Depressingly, there is nothing new about the fact that too many young people in the UK have a hard time finding work, the right kind of training or college course, or their way. Those between 16 and 24 who fall into that category are given the really ugly acronym “Neets” - not in education, employment or training.

‌

What’s different now is that the numbers ending up in that situation are growing, with Milburn warning today that if nothing is done, one in six young people could find themselves as Neets in five years. It’s not surprising then, that he describes the situation as “shameful”. Nor is it that he said on Sunday - and has underlined - today that nothing short of a total reboot is needed to sort this out - in health, welfare, education and from employers, too.

‌

That, though, needs not retired politicians like Milburn, but current politicians to grab the issue firmly, make decisions and get on with it. Looking back over time, there has been no shortage of attempts to make headway with a problem the UK’s had for decades. The Youth Training Scheme, which started back in 1983, was the first time that a government gave cash to employers to help get young people into work. It was a huge scheme, sometimes mocked or hated because of the levels of pay. But at some points as many as 45% of school leavers were going on to the scheme - and it did have a significant impact.

‌

Labour under Sir Tony Blair and, you guessed it, Alan Milburn, had a different scheme - the New Deal for Young People, which was funded by a one-off tax on the utility companies. Since then there’s been a bewildering array of other schemes too - the Youth Contract, the Future Jobs Fund, the Kickstart Scheme, Youth Employment Hubs - all with varying degrees of success. The government now has the youth guarantee, the youth offer, foundation apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges, T-levels, V-levels, the Restart scheme… the list goes on.

‌

It’s easy for government ministers to say they are worried about something. It’s easy for them to ask an experienced political operator to look at what’s gone wrong. But it’s harder to work out what the answer might be, and then invest and stick to it with determination in the long term. Milburn’s suggested solutions aren’t due for another few months.

‌

The prime minister said earlier it was a “sobering” report and that the government “will not allow a lost generation”. He added: “We’ll work with Alan now on what more needs to be done.” But it’s not clear if he’s sticking around to make a decision about what to do next. It was worth noting that Milburn also told us on Sunday he thought that mayors and councils should take charge of the solutions, and he’d already been talking to some of them. I wonder who he might have had in mind? Just possibly one who has been running one of England’s biggest cities and has sights on No 10?

Last weekend, something very unusual happened. A teenage rape victim, alongside and supported by her family, wanted to be interviewed about what had happened to her. Victims’ identities are protected by law, and it is very rare that they might agree to speak to the media. The reason she and her family wanted to speak out was because they were deeply upset that her attackers - also teenagers - had been spared jail. They were convicted, and given rehabilitation orders instead, because the judge expressed concern about criminalising them at a young age. Another girl had also been raped by the boys at a later date, and she and her family spoke to Newsnight yesterday. 

‌

At the weekend, the family spoke with courage and clarity about what had happened and appealed directly to the prime minister to help. Cabinet minister Darren Jones  struggled not to break down in the studio after watching the interview and said the girls deserved justice.

‌

The convention is that politicians in government try very hard to stay carefully away from expressing opinions on judges’ decisions. It’s an important principle in the UK that the judiciary is independent and politicians don’t interfere. One person who knows that well is the former chief prosecutor, who now happens to be the prime minister. But hours after our interview, Sir Keir Starmer wrote online about the girl’s bravery and the horror of the attacks. It was a clear hint that his close ally, the attorney general, would agree to the family’s request for the sentences to be appealed. By Tuesday morning, that decision had indeed been taken. The argument over the sentences will now go to judges at the Court of Appeal.

‌

None of this was ordinary. And it’s restarted the controversial conversation about how to balance the rights of young victims with the welfare of young offenders. Judges have a legal requirement to consider both. And custody is meant to be a last resort for young people. It was highly unusual for the government, let alone the PM, to get involved.

‌

Some of you got in touch to say how moved you were by the interview. Beatrice described it as “one of the most horrendous, overwhelmingly sad cases of injustice I’ve heard in a while”. One reader said they were “moved to tears”, adding: “It is the biggest insult to those who’ve been victimised that there appears to be more concern for the criminal rapists than the victims they’ve intentionally hurt.” Richard said while the case was “shocking”, the public should be cautious as the “desire for justice can too easily cross the border into revenge”.

‌

Remember there is lots of help out there if you have concerns or have been affected by any of these issues. The BBC Action Line website has details of organisations you can contact for information, advice and support.

Ministers have been grappling with another dilemma for ages - how to keep kids safe online. There is near universal agreement that the new rules, which have only recently come into force, policed by Ofcom, do not do enough to protect under-18s from the worst corners of the internet.

‌

Over a period of many years, campaigners - often, very sadly, bereaved parents - have repeatedly made the case to ministers that government needed to step in in a more forceful way. It’s almost two and a half years since we first spoke to Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna - whose killers had watched disturbing material online - and she called for smartphones to be restricted for under 16s. It’s nearly nine years since Ian Russell’s daughter, Molly, died after seeing dangerous content. But it’s still not clear what route forward the government is going to choose. And those families whose lives have been turned upside down don’t all agree.

‌

Alongside another bereaved mother, Ellen Roome, Esther told us again earlier this year that she believed a social media ban was the answer, and long overdue. But Ian argued on Newscast a few months ago that a ban was too blunt an instrument, pushing for more sophisticated controls instead. I’ve been thinking back to both of their arguments this week, and the solutions aren’t easy. Now it’s over to ministers to decide.

All of these tricky arguments make for a pretty tough in-tray for any prime minister - the current one, or indeed those who have their sights on it. Last Thursday we asked for your thoughts on a possible Burnham premiership.

‌

Robert, who agreed with reader Jaclyn’s loathing of disloyalty in our previous newsletter, said he “voted for Keir not second tier lackies”. He also noted that Burnham “might lose” and that Starmer at the helm meant “calmer seas ahead so long as no other idiot starts something reckless”.

‌

John hailed Burnham’s “excellent achievements” at raising the North’s profile but felt “his roots are shallow and the establishment defences are strong”.

‌

Maggie called for the media to “back off the prime minister. He may not be charismatic but his character more than makes up for that.”

‌

Others were less sympathetic. “The PM is a disgrace,” wrote Adam. “The country needs a general election because the Labour government have lost control financially,” he continued.

‌

But Lucinda said: “I don’t want us to keep changing who is at the top. It makes us a laughing stock of the world.”

‌

Julie added: “I feel the Labour voters are doing exactly what they didn’t like the Conservatives doing - first sign of any trouble blame the PM and change the leader.”

‌

On this week’s show, we’ll be interviewing Pat McFadden. Please let us know any questions you have for the work and pensions secretary or any experiences or thoughts on the difficulties for young people in getting jobs. Send your questions and comments to [email protected] or on WhatsApp to 08000 28 21 61.

‌

See you on Sunday,

‌

Laura K

‌

You can also follow me on X at @bbclaurak or on Instagram on bbclaurak.