grows larger.

China is now the second largest economy in the world. Since the turn of the century China’s economy has grown so rapidly that in the process it has doubled itself since 2001. PricewaterhouseCoopers believe China will overtake the U.S as the world’s largest economy around 2020. This economic spurt is challenging the countries social make-up, and ultimately how the state’s structures operate.

While growth has lifted 300 million Chinese out of poverty the country remains a developing nation. The last available figures measure Chinese per capita gross national income as being $2,940, which equates to being ranked 130^th in the world, behind Angola and Azerbaijan. The Chinese government has conducted economic modelling to predict the impact this growth will have on the state and its citizens. These projections show that the current model for how the state operates is ultimately unsustainable as more and more people become economically mobile city dwellers. China’s mandarins know that change is necessary and think that what is happen in the UK could be an example of what to change into.

The Chinese authorities will soon publish their next five-year plan. Jim O’Neil – Goldman Sachs – predicts that it will continue to advance the push towards creating and embracing internal consumers. It will be interesting to see what plans they will put in place to adapt a social and governance model that undoubtedly needs to evolve in-line with the economy. Will a Big Society influence be detectable?

China is not the only country looking at how ‘Big Society’ will work. The Italian and French administrations have invited Big Society architects such as Nat Wei and Phillip Blond to address senior ministers and government officials.  Commentators in the US, South Africa and elsewhere openly speculate on whether it could work for them.

Around the world there is a realisation that the Big State model – the strong centralised state – is not an appropriate one for our future. Politicians are asking themselves the questions “What’s next?” and “What governance model best fits society’s ability and expectations?” The 1980s were defined by the free-market Atlantic ideological alliance between Thatcher and Reagan. Will the early part of this century be dominated by a shared ‘Big Society’ belief between Cameron and the People’s Republic, and others? Such an eventuality would certainly put a new spin on the term “Red Tory”.

What is happening in Egypt is a revolution. Just because this started with secular Egyptians does not mean that it cannot end with an extremist government in power. History has taught us that revolutions promise to bring the best of all worlds but tend to end in tyranny and oppression as revolutionary leaders turn into the very people they overthrew.

The West cannot be seen to intervene too heavily in Egypt. The Egyptian people want a leadership that responds to their demands, and their opinion of the West could worsen if Western leaders are seen to be exercising undue influence. The response by Britain and the US is the correct response: emphasise the need for democracy, fundamental human rights and a stable and orderly transition.

In order for us not to overplay our hand, we need to recognise that the base of anger in Egypt is an oppressive government that could not deliver prosperity. To create a more stable democracy, the Egyptian people need to have jobs and hope for a better future. People tend not to act violently if they believe they have a bright future ahead of them.

Western leaders should now look to invest heavily into Egypt and bring in other Arab and Asian nations to help with the heavy (particularly financial) lifting. Instability in Egypt has already spread to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The Arab region is too important to world trade (oil reserves, and the Suez Canal which sees 8% of world trade going through it) to be allowed to either continue as is, or to hurtle out of control.

Any new government must begin building the institutions of democracy that we take for granted in the West. We in have been lucky; our democracy grew on a liberal tradition. Democracy with different traditions might not be very liberal at all. Therefore, we must devote time and effort in helping any Egyptian Government to build the authoritative and respectable institutions that can deliver stable democratic system.

Finally, we need to confront the issue of minority rights. This revolution can be a great thing for bringing Muslim and Coptic Christians together in building a better future. However, it can also mean that built up anger and intolerance might be “let off the leash”. The massacre of Coptic Christians celebrating Orthodox Christmas shows how unstable this part of the world is. If we have learnt from the violence in Iraq or in the former Yugoslavia, then the West has an obligation to work with any transition government to protect minority rights and to enforce the law impartially.

I believe that there is a great opportunity for the Middle East to emerge into a period of democracy and political freedom. However, the road to get there is fraught with danger and difficulty. Western leaders have acted properly but the real test has only begun; we need to balance stability with freedom in a land whose people have been bottled up for too long. We need more than platitudes going forward; investment in money and time is needed to help Egypt move to a better and more prosperous future.