The orderly transition scenario worries me more than a contested race. A prime minister effectively chosen by cabinet ministers behind closed doors - without, at least, party members or the public having any say - sets a deeply uncomfortable precedent.

“I have always contested the line of de-demonization, because by definition it is the adversary who demonizes us. If we want him to stop demonizing us, it means that in reality we are drawing closer to him.” – Jean-Marie Le Pen

The same Nuhu Ribadu contested to become Nigeria’s President in 2011. Nigeria dodged a bullet only to catch another bullet.

Toyota hasnt actually won a Le Mans that I would consider truly contested. They couldnt beat Porsche and Audi in P1, and after beating up on privateers from 2018-2022, started to fall behind when the factories returned. Finally they're beating all comers.

📅 Che Guevara was born on June 14, 1928. He became a global symbol of revolution and rebellion, but his legacy remains deeply contested. #GlobalMonitor #OnlyFacts #NewsBrief

When Remainers contested and tried to reverse a democratic vote. I'll never forgive or forget that.

This arrogant fellow should be defeated if he contested in the election.

In 2003, Peter Obi contested for governor and secured only about 34% of the votes. Roughly two-thirds of voters chose someone else. In 2010, during his re-election bid, he won with about 35% of the votes. Again, the majority of voters did not vote for him. Then came 2023. he suddenly received overwhelming support across much of the South-East, with some states delivering close to 90% of their votes to him.🤣🤣🤣 When a candidate who previously struggled to command majority support in his own state suddenly becomes the near-unanimous choice of an entire region, it is fair to examine what changed. The “it’s our turn” rhetoric, the regional mobilization, and the voting patterns were too obviously point to tribalism at work. Even the blind could see the ethnic undertones that shaped much of the 2023 campaign. Own it, we won’t beat you.

I didn't watch the game but I didn't expect the score to be so closely contested

But our warfare is not confined to these inward wrestles with deceitful lusts and hurtful snares; it is not our own souls only that have to be saved. You might be religious after a fashion, and yet rather a selfish kind of man, if that were all that you were caring for. And the selfish man, no matter even though his self-seeking concerns his highest interests, the selfish man is not the true Christian man. Our battlefield is the world. We may not stand neutral in any righteous cause. Is there ignorance, breeding its poisonous crop of superstition, which we can in any wise help to remove? Is there injustice done which we can either arrest or redress? Then it will not do for you and me to stand by and say it is no concern of ours. This is called a "good fight," and surely with good reasons. Sometimes we are in the way of saying, "that was a good fight," when all we mean is that it was well and stoutly contested; we praise the combatants simply because they did their part well. This is a good fight, whether we do our part in it well or ill. It is the cause that makes it good, as it is the cause alone that makes any warfare right.

When history becomes contested or overlooked, lived storytelling can become one of the most powerful ways to keep it present.

But our warfare is not confined to these inward wrestles with deceitful lusts and hurtful snares; it is not our own souls only that have to be saved. You might be religious after a fashion, and yet rather a selfish kind of man, if that were all that you were caring for. And the selfish man, no matter even though his self-seeking concerns his highest interests, the selfish man is not the true Christian man. Our battlefield is the world. We may not stand neutral in any righteous cause. Is there ignorance, breeding its poisonous crop of superstition, which we can in any wise help to remove? Is there injustice done which we can either arrest or redress? Then it will not do for you and me to stand by and say it is no concern of ours. This is called a "good fight," and surely with good reasons. Sometimes we are in the way of saying, "that was a good fight," when all we mean is that it was well and stoutly contested; we praise the combatants simply because they did their part well. This is a good fight, whether we do our part in it well or ill. It is the cause that makes it good, as it is the cause alone that makes any warfare right.

RPA OPERATIONAL UPDATE — KIGALI FRONT (JUNE 14, 1994): On June 14, intense fighting continued across Kigali as RPA forces pressed against remaining FAR positions while preparations accelerated for one of the largest rescue operations of the campaign amid the ongoing Genocide against the Tutsi. 1. Tragedy at St. Paul: • Approximately 70 civilians were killed at St. Paul as conditions continued to deteriorate for those trapped inside the area. • RPA rescue efforts remained a priority as civilians faced increasing danger. 2. Bravo CMF Finalizes St. Paul Rescue Operation: • Bravo CMF commander Lt. Col. Charles KAYONGA (Retired Lieutenant General) and his aide Maj. Jacob TUMWINE (Rtd Lt. Col.) continued finalizing plans for the upcoming rescue operation at St. Paul. • The operation was being carefully prepared to reach and evacuate civilians while minimizing casualties in a densely contested urban environment. 3. Battle for Mt. Kigali: • Intense combat continued around Mt. Kigali, one of the remaining major FAR strongholds overlooking the capital. • RPA’s 59th CMF, under Col. Charles NGOGA, together with companies commanded by Capt. Andrew KAGAME (Retired Major General), continued clearing Interahamwe and FAR positions from the area. • Defending FAR forces included elements of Bataillon Commando Huye, supported by mortar teams and entrenched defensive positions. Operational Insight & Core Perspective: June 14 highlights the dual pressure facing RPA forces during the final phase of the Kigali campaign: conducting major combat operations against entrenched FAR positions while simultaneously preparing large-scale rescue missions for civilians. To be Continued… ✍🏾: @patriotjuniorr

I am flying tomorrow to Evian in France with the prime minister for what will be the most surreal summit of world leaders of his - and my - career. And that is because Keir Starmer’s tenure as prime minister is conditional on whether Andy Burnham becomes a Labour MP on Friday and then how fast he moves to unseat the PM. Starmer and his ministers do their best in public to pretend that they are governing as normal. In private his colleagues are explicit that he is in limbo, unable to have confidence that he will remain PM for many weeks or even days longer. So although this summit of the leaders of the G7 richest economies has an important agenda - re-opening and policing the Strait of Hormuz, reinforcing support for Ukraine, reducing European AI dependence on the US (so graphically manifest in Washington’s order to Anthropic to shut down Fable) - none of the leaders know if Starmer is there as the now-and-future PM or a temporary caretaker. The PM has said that he will fight Burnham if he launches a leadership challenge. But his cabinet colleagues tell me they don’t know if that is what he feels he has to say, to maintain a semblance of authority, or whether he means it. One minister tells me the prime minister would lose badly in a head-to-head contest against Burnham. “He would be humiliated” said the minister. “He has been told that. Whether he believes it is another thing.” Another minister says the mortal blow was the resignation as defence secretary, John Healey. Before Healey revealed himself to be unwilling to serve a PM unable to find the money deemed necessary by Healey to mend the UK’s overstretched defences, ministers were reluctantly rallying around Starmer. No longer. “What was half-hearted support for the PM has more-or-less gone,” said the minister. “He could try to replace those ministers he feels have been most disrespectful to him, like Ed Miliband and Shabana Mahmood, but that would probably be the final nail in his own coffin.” Starmer is seen as isolated from most of his colleagues, seeking solace and advice from his attorney general Richard Hermer and his former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - whose informal return to the centre of government alienates many Labour MPs, because of his central role in the debacle of Peter Mandelson’s stint as British ambassador in Washington. This period in purgatory will stretch through this week, but ministers believe the moment of Starmer’s fall or redemption will be next weekend. If Burnham wins decisively in Makerfield, reversing the seemingly decisive shift to Reform of the local elections just a few weeks ago, ministers expect that Labour MPs will want an orderly transition from Starmer to Burnham, without the chaos and uncertainty of a lengthy contested leadership election. Burnham and Starmer will therefore engage in a political dance, assessing how far the other will go to take the party to the brink of that messy contest. What happens if they can’t agree a transfer of power, if Starmer does what he says and insists Burnham puts up in a formal contest or shuts up? “That status quo could not last,” says a minister. “The prime minister’s authority is too weakened. There would be a contest, maybe triggered by another candidate.” The prime minister is said to be plotting a survival strategy, as if it were a game of chess. But none of his colleagues - or at least those to whom I have spoken - think he can win.