When the mountains warn us ...again! by Brea Willis

The Himalayas have always inspired a peculiar mixture of awe and arrogance. We look at those enormous peaks and imagine that they are permanent, immovable, eternal. They are not. They are living geological systems, changing constantly, and increasingly under pressure from a warming planet.

The catastrophe along the Nepal-Tibet border should therefore be understood as more than another terrible natural disaster. A glacier collapse unleashed torrents of water, mud, rock and debris through Himalayan valleys, destroying villages and infrastructure and leaving thousands dead or missing. Hundreds of foreign travellers and pilgrims were among those caught in the disaster. Rescue teams now face the grim task of searching landscapes that, in places, have effectively been rearranged by the flood.

And still, somewhere, someone is explaining that climate change is a hoax. It would be almost funny if the consequences were not so devastating. There is an extraordinary psychological trick involved in climate denial. A person can watch glaciers retreat, temperatures rise, forests burn, oceans warm and floods become increasingly destructive, and still insist that nothing fundamental is happening. Reality can arrive carrying a mountain of evidence and the denier will ask for identification.

Nepal, of all countries, has little reason to be lectured about responsibility. Its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions is tiny compared with that of major industrial economies. Yet its people live beneath a climate system increasingly influenced by decisions made thousands of kilometres away. The Himalayas are warming, glaciers are becoming increasingly unstable, and communities downstream are exposed to hazards they did little to create.

That is the injustice at the heart of the climate crisis. The foreign travellers missing in this disaster make the point particularly uncomfortable for wealthy countries. Climate change is not somebody else's problem happening somewhere conveniently distant. Tourists from dozens of countries were caught in the Himalayan catastrophe. Families across continents are now waiting beside telephones, checking messages, searching lists of survivors and wondering whether a loved one has somehow escaped.

Suddenly the Himalayas are not a postcard. They are personal. But even that should not be the principal lesson. The Nepali villagers who lost homes, relatives and livelihoods matter just as much as the foreign visitors. Indeed, they matter precisely because they were there when the world changed around them. They did not arrive for an adventure. They lived there.

Climate change is often discussed through statistics because statistics are emotionally convenient. Two degrees. Three degrees. Melting glaciers. Rising seas. Extreme rainfall. Carbon emissions. Parts per million.

Then comes the flood. Statistics become houses floating away. They become roads disappearing. They become names pinned to hospital walls. They become families waiting for news. And yet climate denial survives because admitting the scale of the problem would require something more uncomfortable than changing one's opinion. It would require changing behaviour, investment, politics and priorities. It would require governments to spend money before disasters happen rather than after them. It would require better early-warning systems, resilient infrastructure, scientific monitoring and serious international cooperation.

Most importantly, it would require accepting that nature does not negotiate with ideology. A glacier does not care whether somebody voted Republican, Democrat, Labour, Conservative, left or right. Water does not check someone's political affiliation before entering their home. Mud does not distinguish between a climate scientist and a climate denier.

The Himalayas are giving humanity another warning. We can continue arguing about whether the warning exists. Or we can finally listen.

The politics of inheritance and Trump loyalty by John Kato

Lindsey Graham dies and South Carolina does not merely search for a senator; it produces, with remarkable efficiency, another Graham. Darline Graham has now won the Republican nomination, defeating Ralph Norman with roughly 52 percent of the vote, and heads toward November as the overwhelming favorite in a state where Republican victory has become less an election than a seasonal expectation.

The remarkable thing is not that Graham won. It is what, exactly, the Republican primary appears to have been asking voters to endorse.

Her strongest credential was not a record in the Senate, because she had none. It was not expertise in foreign policy or national security, the sort of knowledge that might reasonably be considered useful when one is applying for a six-year seat in the United States Senate. It was not a long legislative record or a distinctive theory of government. Instead, she possessed two politically potent forms of inheritance: the Graham name and Donald Trump's blessing.

That may be enough in today's Republican Party. Graham's supporters can point to her work as a disability advocate and former commissioner of South Carolina's Commission for the Blind. But they do not magically become a foreign-policy education because the job description says "United States Senate." During the campaign, Graham acknowledged that national security was not her area of expertise. It was also rather alarming. Senators do not get to hand the national-security portfolio to someone else while they concentrate on the things they know better.

The Senate is not a ceremonial extension of a state legislature. It votes on treaties, wars, intelligence appointments, military authorizations, sanctions, international alliances and the federal budget. A senator can learn, of course. But there is a difference between admitting you have homework to do and presenting the absence of knowledge as though it were a charming personality trait.

Trump, meanwhile, understood the assignment perfectly. He did not need to explain what Graham would contribute to the Senate. He needed only to establish that she was his Graham. His endorsement transformed the contest into another referendum on personal loyalty: Are you with Trump? Then you are with Darline.

This is the increasingly peculiar economy of Republican politics. Policy has not disappeared, exactly. It has been compressed into allegiance. The candidate's identity becomes the policy. Loyalty becomes competence by association. And the endorsement of the leader becomes a kind of transferable résumé.

The tragedy is that South Carolina deserves more imagination than this. Voters ought to be offered a choice between competing visions of America's role in the world, its economy, its military, its institutions and its future. Instead, they have been offered a political sequel.

Perhaps Darline Graham will prove everyone wrong. Perhaps she will become an unexpectedly formidable senator, immerse herself in the briefs, master foreign affairs and develop an independent voice. That would be welcome.

But democracy should not require voters to purchase a mystery box. A Senate seat is not a family photograph. It is not a Trump loyalty card. And it certainly should not be inherited like the silverware. South Carolina may elect Darline Graham in November. The more important question is whether, after the celebration, anyone can explain why. That should concern everyone. Security procedures are supposed to outlast them. That is precisely why they matter.

Manish Zodiac Predictions for September 2026 #Horoscope by Manish Kumar Arora

Aries ( 21 March – 19 April  ) - A skill you have can be diversified, allowing you to offer a service that will bring in extra cash. When it comes to business, practicality will be essential. In matters of love, trying something new and exciting will outweigh being sensible. Separate your personal and professional life, and make the most of both. Your charm will help you get your way. Your emotions will be difficult to control and can lead to unsightly discord if you are too forthright. Romantic encounters are apparent, socialize or take a trip that will be conducive to love.  Keep things playful and fun and you will enhance a relationship with someone special. Favorable Dates –Sep 1, 2, 10, 11, 19,  20 & 29 Favorable Colors – Green & White

Taurus ( 20 April – 20 May )  - Worthwhile returns will come with hard work and dedication. If you are too overbearing you will face setbacks, but if you are charming and are willing to pitch in and do your share, you will set a standard that everyone involved will strive to reach. Stick to what you know and learn from those who have the experience you lack. A job opportunity looks inviting. Someone you fancy will have something to offer that can help you raise your income. A pleasure trip will open up a window of opportunity that can influence your future. Choose wisely. A last-minute change of plans must not disrupt what needs to be done. Favorable Dates –Sep 6, 7, 15, 16, 24 & 25 Favorable Colors – Green & Blue

Gemini ( 21 May – 20 June) - You are innovative and creative, destined to follow your dreams.Be realistic about your personal and professional goals. You can do well, but only if you go through the proper channels. Take your time and do things the right way. Don't get discouraged. You'll learn through observation. You will finally be able to complete a project you've been working on for some time if you take the initiative and pursue a creative approach. Don't divulge a secret until you are ready to move forward with your plans.Do your due diligence and you can prosper. Intimacy is in the stars. Personal and business agreements can be formulated and executed. Favorable Dates –Sep 2, 6, 11, 15, 20 & 24 Favorable Colors – Green & Red

Cancer ( 21 June – 22 July )-  Put more effort into acquiring knowledge and skills that will help you impress both personal and professional friends. An innovative idea will help you subsidize your income. Contemplate and explore everything you may have to offer. Don't let self-deception stand between you and progress. Changing your routine or visiting unfamiliar places will lead to greater enthusiasm and a new perspective from which to view the situations you've been facing. Love is highlighted. Make sure you spend time with someone you love. Someone you meet will offer you a deal that is more promising than you realize. Get together with people who share your interests. Good fortune will be yours if you make subtle changes that add to your appeal. Favorable Dates –Sep 1, 8, 10, 17, 19 & 26 Favorable Colors – White & Red

Leo ( 23 July – 22 August ) - Channel your energy into learning and self-improvement. Business and personal relationships will flourish with a little charm and encouragement. Use your imagination and you will make a good contribution to a job or project. Love is on the rise and can lead to a stronger commitment. Take a closer look. Spend time communicating with friends or relatives and you will discover information that will help you make better personal decisions. Travel if it will help bring you in contact with someone who can benefit you. Love is in the stars, but you must be willing to share equally if you want it to work. A change to your living arrangements will come with benefits. Favorable Dates –Sep 1, 5, 10, 14, 19 & 23 Favorable Colors – Green & Red

Virgo ( 23 August – 22 September )   - You have to follow your head, not your heart, if you want to come out on top. Socializing, networking and meeting with new people will all lead to positive changes. Don't settle for less than what you want. You'll tend to overreact regarding personal matters and relationships. You are best keeping things very low-key until you have a more objective view of your situation. Keep a close watch over what everyone around you is doing and saying before you choose to make a move that will be difficult to reverse. Open up discussions that will help you resolve any pending problems at home. You will learn from the people you encounter and can add this knowledge to your resume. Favorable Dates –Sep 1, 4, 10, 13, 19 & 22 Favorable Colors – White & Red

Libra ( 23 September – 22 October ) - Your keen sense of what works and what doesn't will give you an edge when faced with a challenge or competition. Business propositions or promises will come with baggage, and disappointment will result if you aren't practical and realistic. Protect your assets. Attending a reunion or revisiting old ideas, places or friends will help you rethink your future.  Stay aboveboard in all your transactions, and focus on building your assets, not your liabilities Be careful with your money. Problems will develop if you are too flirtatious. Love can cost you if you are too generous or if you try to buy favor. Don't argue over petty differences. Concentrate on financial, emotional and physical improvements. Favorable Dates – Sep 1,2, 10, 11, 19, 20, 28 & 29 Favorable Colors – Red & Yellow

Scorpio ( 23 October – 21 November )  - You'll be inspired to contribute your unique touch to whatever you pursue, and you stand to be praised for your insight. Explore new people, places and pastimes. Your encounters will be fulfilling, and what you learn along the way will help you deal with pressing personal matters. Change will be inviting, and adapting to new surroundings, people or ways of doing things will be exciting. This is a great time to fix up your digs or relax with friends or neighbours. Socializing and networking will lead to interesting communication, as well as unexpected opportunity. Keep spending and overindulging to a minimum. Love is on the rise. Favorable Dates – Sep 2,7, 11, 16, 20, 25, & 29 Favorable Colors – White & Yellow

Sagittarius ( 22 November -21 December ) - You can make professional gains if you are practical and realistic. A new direction will be a refreshing change. It's all about focus and refusing to let the little things bother you. Helping others will allow you to view your own situation with greater objectivity. Getting together with familiar faces will lead to benefits and renewed feelings, plans and expectations. Networking or getting together with friends will be entertaining and result in an interesting development that may entail travel or picking up valuable information. Don't make a snap decision. A love relationship can be enhanced. Let your charm and humor capture attention. Favorable Dates – Sep 4,7, 13, 16, 22 & 25 Favorable Colors – White & Blue

Capricorn ( 22 December – 19 January ) - Positive thoughts will bring positive action.Once you have a good idea what's expected of you, it will be easier to move forward with your own plans. It's important to protect your feelings, your finances and your possessions if you want to avoid disappointment. Don't let an argument with someone stifle your plans. You will discover how skillful you are when faced with an unexpected challenge. Take a close look at your situation and make a decision based on what you can afford. Compassion will get you further ahead. Travel, visit friends or get out and enjoy activities that bring you in touch with new acquaintances. You will have the discipline to finish what you start. Favorable Dates – Sep 3, 4,12, 13, 21, 22 & 30 Favorable Colors – Red & Yellow

Aquarius ( 20 January – 18 February )  - You will have some creative ideas and suggestions that can change your personal and financial future. Cool, calculated strategy with precise execution will bring the best results and should help please everyone who is watching.Use your imagination to come up with a plan that will benefit you personally and help make your environment user-friendly Revisiting some of your past relationships and experiences will help you see connections with greater clarity. A property deal or other investment will develop, giving you an opportunity to improve your assets. Love and romance are looking good. Favorable Dates – Sep1, 7,10, 16, 25 & 28 Favorable Colors – Red &Blue

Pisces ( 19 February – 20 March ) - Set your goals high and your mind on reaching what you set out to do. As long as you stick to your budget and you don't let anyone use emotional tactics to make you feel obliged, you will come out on top. You will attract love and friendship. You'll be quick-thinking, but if you act too fast, you will be faced with opposition.  You'll be busy running about, meeting people and, most of all, trying to bring order to the multitasking you've been trying to juggle. You'll be the centre of attention and can use this opportunity to invite others to pitch in and help. Personal growth will result from interacting with new acquaintances. Favorable Dates – Sep 5, 9,14, 18, 23 &27  Favorable Colors – Red & Purple

AntySaurus Prick #136 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Dino is a vegetarian virgin dinosaur and his best friend is Anty,
a carnivorous nymphomaniac ant.
They call themselves the AntySaurus Prick and they are still here
waiting for the comet to come!

For more AntySaurus Prick, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The ballot by Trump’s mailbox by Markus Gibbons

The President who has repeatedly treated postal voting as a suspicious contrivance has, himself, used the postal system to vote. The contradiction would be merely comic if the stakes were not the machinery of American democracy.

The Supreme Court’s emergency intervention, allowing the administration’s postal-voting restrictions to proceed for the moment while litigation continues, is another episode in the increasingly strange American habit of governing elections through emergency orders, emergency appeals and emergency judicial decisions. The Court did not settle the underlying constitutional questions. But that distinction, so important to lawyers, can become rather less comforting to voters when election officials are left wondering which rules will still exist by the time ballots arrive.

Trump’s executive order seeks to bring an extraordinary amount of federal authority into an area traditionally administered by the states. Under the plan, the Postal Service could refuse to transmit mail ballots associated with states that do not comply with federal requirements concerning voter lists and ballot procedures. The administration describes this as election integrity. Its opponents see something much more consequential: an attempt to acquire leverage over the practical mechanics of voting.

That distinction matters. Democracy does not usually collapse because somebody announces that democracy is being abolished. It is weakened through a thousand apparently technical decisions: which identification is accepted, which registration survives, which envelope is valid, which ballot arrives on time, which database is considered authoritative. The drama is bureaucratic rather than cinematic. There is no tank in the street. There is a form missing a box.

And yet, collectively, those small decisions determine who gets to participate. The peculiar irony is that Trump himself has used mail voting. The postal ballot, like many things in modern American life, appears to become perfectly legitimate when it serves the right person and mysteriously dangerous when it might serve the wrong electorate. There is something almost Victorian about this principle: the railway is a marvel when one is travelling first class, but a threat to civilization when somebody else boards the train.

The deeper problem is not simply whether every Trump proposal survives judicial scrutiny. It is the philosophy behind the proposals. If elections are regarded as contests whose legitimacy depends upon whether one side wins, then every voting rule becomes a potential weapon. The objective quietly shifts from making voting secure and accessible to making the electoral system advantageous to one political faction.

That is the road to permanent suspicion. Americans should be able to disagree ferociously about candidates, policies and parties. They should not have to wonder whether the federal government is redesigning the voting process because the people currently running it dislike how certain Americans vote.

The Supreme Court’s decision is temporary. The consequences of the administration’s campaign against mail voting may not be. Once citizens begin believing that access to the ballot depends upon political convenience, trust becomes extraordinarily difficult to restore.

Perhaps the strangest feature of this saga is that the postal service is being asked to become a gatekeeper of democracy. And somewhere in that irony lies the entire problem: Trump once trusted the mailbox enough to put his own ballot inside it. He should extend that trust to everyone else.

Tony Elumelu and the young UBA girl by Tunde Akande

I’m very convinced now that the Nigerian culture is very strong and will win over all our inferiority complexes. For a very long time our culture has been assailed from all corners and all foreign countries. But it seems Nigerians are rising to the occasion to take back that which is ours. The recent encounter between the outgoing Chairman of the octopus United Bank of Africa (UBA), Tony Elumelu and a young girl who was part of the bank’s graduate trainee scheme is my joy.

During a graduation ceremony for UBA’s Graduate Management Accelerated Programme (GMAP) in Lagos, a young female trainee stood up to speak and addressed the billionaire businessman as “Tony.”

Tony Elumelu immediately stopped her and said, “You will not call me that. Address me as Chairman or Mr Elumelu. I don’t subscribe to that kind of Oyinbo life.”

It gives me joy not because the girl received a public correction for her cultural indecorum but because the man who gave the public correction was also one of the men who at his younger age helped create that foolishness. In handing out correction to the girl who had called him by his first name, Tony Elumelu publicly said he did not subscribe to that “Oyinbo thing.” If you are not a Nigerian and you don’t know who are “Oyinbo”; they are the ones that colonized us and insisted we must imitate their culture in all things. Eat like them, squeeze our noses to speak like them, wear their suits even when it is steaming hot here, govern ourselves as they govern themselves, practice their democracy even when democracy has failed in their own land and everywhere.

Nigerians took it up on both the mainstream media and social media and gave thorough justice to the discussion. The adults who were custodians of our culture told the youths that the way of the girl was not the right way of African ladies and young men. This was after Tony Elumelu had by a stern correction made the girl to recant her imprudence .

As a young bank owner, as the story goes, Tony Elumelu and his colleagues at the new generation banks after courses at Harvard University in the United States of America returned to their banks to tell their staff about a new culture. They must call everybody by their first name. However old and no matter how advanced the staff may be, they must be addressed by their first name henceforth. I heard the case of a woman, married, who resigned at UBA then because she couldn’t put up with such indignity.

She is married and part of the respect that goes with that is that she must be addressed as Mrs. She will not allow another man who is not her husband to call her by her first name and give the impression that he is her husband. Her husband and the society will think she is having an affair with that other man. She resigned.

The fire caught on from one new generation bank to another. Even some older generation banks who had settled on the Nigerian culture began to change too. One is the Union Bank where a friend of mine worked till he retired. He said that when the indignity was introduced in Union Bank, it was the senior ones in the Bank that rose against it until it was stopped.

Elumelu and his colleagues like Jim Ovia, Herbert Wigwe, Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, Fola Adeola etc entered banking with bright and brilliant ideas. They wanted to reach for the sky, they wanted to do things their progenitors never dared to do. In no time, Elumelu’s Standard Trust Bank, which was small, bought the giant UBA. But for the regulatory watch of the Central Bank, Elemelu would have changed the UBA which is a brand known worldwide to Standard Trust Bank, which would have had unsalutory effect on the economy. The CBN reportedly stopped him.

Aigboje Imoukhuede and his co-founder at Access Bank, Herbert Wigwe, were restless. They reached the sky and it was not their limit. Wigwe, who took over control of Access when Imoukhuede retired, continued an acquisition spree that amazed watchers. Wigwe’s nickname in banking circles was “Fearless”; nobody has really clarified what that means, whether it means fearless in doing good or fearless in doing evil. But it is known that our bankers have indeed been fearless in manipulating the economy that no regulation can catch up with them.

In no time, Wigwe built what tech experts call a smart house in Oyinkan Abayomi in Ikoyi, Lagos. It was also reported that he owns about 106 properties in the UK and a university in Nigeria, where the fees are the most expensive, and whose motto is also “fearless.” He barely lived in the Ikoyi house before the cold hand of death snatched him away in an air crash in the US.

As new generation banks rose, banking in Nigeria declined, and so did our broader culture. They wanted to do everything as they were done in the West. Ladies in some banks were reportedly given condoms to aid them in collecting deposits from rich men, top civil servants and politicians. Back then the prevailing banking culture was the end justifies the means. Fortunately correction came through Tony Elumelu. Elumelu has obviously come of age. He is said to be in his 60’s now and he was leading UBA as Chairman. He has obviously acquired more than heart can desire. What was boiling in him at the start is now cooling down.

“I don’t subscribe to that Oyibo thing,” he told the young girl, who had been taught the UBA culture of first name for everybody. Tony is now fully back as a Nigerian with Nigerian culture fully settled in him. Not again will Harvard teachings work in Nigeria. Tony can do it the Nigerian way and still make it. Tony had always been a Nigerian, only the inferiority complex of the white skin had taken hold of his young heart when he started banking. Now Tony has seen that he is not in any way inferior to the white man. He saw that the black man’s culture was far better.

A young man posted a video of Tony Elumelu being interviewed by a black lady somewhere abroad who had called him by his first name. Tony did not correct that lady like he did the young Nigerian girl in Nigeria. He accused Tony of hypocrisy. He was not. He was in a different clime and that culture fits with them. But not here. Tony Elumelu is a father and he won’t want his children grow to call their father by his first name.

Tony Elumelu has helped clear the mess his contemporary bankers created. It is only in Africa that a child has many fathers, his biological father and all other old men in the village. Those men and women take responsibility in the training of that child. That fine culture was dying, but Tony Elumelu has gracefully rescued it.

In my days as a new arrival in Lagos after my school certificate examination, it was a delight and duty to give our seats to old men and women in the bus and stand in their places. We have been taught by our parents and our experiences as we grew up. Those men and women, apart from that they didn’t have the energy to stand up on the bus, it was a sacrilege to let them stand while we sat. But that has changed and youths now seat and watch old ones stand. In those days the old so honoured will either let you sit on their laps or pay your bus fares.

But after we attended university we thought it was civilization to imitate the white man's ways. No it is not, rather it is the height of stupidity. We must follow Tony Elumelu to revert it in every sphere. That is the reason for the high corruption in Nigeria, the reason for the high indiscipline in Nigeria.

When secondary school pupils carry iPhones and other sophisticated gadgets which their fathers don’t even have, teachers have to ask them where they got it. Government has a role. Our phones must have applications that are unique to Nigeria and Africa in general. Certain applications must be removed from the phone by the manufacturers. A good example is Phoenix that reports fake news and hides phonography. We will be better off not having phones than having ones that corrupt our hearts.

Children and youths; don’t deceive yourself thinking you are better off talking like the whites or dressing like them. God did not make a mistake by creating you and locating you in Nigeria. Be yourself at all times. Be proud of your creation and your location. Don’t lose your identity. Your identity is your passport to success. You can be another Tony Elumelu. Join Tony’s train today. Refuse to be anything but Nigerian.

First Published in METRO

***********************

Tunde Akande is both a journalist and pastor. He earned a Master's degree in Mass Communication from the University of Lagos.

Ma-Siri & Co #129 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Ma-Siri is a mother, a grandmother and a very active social life,
searching for the meaning of life among other things and her glasses.

For more Ma-Siri & Alexa, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The politics of being forgotten by Yash Irwin

There is a peculiar humiliation in British politics that does not involve losing an election, being heckled in Parliament or watching Nigel Farage steal your voters. It is being …forgotten.

For Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, this may be the most interesting political development of all. Her name has not disappeared entirely, of course. She still makes occasional headlines, attacks Reform UK, criticises Labour and attempts to persuade the country that the Conservatives remain a government-in-waiting rather than a political museum undergoing renovations. But compared with the endless political oxygen once consumed by Conservative leaders, Badenoch can sometimes appear to be competing with the weather forecast for public attention.

And that raises an uncomfortable question for the Conservatives: is relative silence a sign of recovery, or irrelevance? The answer, unfortunately for Badenoch, may be a little of both. Her personal standing has improved from the depths reached after she became leader. There are even signs that voters increasingly regard her as decisive and competent. That is hardly a trivial achievement. But the Conservative Party remains substantially less popular than its leader, and the central problem confronting Badenoch is that improving perceptions of Kemi Badenoch is not the same thing as reviving the Conservative Party.

Politics is not a personality rehabilitation programme. The Conservatives have a much larger problem. They lost the 2024 election catastrophically, and since then their political territory has been invaded from the right by Reform UK, while Labour occupies much of the centre-left and the Liberal Democrats continue to make life uncomfortable in traditionally Conservative territory.

Badenoch's instinct has been to fight Reform by refusing to become Reform. That is sensible in theory. Yet the temptation to imitate its language, priorities and cultural battles remains obvious. She has ruled out an electoral pact with Nigel Farage and attacked Reform as a party of grievance. But the Conservatives cannot simultaneously tell voters that Reform is dangerous and spend their time explaining why they are almost, but not quite, as angry as Reform.

That is not a strategy. It is competitive shouting. The deeper problem is that Badenoch's Conservatives have yet to answer the question that matters most: what exactly are they for?

Cutting taxes is not a philosophy. Reducing regulation is not a philosophy. Opposing net zero policies is not a philosophy. Tougher immigration policies are not a philosophy. These may all have political value, but voters eventually want to know what kind of country a Conservative government intends to build.

A party cannot live indefinitely on the promise that everyone else is worse. This is why Badenoch's apparent disappearance from the headlines could actually be useful. Silence can create space for a political leader to develop rather than merely react. If she uses it to construct a coherent economic and social programme, rebuild credibility and demonstrate that conservatism is about more than fighting cultural enemies, she may eventually benefit.

But silence can also become invisibility. The Conservatives should therefore be careful what they wish for. A leader who stops generating damaging headlines may be an improvement. A leader who stops generating headlines because voters have stopped listening is something else entirely.

Badenoch's challenge is not simply to become louder. British politics already has enough noise. Her challenge is to become consequential. That requires turning the Conservatives from an angry opposition into a credible alternative government. It requires convincing voters that the party has learned something from its spectacular collapse rather than merely changing the person standing behind the lectern.

At present, the most dangerous thing happening to Kemi Badenoch may not be that people dislike her. It may be that they are beginning not to care. For a political leader, controversy can be survived. Indifference is much harder.

Muhoozi’s Uganda by Eze Ogbu

Something almost medieval about the political future being proposed for Uganda, the father has occupied the presidential throne for four decades, the son commands the army, and now the son announces that he intends to inherit the presidency. Only the medieval kings had the decency to call it hereditary.

General Muhoozi Kainerugaba’s declaration that he will run for president in 2031 is therefore more than another African election announcement. It is a glimpse of what happens when a republic slowly becomes a family enterprise. Kainerugaba is not merely the son of Yoweri Museveni. He is the son who has risen through the military hierarchy while his father remains president, acquiring precisely the kind of institutional power that makes succession look less like an election and more like an arranged transfer of property.

Kainerugaba has already supplied the public with an extraordinary preview of his political temperament. His social-media career has sometimes resembled the diary of a particularly excitable general who discovered the internet and forgot that national borders are not metaphors. In 2022, he caused a diplomatic uproar by suggesting that Uganda could invade Kenya. Museveni apologised for the remarks and removed his son from his military position at the time. Yet the political rehabilitation was remarkably swift. The general eventually returned to the top of the armed forces.

That is the curious thing about dynastic authoritarianism: consequences become temporary inconveniences when the family is sufficiently important.

Kainerugaba now commands Uganda's military while openly discussing his presidential ambitions. He has even spoken of his father campaigning for him and predicted an enormous electoral victory. Such confidence would be amusing if Uganda were an ordinary democracy. It is less amusing when the aspiring president is simultaneously the country's military chief and the heir apparent of a ruler who has been in power since 1986.

Elections, in such circumstances, risk becoming elaborate ceremonies performed after the important decisions have already been made.

The problem is not simply that Museveni wants his son to succeed him. Political dynasties exist everywhere, including in democracies. The problem is the machinery surrounding the inheritance: the army, the ruling party, patronage networks and a political culture in which opposition can become dangerous and institutions increasingly appear subordinate to executive power.

This is how authoritarianism modernises itself. It does not always arrive wearing a military uniform and announcing a coup. Sometimes it arrives in a tailored suit, carrying a family name and promising continuity.

And Muhoozi is an especially revealing successor because his public persona seems to embody something more volatile than his father's old-fashioned authoritarianism. Museveni represents the veteran strongman: disciplined, patient, calculating, endlessly capable of surviving political weather. His son has cultivated a reputation for impulsiveness, theatricality and provocative declarations.

That combination should concern Ugandans. A dictatorship inherited by a son is not necessarily a dictatorship made gentler by youth. It can become a dictatorship with fewer restraints and more confidence.

Uganda deserves something rather less dynastic: a political system in which the presidency is not a family heirloom, the army does not become a ladder to State House, and citizens are not expected to applaud the inevitable. A republic should produce presidents. It should not produce successors.

The heir and the brother by Cassandra Sparks

There is definitely something odd and more revealing about a future king who cannot speak to his own brother than all the carefully choreographed smiles, handshakes and constitutional speeches in the world.

Prince William and Prince Harry have spent years turning a family disagreement into something resembling a permanent diplomatic freeze. Harry is now back in Britain with his family, yet reports continue to indicate that the brothers remain estranged and have not resumed meaningful communication.

That should matter, not because Britain needs another royal soap opera, but because William is supposed to become the country's head of state.

Of course, nobody should pretend that family reconciliation is easy. The brothers have accumulated grievances, accusations, humiliations and wounds sufficient to fill several royal biographies. Harry has publicly discussed private family matters; William has reportedly regarded those disclosures as a profound betrayal. Trust, once shattered, is not repaired merely because two people share a surname and a childhood bedroom.

But leadership is often precisely about dealing with things that are difficult, uncomfortable and deeply personal.

The future king does not have to forgive everything. He does not have to forget anything. He does not even have to invite Harry back into the institution. But surely he should be capable of finding a private channel through which two brothers can at least talk.

That is not weakness. It is emotional competence. William's defenders will argue that the responsibility lies equally with Harry. Fair enough. Harry is hardly an innocent bystander in this family catastrophe. His interviews, memoir and public accusations have made reconciliation considerably harder. The Sussexes have also built a public identity partly around their estrangement from the institution they left.

Yet William carries a different burden. Harry is not preparing to become king. William is. A constitutional monarch cannot run Britain as though every disagreement were a personal vendetta. The crown's fundamental political function is to represent continuity, stability and, ideally, a capacity to stand above factional quarrels. The monarchy asks the public to believe that its occupant can embody something larger than himself.

That becomes slightly harder to believe when the heir cannot resolve, or even apparently communicate through, the most important family rupture of his adult life.

There is an uncomfortable irony here. William's modernisation of the monarchy increasingly depends upon making it appear more human, approachable and emotionally intelligent. His public image has moved away from the stiff formality of earlier generations.

But humanity is not merely smiling for cameras. It is knowing when pride has become an obstacle.

Perhaps William believes that silence protects his family, his wife, his children and the institution. Perhaps he believes that Harry cannot be trusted. Those concerns are understandable. But silence also communicates something. It says that the dispute has become more important than reconciliation.

And that is where the question becomes larger than two brothers. A king cannot choose his relatives. He cannot choose every crisis that will confront his country. What he can choose is how he responds when relationships become difficult.

Britain does not need a future king who wins every family argument. It needs one mature enough to know that sometimes leadership begins with picking up the telephone.

Ignorance as a governing strategy by Harry S. Taylor

Darline Graham’s much-discussed admission that national security is not her area of expertise would be easy to dismiss as the ordinary stumble of a political newcomer. Politicians say foolish things. Candidates forget facts. Debates produce moments that make campaign advisers reach for aspirin. But in the Trump era, the more revealing question is not whether ignorance exists. It is whether ignorance has become politically useful.

Graham is not merely an inexperienced candidate who wandered into a difficult foreign-policy question. She was seeking a six-year seat in the United States Senate, an institution whose members are expected to vote on wars, treaties, intelligence, military spending and international alliances. Her admission therefore raised a larger question: when did not knowing become something to advertise rather than something to remedy?

The answer lies partly in Donald Trump’s transformation of political loyalty into a substitute for competence. Trump enthusiastically backed Graham despite her limited political experience and acknowledged unfamiliarity with national-security matters. His endorsement helped carry her through the Republican runoff. The message was unmistakable: ideological alignment with Trump could matter more than mastery of the job.

That is not merely a problem for Darline Graham. It is a problem for a political system. There is a respectable American tradition of the outsider entering government. Outsiders can bring fresh eyes, practical experience and healthy suspicion of bureaucratic complacency. Abraham Lincoln did not arrive in Washington as a foreign-policy professor. Harry Truman was hardly an intellectual celebrity. But humility is different from ignorance, and curiosity is different from indifference.

A newcomer who says, “I don't know enough about Taiwan; I need to learn,” demonstrates humility. A politician who turns ignorance into a badge of authenticity risks making incompetence fashionable.

Trump understands this distinction instinctively. His political brand has long portrayed expertise as elitism, preparation as establishment theatre and institutional knowledge as evidence that someone belongs to the dreaded “swamp.” The ordinary citizen is elevated not because the citizen knows everything, but because knowing less can be presented as knowing something more authentic.

It is a clever political trick. It is also dangerous. The presidency and Congress are not reality television. National security does not pause while an elected official catches up. Neither do inflation, immigration, artificial intelligence, climate policy, nuclear weapons, public health or the federal debt. Governing requires learning. It requires listening to people who know more than you do. Most importantly, it requires the intellectual humility to change your mind when evidence demands it.

Blind loyalty destroys that process. The Trump model increasingly asks Republicans not merely to support policies but to demonstrate allegiance to the man who defines the movement. Graham’s victory showed that Trump’s endorsement still carries substantial weight when he chooses to spend political capital and campaign personally for a candidate.

This creates an uncomfortable inversion of democratic politics. Instead of asking whether a candidate is prepared to exercise power responsibly, voters are encouraged to ask whether the candidate is sufficiently loyal to the person already exercising it.

That is how ignorance stops being naïveté and becomes a pattern. The real danger is not that every Trump ally is ignorant. Many are not. Nor is every political outsider incompetent. Far from it. The danger is the celebration of incuriosity, the suggestion that expertise itself is suspicious and that loyalty is an adequate replacement for judgment.

America deserves politicians capable of saying, “I don't know.” It also deserves politicians who immediately add, “But I will learn.” That second sentence is the one democracy cannot afford to lose.