The ghost of New Labour by Jemma Norman

More than a decade after leaving office, Tony Blair continues to hover over Labour like a well-dressed ghost, appearing whenever the party looks uncertain, divided or vulnerable. Today, with Keir Starmer facing growing discontent from parts of his own coalition and Labour struggling to define a coherent governing identity, Blair’s re-emergence feels less like a surprise than a recurring feature of British political life.

The irony is that Blair’s greatest political achievement may also have planted the seeds of Labour’s current crisis. During his years in power, he transformed Labour from a party rooted in traditional social democracy into a machine designed primarily to win elections. The ideological edges were softened. Market economics were embraced. Public services were reformed according to managerial logic. The old tribal distinctions between Labour and the Conservatives became increasingly difficult to identify.

For many voters, this was precisely the point. Blair understood that elections are won in the centre ground, not at ideological extremes. Yet the long-term consequence was a gradual erosion of Labour’s political identity. If Labour accepted much of the economic framework established by Conservative governments, what exactly made it Labour anymore? The question never entirely disappeared. It merely remained dormant while Blair was winning.

Now it has returned with force. Starmer’s leadership has often appeared as an attempt to complete Blair’s unfinished project. Much of Labour’s rhetoric revolves around competence, stability, fiscal caution, and reassurance rather than transformative ambition. The language is managerial rather than inspirational. The promise is effective administration rather than social reconstruction. While this approach helped Labour return to government, it has left many supporters wondering what larger vision lies beneath the surface.

Into this uncertainty steps Blair once again. His interventions increasingly reflect a political instinct shaped by a different age but adapted to contemporary anxieties. Whether discussing immigration, crime, national identity, technological disruption, or government efficiency, Blair often sounds less like an elder statesman of the centre-left and more like a strategist studying the rise of populist politics across the Western world. He appears convinced that traditional parties must absorb elements of the populist challenge if they hope to survive it.

This does not make Blair a Trumpist, nor does it mean Labour is becoming a British version of Trump’s movement. The comparison is subtler than that. Blair’s instinct is to borrow the themes that resonate with frustrated voters while maintaining establishment control over the political system. It is a strategy of adaptation rather than rebellion.

Yet such adaptation carries risks. Every time Labour moves closer to conservative rhetoric on culture, borders, or national identity, it risks reinforcing the perception that ideological differences between the major parties are largely cosmetic. Voters searching for genuine alternatives may conclude that they are being offered competing management teams rather than competing visions of society.

The deeper problem for Starmer is that Blair’s return highlights a vacuum at the heart of contemporary Labour. Strong parties rarely need advice from former leaders. They generate their own confidence and direction. Weak parties invite ghosts.

And in British politics, few ghosts are more persistent than Tony Blair.

Quarantine at a distance by Marja Heikkinen

Recent controversy surrounding a proposed quarantine and treatment facility in Kenya for Americans potentially exposed to a dangerous Ebola variant has reignited an uncomfortable question: when public health emergencies arise, who is expected to bear the burden, and who is expected to be protected from it?

Supporters of such arrangements often frame them as practical necessities. They argue that infectious diseases require careful containment and that governments have an obligation to protect their populations from potential outbreaks. On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, however, these decisions can create the impression that some lives are being treated as logistical problems rather than human beings deserving care, dignity, and reassurance.

The most troubling aspect is not simply the location of a quarantine facility. It is the message that many people hear beneath the policy. To critics, the proposal suggests a willingness to keep potentially exposed citizens at arm’s length, physically and politically, while the risks and anxieties associated with their treatment are transferred elsewhere. Whether that interpretation is entirely fair or not, it reflects a growing public distrust of institutions that increasingly seem to view citizens through the lens of risk management rather than responsibility.

The backlash in Kenya is understandable. Citizens and medical professionals there have every right to ask why their country should become a destination for handling another nation’s public health challenge. Their objections are not merely about disease. They are about sovereignty, fairness, and respect. No nation wants to be perceived as a convenient holding area for problems wealthier countries would rather keep at a distance.

At the same time, the controversy raises uncomfortable questions for the United States itself. America possesses some of the most advanced medical facilities in the world. It has enormous scientific resources, sophisticated public-health agencies, and vast financial capacity. Against that backdrop, any suggestion that potentially exposed Americans should be managed primarily outside the country can appear less like a necessity and more like an avoidance of responsibility.

Public trust is fragile. People want to believe that if they become caught in a crisis abroad, their government will move mountains to bring them home safely and provide the best possible care. They want reassurance that they will not be treated as liabilities to be parked somewhere convenient until the danger passes. When policies create the opposite impression, even unintentionally, confidence erodes.

Health emergencies demand difficult choices. There are no perfect solutions when dealing with highly contagious diseases. But governments must recognize that citizens are not cargo, and partner nations are not storage facilities for political discomfort. Effective public health depends not only on science and logistics but also on legitimacy. People must believe that decisions are being made with fairness and humanity at their core.

When a policy leaves both the host country and the affected citizens feeling used, it is worth asking whether the problem lies not in the criticism but in the decision itself. A nation demonstrates its values most clearly during moments of fear. The question is whether those values are revealed through responsibility or through distance.

#eBook The dark reflections of Helene Schjerfbeck by Ovi Art eBooks

 

Helene Schjerfbeck spent nearly seven decades painting, yet her fiercest work began only when the world stopped looking. For much of the twentieth century, she was remembered, when remembered at all, as a Finnish painter of polite portraits and Nordic still lifes.

But the true Schjerfbeck, the one who matters now, emerged from a pact with darkness. She became a master of silence as subject, transforming the wartime years in isolation into fuel for her most desolate palette. While others sought refuge in community, she withdrew deeper, discovering that loneliness sharpens the eye.

This series of Ovi publication art eBooks is dedicated to exploring the dynamic interplay between art, artists and the foundational ideas that drive creative expression. Each volume invites readers into a thoughtful journey through diverse artistic voices and visual narratives, celebrating both established and emerging perspectives.

Ovi eBook Publishing 2026

The dark reflections of Helene Schjerfbeck

Read it online or download HERE!
Read it online & downloading it as PDF or EPUB HERE!
Or enjoy reading it online & downloading it as PDF HERE!
All downloads are FREE!

Carpond #014 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

A cacophony of singalongs, stifled yawns,
and surprisingly insightful debates
on the existential dread of a four wheeler vacuum

For more Carpond, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

Silently climbing aboard by Fahad Kline

If reports that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates secretly participated in attacks against Iran are accurate, they mark more than another episode in the Middle East’s endless cycle of confrontation. They signal a profound shift in the political identity of two states that have long prided themselves on balancing ambition with caution. The question is not whether Iran deserves criticism for its regional conduct. The question is whether Gulf governments are abandoning the strategic restraint that once defined their foreign policy.

For decades, Saudi Arabia and the UAE understood a simple reality. Geography is permanent. Iran is not a distant rival that can be ignored or isolated. It is a neighbor, a competitor, and at times an adversary. Yet even during periods of intense tension, Gulf leaders generally sought to avoid direct military entanglement. They preferred economic leverage, diplomatic maneuvering, and carefully managed pressure over actions that could ignite a broader regional war.

That calculation appears to be changing. The war has exposed an uncomfortable truth for many American partners in the region. The United States remains powerful, but its security guarantees are no longer viewed as absolute. Washington’s willingness to intervene decisively has become less predictable, regardless of which party controls the White House. Faced with that uncertainty, regional governments have increasingly sought new ways to shape events rather than simply react to them.

But there is a difference between pursuing strategic autonomy and tying oneself to the political instincts of a particular American administration. Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach has always favored confrontation over caution. Allies are often encouraged to take bolder positions against common adversaries. The danger is that countries with their own complex regional interests begin viewing every challenge through Washington’s lens rather than their own. In doing so, they risk becoming participants in conflicts that may serve short-term tactical goals while undermining long-term national interests.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE spent years cultivating images as pragmatic powers focused on economic modernization, investment, and stability. They marketed themselves as hubs of commerce and innovation rather than permanent actors on the battlefield. Those ambitions require predictability. Investors do not flock to regions drifting toward open conflict. Global businesses do not make long-term commitments based on military escalation.

A secret role in attacks against Iran would therefore represent more than a military decision. It would be a political statement. It would suggest that deterrence is now being pursued through direct action rather than strategic distance. That is a risky wager in a region where retaliation rarely remains limited and where unintended consequences have a habit of becoming permanent realities.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this moment is how quickly traditional assumptions appear to be eroding. Countries once associated with cautious neutrality are increasingly willing to choose sides. The space between diplomacy and confrontation is shrinking. That may satisfy those who believe strength is measured by aggression, but history offers a different lesson. The Middle East has never suffered from a shortage of military ventures. It has suffered from a shortage of political patience.

If Gulf leaders are indeed moving closer to Washington’s most confrontational instincts, they should remember that great powers can change direction with elections. Geography cannot. Long after American administrations come and go, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran will remain neighbors. That reality, more than any temporary alliance, should guide their decisions.

Citizens on paper by Shanna Shepard

Native American Citizenship Day arrives each year with the quiet dignity of a date that should provoke national reflection but rarely does. The observance commemorates the 1924 law that finally granted U.S. citizenship to Native Americans born in this country. The word “finally” deserves emphasis. Indigenous peoples were here before the United States existed, yet they had to wait for citizenship from a government built on their dispossession.

That contradiction has never entirely disappeared. It simply changes costumes. In the age of Donald Trump and an immigration apparatus that has become one of the most visible symbols of federal power, Native American Citizenship Day feels less like a celebration than a mirror. It reflects an enduring American habit: deciding who belongs, who must prove they belong, and who gets treated as a guest in a place that is supposed to be home.

The irony is almost too sharp to write without sounding satirical. The descendants of the continent’s first peoples mark a day recognizing their citizenship while the national conversation is increasingly dominated by suspicion, documentation, enforcement, and belonging. The language may be directed at migrants, asylum seekers, and undocumented workers, but it reveals something broader about the American political imagination. Citizenship is discussed not as a shared democratic bond but as a badge to be inspected, challenged, and revoked in spirit if not in law.

Trump did not invent that impulse. He merely amplified it. His political rise depended heavily on drawing bright lines between insiders and outsiders. The border became both a policy issue and a cultural symbol. Immigration enforcement became a performance of national identity. In that environment, agencies such as ICE took on a significance far beyond their administrative role. They became characters in a larger story about who counts as a real American.

Native Americans know something about that story. For centuries, Indigenous communities have been asked to adapt, assimilate, relocate, register, and justify their existence according to standards imposed from outside. Their relationship with the federal government has often been defined by bureaucracy backed by force. The details differ dramatically from contemporary immigration enforcement, but the underlying question remains familiar: who has the authority to determine belonging?

The uncomfortable answer, throughout much of American history, has been whoever holds power at the moment. That is why Native American Citizenship Day should not be reduced to a historical footnote or a ceremonial proclamation. It should challenge Americans to think about citizenship as something larger than paperwork. Citizenship is not merely a legal category. It is a promise of equal dignity. When public life becomes obsessed with sorting people into deserving and undeserving groups, that promise begins to erode.

The lesson of Native American Citizenship Day is not that America eventually got it right. The lesson is that America spent generations getting it wrong. Remembering that history matters, especially during periods when political leaders gain influence by narrowing the definition of who belongs.

A mature democracy does not fear the question of belonging. It answers it with confidence. Native American Citizenship Day reminds us that citizenship should expand the circle, not guard the gate. That remains a lesson the United States is still struggling to learn.

Opposition headquarters, riot police and the absolute dictator by Edoardo Moretti

If the reports are accurate that riot police were deployed to the headquarters of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) to force the removal of party leader Özgür Özel, then the significance of the moment extends far beyond an internal political dispute. It would represent another alarming milestone in the long transformation of Turkish politics from competitive democracy toward something far less democratic: a system in which the state increasingly acts not as an impartial referee but as an instrument of one man’s political survival.

Authoritarianism rarely arrives with a dramatic declaration. It does not usually announce itself by abolishing elections overnight or banning opposition parties in a single stroke. Instead, it advances incrementally. Institutions are weakened. Courts become less independent. Media outlets face pressure. Political rivals are investigated, prosecuted, or sidelined. Each individual step can be defended as legal, procedural or necessary. The cumulative effect, however, is unmistakable.

Turkey has spent years traveling down that road. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once presented himself as a reformer who would strengthen democratic institutions and reduce the power of unelected elites. For a time, many observers believed that promise. Yet the trajectory of the past decade has pointed in a very different direction. Political power has become increasingly centralized. Critical voices have faced growing pressure. Elections continue to occur, but the political environment surrounding them has become steadily less fair and less competitive.

That is what makes the image of riot police at the headquarters of the country's largest opposition party so powerful. Democracies rely on a basic principle: opposition parties must be free to organize, debate, choose their leaders, and challenge those in power without interference from the state. Once security forces become involved in determining who leads the opposition, a dangerous line has been crossed.

The issue is not whether one supports Özel, Erdoğan, or any particular political faction. Democratic systems are designed precisely so that political disagreements can be resolved through persuasion and elections rather than coercion. The moment state power appears to be deciding internal opposition matters, politics ceases to be a contest between rivals and begins to resemble a managed performance.

History offers countless examples of how this process unfolds. Governments that grow uncomfortable with genuine competition rarely outlaw opposition immediately. Instead, they seek to domesticate it. Opposition parties are divided, weakened, infiltrated, or transformed into symbolic institutions that pose little threat to the ruling establishment. Elections remain, but meaningful alternatives gradually disappear.

The tragedy for Turkey is that it possesses the institutions, political traditions, and civic energy necessary to sustain a vibrant democracy. Millions of Turkish citizens continue to participate in politics, vote, campaign, and speak out despite mounting obstacles. Their commitment demonstrates that democratic aspirations remain alive.

But democratic aspirations alone cannot preserve democratic systems. Institutions matter. Political norms matter. Limits on executive power matter.

If riot police are being used to shape the leadership of the country's principal opposition party, then Turkey is moving beyond the familiar territory of democratic backsliding and toward something more troubling: a political order where opposition is tolerated only when it ceases to be genuinely oppositional. At that point, the question is no longer how strong the ruling party has become. The question is whether meaningful political competition still exists at all.

Sceptic feathers #129 #Cartoon by Thanos Kalamidas

 

Cynicism with feathers on thin wires.

For more Sceptic feathers, HERE!
For more Ovi Cartoons, HERE!

---

The price of war is being paid by the hungry by Aimee Ingram

Wars are often measured in missiles launched, cities destroyed, and political speeches delivered under bright flags and darker intentions. But the real cost of conflict is usually counted somewhere else entirely: in empty kitchens, silent markets, and children going to sleep with nothing in their stomachs. The deepening crisis surrounding Iran and the Strait of Hormuz is no exception. While governments argue over strategy and security, millions of ordinary people are being pushed toward starvation by a war they did not start and cannot escape.

The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a narrow stretch of water on a map. It is one of the world’s economic arteries. When oil shipments are blocked there, the consequences spread far beyond the Gulf. Fuel prices climb. Fertilizer becomes unaffordable. Transportation costs explode. Food prices follow. In wealthy countries, this may mean frustration at the gas station or pricier groceries. In poor nations, it means catastrophe.

Somalia is already standing at the edge of disaster. Ravaged by years of drought, instability, and dependence on imported food, it cannot absorb another global shock. When rice and flour suddenly double in price, families do not simply “adjust.” They skip meals. Parents stop eating so their children can survive another day. Aid organizations begin using the language nobody should ever become accustomed to hearing: famine, mass hunger, irreversible malnutrition.

Half a million Somali children facing starvation within weeks is not a side effect of war. It is the war. Hunger is no less deadly because it arrives slowly instead of exploding instantly. A child dying from starvation caused by global economic collapse is just as much a casualty as someone killed on a battlefield. Yet international politics continues to treat these deaths as unfortunate background noise rather than central moral failures.

What makes this even more disturbing is how predictable it all was. The global economy has been built with extraordinary fragility. Entire nations depend on imported food and fuel, while a single chokepoint in global shipping can throw markets into panic. Political leaders speak endlessly about national security, but true security should include the ability of human beings to eat when conflicts erupt thousands of miles away.

The world also suffers from selective urgency. Financial markets react within seconds when oil prices rise. Governments hold emergency meetings when shipping routes are threatened. But when children begin starving in East Africa, the response suddenly becomes slower, quieter, and wrapped in bureaucratic language about aid targets and funding gaps. Human suffering receives less attention than economic instability, even though the two are inseparable.

There is another uncomfortable truth beneath this crisis: modern warfare no longer stays local. A missile launched in the Gulf now echoes through farms in Africa, bakeries in Asia, and crowded urban neighbourhoods everywhere. Globalization connected the world economically, but politically the world still behaves as though suffering can be contained behind borders.

The tragedy unfolding now should force a painful realization. Wars are no longer fought only with weapons. They are fought through fuel prices, supply chains, blocked ports, and collapsing food systems. And as always, the poorest people become the battlefield before anyone else does.

Keep losing the narrative by Harry S. Taylor

Israel’s decision to expand its offensive against Hezbollah to all areas south of Lebanon’s Zahrani River marks another dramatic escalation in a conflict that already seems trapped in a cycle of retaliation, destruction and political paralysis. Military planners may view the move as a necessary effort to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities and push the group farther from Israel’s northern border. But wars are not judged solely by military maps. They are also measured by political consequences, international perceptions and the human suffering they leave behind.

The extension of the combat zone deep into southern Lebanon raises difficult questions about the long-term effectiveness of a strategy that increasingly appears unable to separate military objectives from civilian costs. Airstrikes and ground operations may target Hezbollah infrastructure, yet civilians inevitably find themselves caught in the middle. Homes are destroyed, communities are displaced and ordinary families pay the highest price for decisions made by leaders and armed groups far above them.

For Israel, the danger is not merely humanitarian criticism. It is the growing perception that every new offensive creates more resentment than security. Hezbollah has long benefited from presenting itself as a defender against Israeli military action. When civilian casualties mount, that narrative becomes easier for the group to promote, regardless of its own role in embedding military assets among populated areas. Every destroyed neighborhood risks becoming a recruiting poster for future militancy.

This is the strategic dilemma that military force alone cannot solve. Tactical victories can eliminate fighters, destroy weapons stockpiles and disrupt command structures. But they rarely eliminate the anger, fear and humiliation that often fuel future conflicts. History across the Middle East offers countless examples of military campaigns that achieved immediate objectives while simultaneously planting the seeds of the next crisis.

The diplomatic consequences are becoming increasingly significant as well. International support for Israel’s right to defend itself remains strong in many capitals. Yet support is not unlimited. Images of civilian suffering have a powerful effect on global public opinion. Governments that may privately sympathize with Israel’s security concerns often find themselves under growing domestic pressure when civilian casualties dominate headlines.

This matters because international legitimacy is not a secondary concern. It is a strategic asset. Nations depend on alliances, diplomatic backing and political goodwill. When military operations are perceived as disproportionate, even friendly governments begin to distance themselves. The result is a gradual erosion of the diplomatic support that Israel has historically relied upon during periods of regional instability.

At the same time, Hezbollah’s provocations and attacks cannot be ignored. No sovereign nation would accept sustained threats against its population without responding. The challenge lies in recognizing that military necessity and political wisdom are not always the same thing. A campaign that appears justified from a security perspective can still prove counterproductive if it strengthens the very forces it seeks to weaken.

The tragedy of the current conflict is that both sides appear locked into a logic of escalation. Each strike justifies another strike. Each death becomes a reason for further retaliation. Meanwhile, the prospects for meaningful diplomacy shrink with every passing week.

If peace in the Middle East is ever to move from aspiration to reality, leaders must recognize a fundamental truth: lasting security cannot be built solely through military pressure. It also requires political solutions capable of reducing the grievances and hostilities that keep the region trapped in perpetual conflict. Without that recognition, every new offensive may win ground on the battlefield while losing something far more important.

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

Aries ( 21 March – 19 April ) - This marks the beginning of a fruitful period. It can mean a new job that sparks a new passion, giving you a new and invigorating reason to get out of bed in the morning. It can be a new spiritual path that makes you look at the world in an entirely new fashion. It’s going to rekindle some part of you that you thought had burned out long ago and a lot of people that are close to you are going to notice a change. Something that has been unbalanced is going to be righted. There is a lot of contentment in this situation. In finance, making preparations for the long term during the times of plenty is paramount to knowing how to handle the times of little, so you will make long term monetary strategies. Favorable Dates – June 2,3, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29 & 30. Favorable Colors – Purple & Black

Taurus ( 20 April – 20 May ) - It is time getting your rocks off, but more often it’s about focusing that inner drive, rather than letting it drive you into situations that you might regret later. There are certain standards that need to be met in order for things to be ideal. Partnerships in profession and romantic unions, especially in the sense of long-term liaisons are going to create something that can only be described as awesome. This would be time building up connections with people and the opportunity to use these connections to their full potential in a way that will be beneficial to all. If you are single and searching for love, this is perfect time to make a leap.Favorable Dates – June 2,8, 11, 17, 20, 26 & 29. Favorable Colors – Yellow & Blue.

Gemini ( 21 May – 20 June ) - You are totally at ease taking responsibility or command of things. There would be stability and security in life. This may prompt you for change, possibly by leaving something habitual or secure, or embarking on new adventures without having to carry around old things and concerns. This period also indicates the release of old unnecessary patterns and hindrances to progress but as most people know, change can be difficult to accept. You may also be experiencing a renewed sense of spirituality, feeling more intuitive and connected to the ebb and flow of cycles. You may have also just met someone you have a good feeling about romantically, or you may be beginning new friendships or enjoying being with family. Favorable Dates – June3, 4, 11, 13, 19, 21, 26 & 28. Favorable Colors – Red & White

Cancer( 21 June – 22 July ) –You may be feeling tired of the same old hassles, and so, right now all you want to do is focus on your own sense of inner peace and calm. A lot is happening around you, but you are frozen in the moment. You are in a place of isolated meditation, trying to listen to your intuition and process your emotions. You may be unsure of what your next move is, or you may be experiencing a feeling that you cannot control what is happening outside of yourself. You are waiting for someone or something to come along and change the situation. You will soon be starting a family of your own, or that you will be hearing happy news from your family shortly. This can also suggest fertility for females and that a new child may be on the way.Favorable Dates – June 1, 4, 10, 13, 19, 21, 22 & 28. Favorable Colors – Blue & White

Leo  ( 23 July – 22 August ) - You are not in control of your life, sometimes as a result of your own actions, but more often as a byproduct of inaction. You allow others to bind you and control your life and your creative powers to be corrupted and turned against you. You can free yourself from whatever restrictions are holding you back, at any time you choose to. There is still positive energy within you that you can tap to break free - but only if you can let go of the restricted mental outlook. If you are willing to release yourself from the chains of ignorance, you can do so, and you can step into the light. Favorable Dates – June 2, 9, 11, 18, 20, 27  & 29. Favorable Colors – Red & Yellow

Virgo ( 23 August – 22 September ) – You will feel simple lethargy, the lack of motivation and desire to achieve.  This is the time when flow of energy and love that pushes us forward stops, and when you simply start drifting through life on the placid ocean, waiting for the wind to return. Relationships, those where you are giving too much and not getting nearly enough in exchange will give you pain. Take a look at your situation and see what can be done to balance things out a little. Remain thankful for what is left, don't worry about what cannot be changed, and turn a setback into a step forward. Never let your tears stop you from seeing what is left over. Favorable period is coming soon. Favorable Dates – June 2,9, 11, 18, 20, 27  & 29. Favorable Colors – Green & Yellow

Libra ( 23 September – 22 October )  - You have been pursuing and moving forward in your profession steadily. If your current situation seems to require more experience then you can call upon, be open to the presence of a teacher or mentor in your life. Support of the establishment and respect for the rules are emphasized. The traditional way of doing things must work most of the time.  Trust in yourself, and in whatever powers you believe control the universe, to help you through difficult times. Let the infinite energy of the divinity warm you and rejuvenate your soul, to provide the strength and the clarity of purpose you need to continue on your journey. You must combine the solidity of material existence with the waters of your emotions and of your spirit. Favorable Dates June 2 ,8, 11, 17, 20, 26  & 29. Favorable Colors – Red & Yellow

Scorpio ( 23 October – 21 November ) - It can be a period of joy, happiness, the birth of a child, a stable family, material prosperity or almost any other end that is positive - but above all it shows completion. One cycle is over and, before the next begins, there is a period of light and relaxation that you can and should properly enjoy. Success will come if you are confident and bold in the use of your creative energy. Glow with the vitality of the Sun whose light is unmatched and whose power is absolute. You have lived through the darkness long enough to see the inner light, it is time to help others who are not so fortunate. Favorable Dates June 3, 6, 12, 15, 21, 24  & 30. Favorable Colors – Brown & Yellow

Sagittarius ( 22 November -21 December ) - Your interactions with others are energizing you. They’re filling you with a sense of purpose, opening your awareness to higher levels of consciousness. Now is the time for you to rebuild your internal self as regards how the energy of money affects you and, in turn, your life. This period will  usher in sudden changes and energies.  Expect some advantageous thoughts, ideas and /or plans to do with business or the financial sector. You may find yourself receptive to prophetic visions at this time. The realization of your goals is imminent
and you should continue to have faith and persistence. Reunions and/or reconciliation with old friends or love mate will take place in your life at this time. Favorable Dates June 2,8, 11, 17, 20, 26& 29. Favorable Colors – Blue& Yellow

Capricorn ( 22 December – 19 January )  -You have accomplished great things. You have inspired and motivated people around you and they are listening attentively, and  taking notes. Bask in your moment of glory. It’s time to take centre stage. You will face any challenges with confidence that may lie ahead.   People will admire you not only for your deeds but also who you are as a person. You will speak of taking pride in your own strength, learning through experience, and discovering new opportunities. Sustained efforts and determination will bring requisite rewards. If you’re single and looking, the wait will be over soon. In fact, you’ll be able to choose from several potential partners. Favorable Dates June 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29 & 30. Favorable Colors –Green & Yellow

Aquarius ( 20 January – 18 February ) - You have the energy and self-belief to make any of your dreams become reality.  This confidence will help you recreate not only the present but also long-term planning for the future. You can welcome a new period of happiness and prosperity.  Its vital energy seems to enhance every area of your life, from work to relationships.  Fortunate meetings, significant circumstance will all appear at this time.  Productive partnerships may form at this point in time, and many positive relationships may develop at work.  However you realize that regardless of your level of experience, there is always more to learn and your quest for more knowledge and experience will continue. Favorable Dates June 1 ,9, 10, 18, 19, 27  & 28. Favorable Colors – White & Yellow

Pisces ( 19 February – 20 March )  - You are already a master of whatever you are practicing at. Your spirit in pioneering the new job or responsibilities is commendable. You have a strong desire to see your ideas manifested on the physical plane in the form of material gain or accomplishment. An opportunity will arrive that could be the foundation of a very successful future. You are searching for a new business idea or working on a prototype. You may be networking to bring your name or project to a wider audience.  You may be involved with or meet someone through your work or a solid grounded start to a relationship or to a new stage of a relationship may occur. Favorable Dates : June 2,8, 11, 17, 20, 26  & 29. Favorable Colors – Red & Yellow