English – Page 227 – MIL Submissions Engine

December 1, 2025

Nigeria’s low-cost private schools are the only option for millions: is closing them a good idea?

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Thelma Obiakor, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Cambridge

Nigeria’s basic education landscape consists of public (government) schools and a diverse private sector. Private schools in Nigeria refer to educational institutions that are run by private individuals, religious organisations, foundations or business enterprises. These schools are diverse in terms of size, cost, ownership models and target populations, ranging from low-fee neighbourhood schools to faith-based schools and “premium” schools. The number of private schools isn’t captured in official statistics.

Over the past year, many private schools have been closed across the country. Ebonyi State sealed more than 280 unapproved schools. Cross River officials shut down 69, and Akwa Ibom, Kogi and Delta states launched their own crackdowns on “rogue” schools operating without government approval or with substandard infrastructure.

These closures are being justified on safety and quality grounds, given that many of these schools, commonly referred to as low-cost private schools, operate without full registration.

Before a private school can open, owners must pay multiple inspection, registration and annual renewal fees. They must also meet infrastructure requirements and show evidence of qualified teaching staff.

The recent enforcement drives expose a fault line in Nigeria’s education system: the country’s growing dependence on low-cost private schools to fill the gaps that an overstretched public system can no longer cover.

I researched the private schooling market in Nigeria for my doctorate, and my latest paper sets out some of the factors that shape enrolment in these schools in Nigeria.

I found two main factors: the proximity and accessibility of public schools, and affordability.

The implication for ongoing closure drives is significant. If low-cost private schools are concentrated in communities where public schools are unavailable or distant, or are the only affordable options, then wide-scale closures disproportionately threaten access for children from low-income households, particularly in hard-to-reach or underserved areas. Abrupt shutdowns without transition plans can interrupt learning and deepen existing inequalities.

More investment is needed to make sure every child can go to school.

Private school diversity

Across Nigeria, private provision has expanded rapidly. According to figures cited by the minister of education, the number of private schools grew by about 39% between 2017 and 2022, compared with only 3.5% growth in public schools over the same period.

In my research, I grouped private schools into three cost categories – low-cost, mid-cost and high-cost – based on mandatory educational costs. I used national survey data from 2015 (the latest data is from 2020, but is not publicly available yet), which showed that most pupils who were enrolled in private schools attended those in the low-cost category.

My analysis of the 2015 survey data found that 52% of private-school pupils in urban areas and 49% in rural areas attended low-cost private schools. A further finding was that public schools and low-cost private schools served similar populations: children from low-income households with limited schooling alternatives.

State-level evidence reinforces this. In Kwara State, a 2016 census found that 67% and 41% of urban and rural private schools respectively were low-cost private schools. More recent data from the Partnership for Learning for All in Nigeria (a UK-government-funded education programme operating in Nigeria) show that a high proportion of private schools are low-cost schools that operate without approval in some northern states: around 85% in Kano and 80% in Jigawa.

Taken together, these national and state findings show that low-cost private schools have become an important route to education for millions of pupils.

Access and affordability

Access

Although parental preference plays a role for some households, attendance in low-cost private schools is shaped by the availability and accessibility of public schools. My doctoral research shows that attendance is most prominent in areas where public-school provision is weak. In many parts of Nigeria, weak provision can take the form of overcrowded classrooms or limited school availability. Distance to the nearest public school also plays a key role. The further a low-income family lives from a public school, the more likely they are to enrol their child in a low-cost private school. This pattern is pronounced in areas where public provision is thin and mobility costs are high.

In practice, low-cost private schools operate as an access mechanism, stepping in where the state is absent or unable to meet local demand.

Affordability

Affordability further explains why these schools are widely used. My research found that their annual fees typically ranged from ₦8,000 (about US$18 in 2015, the year the data was collected) in urban areas to ₦5,000 (about US$11 in 2015) in rural areas. Paradoxically, the total cost of attending a public school was sometimes higher, with an average of US$43 in urban areas and US$24 in rural areas.

Recent data from the Partnership for Learning for All in Nigeria baseline study in Jigawa shows that about 40% of low-cost private schools charge no tuition, while 48% charge ₦10,000 or less per year (approximately US$22 in 2022). This confirms that they are either free or highly affordable for most families. Affordability matters because public education, although constitutionally free, is rarely without costs in practice.

Many states still permit partial fee regimes or informal levies, and parents often bear expenses for uniforms, learning materials and other charges. Policymakers have begun to flag this issue, with the Imo State House of Assembly recently urging the government to enforce free basic education and eliminate charges.

Regulating for inclusion

Closing down private schools without transition plans could prevent low-income families from educating their children.

Nigeria’s regulatory framework for private schools is among the most demanding in sub-Saharan Africa. An assessment of 22 countries found that Nigerian states ranked among the most restrictive for market entry.

If the goal is to raise standards without undermining access, regulation must shift from punishment to support.

Tiered licensing would allow low-cost private schools to operate legally while improving over time. Oversight should be paired with practical assistance such as training or conditional waivers, an approach reflected in the 2025 National Policy on Non-State Schools. Every closure should include a plan for placing pupils in schools with capacity.

Nigeria cannot regulate its way out of reliance on private school provision. Stronger public investment is needed so families are not forced to pay privately for basic education.

Thelma Obiakor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Nigeria’s low-cost private schools are the only option for millions: is closing them a good idea? – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-low-cost-private-schools-are-the-only-option-for-millions-is-closing-them-a-good-idea-270097

December 1, 2025

Johannesburg’s produce market has supplied the informal sector for decades: a refresh is due

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Marc Wegerif, Senior Lecturer, Development Studies, University of Pretoria

South Africa’s food system is a complex landscape where high levels of production coexist with severe food insecurity. In a 2024 survey, 63.5% of households were found to be food insecure and 28.8% of children stunted.

In this food system, fresh produce markets owned by municipalities are critical for food access and nutrition. The Agriculture Department reported that in 2023, the country’s 17 main municipal fresh produce markets sold over 3 million tons of fresh fruit and vegetables, worth R24.6 billion (US$1.37 billion). This is approximately 40%-50% of the fresh produce from farmers in South Africa.

The relationship between public markets and the informal sector, in particular, is fundamental to food security. Studies being carried out with support from the DSTI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security in South Africa confirm that fresh produce sold by street traders who source from municipal markets is consistently cheaper than in formal supermarkets.

By selling at low prices in convenient locations, informal traders reduce the cost of food and the need for transport when shopping. They are key to making fruit and vegetables physically and economically accessible to the urban poor.

But this food system is under threat. Our research found that supermarket chains are buying more produce directly from farmers. Corroborated by the Competition Commission, there has been a steady decline in the share of national produce distributed through municipal markets.

We are social scientists who have been doing research on urban food systems in South Africa for the last seven years. We carried out research at the Johannesburg fresh produce market to better understand its role in food security.

We studied the market over three years, making observations during many visits and interviewing over 120 people in different roles. The market traces its origins back to Market Square in Johannesburg in the late 1800s, and is now the biggest of South Africa’s municipal markets.

It serves South Africa’s economic hub of Gauteng as well as selling some produce to other parts of the country and to neighbouring countries. The produce comes from the largest commercial operations and from small-scale farmers – anyone can sell there if they wish to.

The study provided clear evidence that the market is essential infrastructure for a more resilient, equitable and food-secure future.

To safeguard the role of markets like this, a concerted effort to protect and invest in them is required.

Johannesburg fresh produce market

The Johannesburg fresh produce market accounts for around 45% of the total value of sales from the National Fresh Produce Markets. Its annual sales exceed 1.3 million tons, valued at over R11 billion (more than US$610 million).

The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality owns the property, and a state-owned company manages the operations and staff. Buyers and sellers have to register with the market to buy or sell through agents in the main trading hubs. All that’s required is a form of identity document.

All transactions in the main hubs go through agents and the market system, crediting or debiting the accounts of the sellers or buyers. The agents are registered and insured with the Agricultural Products Agents Council.

The majority of the agents are white men. Some come from families that have been agents in the market for generations. The continuity of these agents provides stability in the market. However, it also leaves the demographics little changed from the apartheid era.

Farmers send their produce to particular agents who then sell it for them, making their money from a commission on sales that is normally 7.5%. The market gets a 5% commission on all sales, which is how it covers operating costs. Anyone can also buy for cash, without registering, at the Unity or Tshiamo (formerly Mandela) markets that are on the same site.

Traders in these cash markets source produce from the main hubs, benefiting from the bulk prices and then breaking bulk to sell on in smaller quantities.

The most visible and profound impact of the Johannesburg fresh produce market is in its role as the primary source of stock for the vast informal retail sector. Thousands of the over 10,000 registered buyers stream through its halls every day, the vast majority being informal traders – street vendors, hawkers and small-scale retailers who form the backbone of fresh produce access in low-income neighbourhoods.

These traders rely on the market’s competitive wholesale prices. They buy in bulk from the main market hubs or in smaller quantities from the traders who break bulk at the Unity and Tshiamo markets.

In turn, they sell to the people of Johannesburg and wider Gauteng Province.

Benefits and challenges

The regulated agent system, while imperfect, ensures that farmers receive payment within five days and provides a competitive marketplace.

The National Fresh Produce Markets uphold a level of competition and choice. Without them, all farmers, large and small, would be in a weaker negotiating position when selling into supermarket supply chains.

As the Competition Commission South Africa concluded in a 2025 report, selling to independent retailers through the National Fresh Produce Markets helps to counter the downward pressure on farm gate prices exerted by powerful buyers.

But there are challenges. Despite their proven value, the future of markets like the Johannesburg fresh produce market is under threat from a confluence of challenges:

loss of market share: large supermarket chains are increasingly buying directly from farmers through their own supply chains
decaying infrastructure: market agents and traders report issues with overcrowded, poorly insulated halls and unreliable cold storage made worse by electricity cuts. These problems increase operational costs and risk spoilage, threatening the market’s competitiveness.

Other challenges include the dominance of white, male market agents and the entrenched, ethnically based networks that facilitate trade. These present a barrier to more equitable participation. Lastly, unstable municipal politics is also affecting the market.

Protecting the municipal markets

We suggest three ways to protect markets such as the Johannesburg fresh produce market.

First, modernise infrastructure, particularly cold storage, to reduce food waste and maintain the quality of perishable goods. The city may have to increase capital expenditure. Revenues generated by the market should be ring-fenced for reinvestment in its infrastructure and services.

Second, insulate market management from municipal politics. Operational efficiency and long-term planning are essential for stability.

Finally, foster inclusivity and transformation without disrupting the social networks that underpin the market’s functioning. This could include facilitating more interaction between all farmers and agents, and supporting groups like the women’s trader collectives, which share information and buy in bulk.

Makhanana Malungane, an economic researcher at the Gauteng Department of Economic Development, contributed to this article.

Marc Wegerif receives funding from the DSTI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security. They funded the research that informs this article.

Marc Wegerif is a Principal Investigator on the DSTI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security

– ref. Johannesburg’s produce market has supplied the informal sector for decades: a refresh is due – https://theconversation.com/johannesburgs-produce-market-has-supplied-the-informal-sector-for-decades-a-refresh-is-due-268151

December 1, 2025

Africa’s longest-running grassland research project offers up a wealth of knowledge

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Craig Morris, Senior Researcher, Agricultural Research Council – Animal Production, University of KwaZulu-Natal

For 75 years, grasslands research conducted just outside Pietermaritzburg, South Africa has informed policy makers and farmers about sustainable management, while training generations of students.

Grasslands and savannas cover more than 60% of South Africa. They are vital not only for livestock and wildlife forage but also for providing key ecosystem services such as water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity, cultural resources and recreation.

The Ukulinga Research Farm of the University of KwaZulu-Natal is a species-rich grassland with scattered trees. It hosts two long-term experiments that have provided crucial insights into how fire, grazing and soil nutrients shape ecosystems.

In 1950, Professor J.D. Scott, founder of the discipline of grassland science at the university, established two complex grassland experiments at Ukulinga: the Veld Burning and Mowing Trial and the Veld Fertilisation Trial. They are now internationally known as the Ukulinga Grassland Fire Experiment and the Ukulinga Grassland Nutrient Experiment. Initially designed to improve hay yield and forage quality, these experiments have run uninterrupted for 75 years. They have evolved into invaluable ecological laboratories.

They are respectively the longest-running fire experiment in the world and the longest-running nutrient addition experiment in Africa.

Scientific studies on these grassland experiments have spanned molecular, microbial, plant community, and ecosystem scales. They have covered fire effects, nutrient cycling, soil processes, biodiversity responses and remote sensing. Comparative and collaborative studies, often involving US and European teams, highlight the global relevance of these datasets. They connect local observations to international ones, revealing universal patterns while highlighting the unique characteristics of southern African grasslands.

I’m a grassland scientist who has been involved in this research. My colleagues and I looked back to assess the value of research done on the farm. We concluded that it has contributed to ecological theory, shaped local management practices, and supported a wide range of comparative studies, networking and education.

The core scientific value of these experiments lies in their duration and the consistent application of the same treatments over time. Decades of continuous treatments (like burning, or fertiliser) have generated data that reveals slow ecological processes, long-term interactions, and effects that short-term studies cannot detect.

The outdoor laboratories allow researchers to pursue new multidisciplinary investigations and examine interactions with emerging environmental pressures, including climate change.

Early grazing experiments

Valuable livestock grazing experiments were conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. One trial (1958-1974) examined three sheep grazing systems – continuous, rotational, and seasonal rest – at different stocking rates. Another 24-year study (1967-1991) tested nine combinations of rotational grazing periods to evaluate multi-paddock systems.

These early trials and several focused short-term studies provided insights into how grass species respond to grazing or mowing. The findings, many of them published in the African Journal of Range and Forage Science, revealed complex relationships between grazing intensity, plant resilience and grassland productivity. They continue to inform rangeland management today.

Some key results of the long-term experiments

Over decades, excluding fire and mowing transformed some plots into dense, woody thickets, dramatically altering both plant composition and ecosystem function. Regularly burned or mown plots maintained productive, species-rich grasslands.

The nutrient experiment has shown that while nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers can boost grassland productivity, they also alter the original grassland by promoting fast-growing grasses. Over time, added nutrients reduce plant diversity.

Together, the experiments demonstrate how natural disturbances versus artificial nutrient addition drive distinct ecological outcomes. They offer insights into the mechanisms that maintain grassland biodiversity and resilience.

Over the past 75 years, research output from the experiments has steadily grown, and has achieved a broad international reach. Fifty peer-reviewed papers have been produced and the top 10 cited papers from each experiment have collectively been cited in 458 journals by 1,172 principal authors from 78 countries outside South Africa.

The impact

The Ukulinga long-term grassland experiments have shaped sustainable management practices by providing empirical evidence for optimal burning frequencies and seasons in mesic (moderately wet) grasslands. They have highlighted the ecological risks of nutrient enrichment from industrial pollutants, showing how added nutrients can alter grassland composition and reduce diversity.

Beyond research, the experiments have had a profound educational and outreach impact, training generations of students and engaging visitors who carry these insights into policy, conservation and grassland management across South Africa.

Ukulinga now also hosts global-network experiments such as the Nutrient Network (NutNet), Drought Network (DroughtNet), and Disturbance and Recovery Across Global Grasslands Network (DragNet), linking local observations to international studies. Through these collaborations, researchers can compare Ukulinga’s results with similar experiments worldwide.

What next

Preserving these long-term studies is critical for understanding slow ecological responses, succession, and tipping points that only emerge over decades.

Ukulinga (isiZulu for “to test”) provides a platform for addressing pressing questions in grassland science. To safeguard its unique scientific value, the long-term burning, mowing and nutrient addition experiments should be maintained without alteration. Continued support and broader collaboration are essential to fully realise their potential for monitoring long-term ecological responses, testing new hypotheses, and guiding sustainable grassland management.

Craig Morris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Africa’s longest-running grassland research project offers up a wealth of knowledge – https://theconversation.com/africas-longest-running-grassland-research-project-offers-up-a-wealth-of-knowledge-270121

December 1, 2025

Machines whisper before they scream: we built an AI model that predicts expensive problems

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Edward Khomotso Nkadimeng, Post Doc Fellow: AI and Data Systems in Nuclear/Particle Physics, Stellenbosch University

In most industries, maintenance is a waiting game. Things are fixed when they break. But in the 21st century, an age defined by data and automation, that approach no longer makes sense. The solution could be predictive maintenance. This is an approach that uses sensors and software to analyse equipment performance in real time and predict when it might fail.

Edward Khomotso Nkadimeng, a lecturer and researcher in artificial intelligence and data systems in nuclear/particle physics at Stellenbosch University, has researched how a predictive maintenance model can help keep critical systems running – from research equipment to national infrastructure. He explains why this approach could be a practical tool for resilience across Africa.

What is a predictive maintenance model and why did you build one?

For decades after the global industrial boom, many industries relied on a simple rule: wait for a machine to break, then repair it. That made sense when machines were simpler and downtime was just part of the routine.

Periodic maintenance is common too, but still inefficient and often based on time, not actual machine condition. That approach costs time, money, and sometimes even safety. Modern systems are more interconnected and expensive to halt.

A predictive maintenance model is a data-driven system that forecasts equipment failure before it happens. It predicts when systems are degrading, rather than just reacting. It monitors a variety of systems, from industrial pumps, compressors and turbines to scientific instruments, by collecting real‑time data like vibration (which measures how much a machine physically oscillates), temperature, pressure and voltage.

These measurements come from Internet of Things (IoT) or condition-monitoring sensors. Even machines that aren’t ultra-cutting-edge can be instrumented to provide this data. Once collected, the data feeds into machine learning models that learn to recognise patterns associated with slow drift towards failure.

The model monitors a broad range of systems: industrial pumps, compressors, turbines, and high-precision scientific instruments (cyclotrons, vacuum pumps, beamline diagnostics). It is designed for systems where sensor data can be collected – any instrument that generates measurable signals. It uses live data vibration, the physical oscillation of a machine component, where subtle changes in vibration amplitude or frequency often precede mechanical failures, such as bearing wear or rotor imbalance, as well as temperature, pressure and voltages.

While advanced machines may produce richer data, even legacy machinery can benefit with added sensors. The method is therefore broadly applicable to recognise when they’re slowly drifting towards failure.

At NRF-iThemba LABS, a South African national nuclear and accelerator research facility, and Stellenbosch University, I built a system like this out of necessity. Our teams include physicists, engineers and computer scientists who collaborate on high-precision experiments in nuclear and particle physics.

The research instruments are complex, expensive and often one of a kind. When they fail unexpectedly, experiments stop, data is lost, and public funds go to waste. For example, we work with 70 MeV cyclotrons for isotope production, superconducting magnets, radiofrequency acceleration cavities and vacuum systems. These are one-of-a-kind instruments, sensitive to downtime.

So, the goal was to make an affordable, self-learning system that can scale from our research equipment to the industrial infrastructure that keeps African economies running pumps, turbines and power grids. Similar predictive maintenance systems are applied in industrial power plants, water utilities and aviation, reducing unplanned downtime by 20%-40%. Our adaptation for African labs and industrial systems uses low-cost Internet of Things sensors with cloud-based AI.

What did you learn from the model? Why is this useful?

The first thing I learned is that machines whisper before they scream. Long before a breakdown, they show tiny signs like slight vibrations, small voltage drops, or subtle changes in speed.

With enough data on vibration, temperature, pressure, voltage and motor load, for example, these data streams form the input for AI models. These patterns form a kind of language, and artificial intelligence becomes the translator.

By training the model on real operational data like pump vibration over time and other readings, we discovered that failures aren’t random: they follow recognisable signatures. Once the system learns these patterns, it can predict what’s coming and even suggest what to do next. The real benefit is timing, scheduling maintenance exactly when it is needed and not too early, which wastes parts and labour, and not too late (which risks catastrophic failure).

Instead of over-servicing equipment or waiting for something to fail, maintenance can happen exactly when it’s needed. That saves resources, reduces downtime and keeps operations running smoothly. And because the principle is universal, it applies just as well in factories, hospitals and water systems as it does in research labs. For example, detecting a failing motor before a line shutdown in a manufacturing plant, or ventilator sensors predicting pump failure in a hospital, or monitoring municipal pumps to prevent water shortages.

What are the practical implications of applying the model?

The practical impact is huge. Predictive systems help avoid blackouts, water shortages and unplanned shutdowns – issues that affect daily life and essential services. An example can be seen in South Africa’s blackouts: the power utility Eskom’s transformers are monitored for predictive faults. In Cape Town, predictive maintenance of water systems reduces pump downtime. They also make workplaces safer and budgets more efficient.

For African countries especially, where technical resources are often stretched, predictive maintenance is a form of resilience. It replaces firefighting with foresight. By using affordable IoT sensors (small devices collecting data like temperature), cloud-based AI (online software that analyses this data in real-time), and self-learning algorithms, maintenance becomes continuous, automated and smart.

It’s the quiet side of AI, keeping the lights on, the pumps running and the economy stable. Physics, data and engineering can quietly work together to keep important systems alive and reliable.

Edward Khomotso Nkadimeng receives funding from the National Research Foundation.

– ref. Machines whisper before they scream: we built an AI model that predicts expensive problems – https://theconversation.com/machines-whisper-before-they-scream-we-built-an-ai-model-that-predicts-expensive-problems-267070

December 1, 2025

Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hayleigh Bosher, Reader in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University of London

Artificial intelligence companies and the creative industries are locked in an ongoing battle, being played out in the courts. The thread that pulls all these lawsuits together is copyright.

There are now over 60 ongoing lawsuits in the US where creators and rightsholders are suing AI companies. Meanwhile, we have recently seen decisions in the first court cases from the UK and Germany – here’s what happened in those.

Getty Images, a global visual content creator and marketplace, sued Stability AI, an open-source generative AI company, in the UK courts. Getty claimed Stability had illegally used its content to train an AI model called Stable Diffusion. Getty is also suing Stability AI in the US and that case is on-going.

It was accepted that Getty’s images were used in the training of Stable Diffusion
without permission, and that this training involved copying. Copyright is the right to stop someone copying your work, so training an AI model on copyright-protected content without permission would be an infringement of copyright under UK law.

But the plot twist here is that the training of Stable Diffusion took place outside the UK, meaning that Getty ended up narrowing their copyright case to focus on what is called “secondary infringement” – which is essentially the same as importing goods that infringe copyright. It is illegal to bring counterfeit DVDs into the UK for the same reason.

At trial, the judge had to decide something for the first time ever. This was: if a user downloads an AI model in the UK that was illegally trained on copyrighted content in another country, does that count as secondary copyright infringement? To do so, she had to consider two things. The first was: can the definition of an “article” include intangible goods?

When someone imports a box of counterfeit DVDs, these are called “articles” under the law, and are obviously physical, tangible objects. Stability AI argued that its AI model (system) was not an “article” because it is not a physical object. The judge, sensibly, understood that the law was written long before the new era of AI, but the intention behind the rule was to include both tangible and intangible goods.

The second thing the judge had to consider was: is the Stable Diffusion AI model what copyright law calls an “infringing copy”?

The judge took this to mean the model would need to physically contain a reproduction of Getty’s content. But the way the model “learned” from the training data, according to the expert evidence, meant that it did not actually contain any copies. So, Getty lost the claim for secondary copyright infringement.

Differing interpretations

Meanwhile, one of the world’s largest collecting societies for musical works, GEMA,
filed a copyright lawsuit against the company OpenAI in Germany. This was for the use of song lyrics in its large language model ChatGPT.

On November 11 2025, the Munich court decided, like the UK court, that training AI on copyrighted content requires a licence. However, it took a different approach to interpreting the law of copying, and essentially said that since the AI model was trained on the lyrics and could reproduce them as an output, then the model had embodied the content.

Unlike the UK decision, the German court found the technical way in which the AI model does this to be irrelevant, so GEMA won the case.

One thing both courts did agree on is that the AI developers are liable for any
infringement, not – as the AI developers argued – the users who select a prompt which the model then responds to by generating content.

Although the circumstances of the cases are slightly different, the heart of the issue was the same. Do AI models reproduce copyright-protected content in their training process and in generating outputs? The German court decided they do, whereas the UK court took a different view.

Both cases could be appealed and others are underway, so things may change. But the ending we want to see is one where AI and the creative industries come together in agreement. This would preferably happen with the use of copyright licences that benefit them both.

Importantly, it would also come with the consent of – and fair payment to – creators of the content that makes both their industries go round.

Hayleigh Bosher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Two AI copyright cases, two very different outcomes – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/two-ai-copyright-cases-two-very-different-outcomes-heres-why-270229

December 1, 2025

Britain’s ponds are disappearing – here’s why restoring them is vital for wildlife and climate resilience

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Clarke, Senior Lecturer, Department of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University

Across Britain, ponds are quietly vanishing. Pouring over historic maps from the 1900s to trace old pond sites, I was struck by how many once dotted the landscape. Today, more than half have disappeared, a loss that threatens wildlife and our ability to cope with a changing climate.

That may be surprising as ponds seem small and insignificant. We talk about rivers, reservoirs and wetlands but ponds get very little mention, yet they punch far above their weight in ecological value. They store water, support biodiversity and help buffer floods and droughts. Losing them undermines both nature and our ability to adapt to climate extremes.

Restoring ponds – old and new, rural and urban – is one of the simplest, most effective steps we can take. Every pond counts, from a farm hollow to a garden bowl. Together, they form networks that wildlife needs to survive and make our landscapes more resilient to climate change.

The takeaway? Ponds do far more than look good. They link habitats, boost biodiversity and strengthen climate resilience. Restoring them is a practical, low-cost solution that begins with something as basic as adding water.

For wildlife, ponds are vital ecosystems and support far more than aquatic species. They provide water, food and habitat for pollinating insects, birds, bats and other mammals. Crucially, amphibians such as frogs and newts rely on networks of ponds close enough for them to move between. Lose that network or “pondscape”, and species vanish.

The consequences extend beyond biodiversity. Ponds act as natural buffers against climate extremes. Ponds act like natural sponges. During heavy rain, they slow water running across the ground and store this to reduce flood peaks. In periods of drought, they store water for plants and animals when streams run dry. They can also lock away carbon and filter pollutants, improving water quality.

Urban ponds in parks, school grounds and people’s gardens can provide vital biodiversity hotspots and local cooling during heatwaves. They help manage stormwater when we have heavy rains, reducing pressure on drains. And they can help connect people with nature, something proven to boost wellbeing.

Historic maps reveal a dense network of ponds that once dotted the landscape, but more than half of Britain’s ponds have disappeared since 1900. Research that I was involved in found that 58% of ponds present in 1900 were lost by 2019 in the Severn Vale region of the UK, and this went hand in hand with a decline in pond density with a 25m increase in the average distance between contemporary ponds.

The decline in ponds can be seen worldwide, driven by changes in agriculture and the growth in urban areas. As agriculture has intensified, these small waterbodies were seen as obstacles to efficiency. Farmers filled them in to create larger, machine-friendly fields, while improved drainage systems and water abstraction dried out many more. Expanding urban areas also replaced ponds with roads, housing and hard surfaces.

Bringing ponds back to life

Restoring ponds is one of the simplest, most effective ways to boost biodiversity and climate resilience. Whether it’s reviving forgotten waterbodies or creating new ones, these small habitats deliver big benefits for wildlife and communities.

The first step is knowing where ponds are and where they’re missing. Mapping today’s ponds shows the gaps, helping us plan new ones to link habitats and build a healthy pond network. Historic maps reveal lost ponds that can potentially be restored. Many ponds survive as “ghosts”.

Digging them out and restoring these is surprisingly effective. Seeds buried for decades can germinate once water returns, reviving plants thought extinct locally. In Norfolk, farmers and conservationists have restored dozens of ghost ponds, and within months they teem with life .

However, you don’t need a big conservation project to make a difference. Start small. A garden pond, even the size of a washing-up bowl, can attract frogs, insects and birds. Community groups can work with councils to revive neglected ponds in parks, public gardens or village greens. If you’ve got a garden, or even a wheelbarrow or large pot, you can help rebuild the pond network.

The Royal Horticultural Society, the UK gardening charity, has great guidance on how to create a successful wildlife pond. Every pond counts and together they create the networks wildlife needs to survive and provide vital water storage.

Britain’s ponds are disappearing fast, but every new or restored pond helps reverse that trend. Restoring old ponds and creating new ones, even in gardens and parks, is one of the simplest, most effective steps we can take to protect wildlife and adapt to climate extremes.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Lucy Clarke receives funding from Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Green Recovery Challenge Fund

– ref. Britain’s ponds are disappearing – here’s why restoring them is vital for wildlife and climate resilience – https://theconversation.com/britains-ponds-are-disappearing-heres-why-restoring-them-is-vital-for-wildlife-and-climate-resilience-267649

December 1, 2025

Why being single might feel empowering as a woman in your 20s, but not your 30s

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alicia Denby, Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University

Who are you calling cat lady? Josep Suria/Shutterstock

If you’re a woman in your 20s, being single may feel like an empowering lifestyle choice. Taking smug delight in the recent Vogue article, Is Having A Boyfriend Embarrassing Now?, you can rest assured that you’re independent, self-sufficient and living your best life.

From influencer Florence Given’s mantra to “dump him”, to Sabrina Carpenter denouncing the “manchild” and TikTok trends like “boy sober” and “elective celibacy” gaining traction, singlehood has been rebranded as a time for self-love, self-prioritisation and personal growth.

But, what happens when you hit your 30s? Does the glow of single positivity begin to fade?

In my late 20s, I have certainly felt this shift. Once celebrated as an independent woman, the go-to girl for horrific dating stories (including a man who unironically referred to himself as the “Renegade Master”) I now experience pity. Friends, acquaintances, even strangers share their worries about my fertility, question my sexuality, and tell me I am “too picky” or “too pretty” to be single. My singlehood is no longer seen an empowering lifestyle choice but a cause for concern.

I know I’m not alone in this. In my forthcoming research with 19 heterosexual women aged 21 to 52, I found that while singlehood was often celebrated in young adulthood, single positivity had a clear expiration date.

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

Women in their 20s described being single as empowering, a time to discover themselves, invest in friendships, and pursue careers. For research participant Emma, 24, being single is liberating.

She reflected on a cultural shift wherein the single woman is no longer the lonely spinster, or Bridget Jones’s protégé, but is confident, autonomous, and self-loving: “After always following someone else’s lead, I realised I’m the main character of my own story, I’ve learnt to find myself and be loving towards myself.”

However, even in their 20s, many began to feel pressure to “settle down” and the freedom they once embraced started to feel like a ticking clock. Georgia, 21, told me: “I’m still young so I don’t get the ‘when are you going to find someone?’ question, but as I get older, I think it’s going to be more of a problem.”

An exasperated young woman covers her eyes, while an older woman in the foreground talks to her — ‘When are you going to settle down?’
Nicoleta Ionescu/Shutterstock

Despite being only 21, Georgia anticipates that her singlehood will become a “problem” and is determined to embrace her freedom, while she can. Corrine, 23, also shared this feeling, enjoying her singlehood in her early 20s but anticipating that she would not feel empowered, nor satisfied, if her singlehood was to become permanent.

In fact, in my study, most women in their 20s were defiantly single and refused to “settle” just to “settle down”. But equally, they did not see singlehood as a permanent choice. Bryony, 26, explained:

Unless someone can add to my life, I’m not wasting my time. But if I don’t find someone in the next two years, I might start panicking because then I’d be looking at being 29, 30.

Deadlines

This panic, for many, begins in or around their 30s. Robyn, 25, described this as an “internal deadline”, a sense that by your 30s, you should be “in a relationship, thinking about kids, and ticking off life’s milestones”.

Comparably, while single men experience a similar pressure to couple up in mid-life, with coupledom regarded a marker of maturity and stability, single women experience greater stigma, and the pressure comes much sooner.

Albeit anticipated by women in their 20s, women in their 30s and 40s reflected on the pressure around the 30s, having moved past those societal expectations. Lydia, 52, joked:

Because I haven’t remarried, I think people assume I shrivelled up in a corner and died 20 years ago. A lot of people pity me, they think being in a relationship is the sign of ultimate happiness, but for me, that’s never been the case.

Amid a cultural shift and greater acceptance toward singlehood, it may be possible for women to challenge heterosexist and ageist “deadlines”, and pursue a life where being single is not deemed the result of personal failure, but rather a voluntary choice.

Reflecting on their 30s, Lydia and Tania, 52, recalled having “been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and the divorce!” and, having pursued an unattached lifestyle, felt it was their duty to “pass on permission” for new generations of women to do so the same.

However, while women in their 50s were happily single, their experience shows that once women outgrow the “single girl” identity, the cultural script shifts and they become resigned to the “cat lady” trope. To this end, while single positivity promotes freedom from coupledom and an acceptance that women can be happily and voluntarily single, it often only applies to young, conventionally attractive and able-bodied women.

Essentially, while the single positivity movement has helped reframe singlehood as empowering, it hasn’t entirely dismantled the couple norm. Instead, it offers a temporary reprieve, a phase of self-discovery before the pressure to settle down intensifies.

It’s time we asked: why is singlehood only celebrated when it’s temporary? Who gets to be happily single, and for how long?

Alicia Denby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why being single might feel empowering as a woman in your 20s, but not your 30s – https://theconversation.com/why-being-single-might-feel-empowering-as-a-woman-in-your-20s-but-not-your-30s-269220

December 1, 2025

Why Rachel Reeves chose a ‘smorgasbord’ of tax tweaks – and the risks involved in that approach

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Shampa Roy-Mukherjee, Vice Dean and Professor in Economics, University of East London

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered her second budget, in which she raised taxes by £26 billion. This will take the UK tax burden to an all-time high of 38% of GDP by 2030-31. But it will also more than double Reeves’ “fiscal headroom” to £22 billion.

This fiscal headroom – effectively Reeves’ spending buffer – is up from the previous £9 billion, giving the government more flexibility to increase spending or reduce taxes without jeopardising stability.

The government has largely avoided raising headline income tax rates. Instead it has put together a smorgasbord of less visible or more narrowly targeted tax and fiscal measures. This means there was no single eye-catching headline from the budget.

Instead, Reeves has opted to widen the tax base – a strategy with complex consequences. So what has she actually changed?

Many of the tax increases and fiscal tweaks fall under stealth or technical measures – but their impact is real. One of the key mechanisms has been the prolonged freeze on personal income-tax thresholds.

By extending the freeze for an extra three years while wages and inflation rise, millions will gradually be pulled into higher tax bands – a phenomenon known as “fiscal drag”. This will raise £12.7 billion by the end of the decade and is the biggest single revenue earner in this budget.

Salary-sacrifice pension contributions will be capped at £2,000 before national insurance applies. Although this will raise nearly £5 billion, the burden will fall on employers. Some employees will see lower take-home pay and pension contributions as a result.

A new property levy dubbed a “mansion tax” on homes in England worth more than £2 million is expected to raise £400 million in 2029-30 after it is introduced in April 2028. And a two percentage-point increase in dividend tax rates from April 2026 will raise £1.2 billion annually from 2027.

On top of these, new taxes on electric vehicles are set to raise £1.4 billion, and reform of gambling duty could bring in £1.1 billion. Increases in tobacco duty are expected to raise £8 billion and the fuel duty freeze will be phased out from September 2026 – the first increase in petrol and diesel bills in 15 years.

Some of these measures target wealthier individuals and landlords. Yet the broad base of the package – particularly the threshold freeze – means that ordinary workers will also shoulder a significant portion of the burden.

Middle-income earners, who previously sat safely in lower-tax bands, now risk being dragged into higher rates. This could be without feeling any real-term income gains once inflation is taken into account.

Small and medium-sized businesses may face heavier corporation-tax burdens and reduced flexibility when drawing dividends. Property owners and investors are also likely to bear a larger share of capital taxes.

On the other hand, large firms (especially those with diversified global operations) may be better placed to absorb increased corporation tax or to pass costs on to customers.

In theory, lower-income households are shielded. Freeze-based tax rises do not hit them as quickly as they do higher earners. And targeted benefits or exemptions may soften the blow. But rising living costs – inflation, higher housing or rent costs and pricier goods – erode that protection, leaving many worse off in real terms.

How the patchwork compares to an income tax rise

Why this fragmented approach? Well, a direct increase in headline income tax or national insurance rates is very visible and often unpopular. It would also leave Labour accused of breaking its manifesto pledge.

In contrast, despite raising comparable sums, freezing thresholds, adjusting capital allowances, introducing a “mansion tax” and tweaking indirect or compliance-related levies are less likely to provoke an immediate backlash.

As the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) points out, roughly two thirds of the rise in tax take since 2019–20 is driven by personal taxes (threshold freezes and national insurance contributions). The rest has been driven by changes to capital allowance regimes and capital taxes.

In effect, the government has engineered what amounts to a stealth income-tax hike – spread across multiple levers and masked by technical policy steps.

christmas shoppers crowded on a uk high street with lights and decorations. — Reeves will be hoping the budget doesn’t hit consumer confidence.
IR Stone/Shutterstock

This complex patchwork approach raises several challenges. For one, it reduces transparency. People find it harder to understand how much they’re paying compared with a simple rate rise. It also creates distortions: families, businesses and investors now face a shifting tax landscape that may discourage spending, dampen growth or alter behaviour in ways that reduce long-term productivity and tax revenue.

The OBR has also downgraded projections for both growth and household disposable incomes. Inflation will also be higher than forecast. As such, it looks like weaker growth and a rising tax burden will squeeze household finances, despite Reeves’ claims of cutting living costs.

In the absence of stronger productivity growth – something that the OBR sees as uncertain – the UK may have locked itself into a situation where tax burdens rise slowly but persistently. Unless there is more growth, this quiet drift might replace bold fiscal decisions.

In short, the UK’s upward-spiralling tax burden is real, and it is being built not through headline grabs but via a creeping mosaic of incremental measures. The revenue may be comparable to a direct income-tax rise, but the cost to fairness, transparency and long-term growth could be far greater.

Shampa Roy-Mukherjee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Rachel Reeves chose a ‘smorgasbord’ of tax tweaks – and the risks involved in that approach – https://theconversation.com/why-rachel-reeves-chose-a-smorgasbord-of-tax-tweaks-and-the-risks-involved-in-that-approach-270861

December 1, 2025

Antifungal resistance is making thrush hard to treat – here’s why

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

Even routine thrush infections may become harder to treat in the future. sruilk/ Shutterstock

Thrush is one of the most common infections in the world. It’s caused by the fungi Candida – specifically, the yeast Candida albicans. Although yeast infections are normally treated easily with antifungal drugs, a growing number of Candida species are developing resistance to these drugs – including the species that causes thrush.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 7% of all Candida blood samples tested are resistant to the antifungal drug fluconazole, the first-line drug used to treat most Candida infections.

This means there are fewer treatment options for even routine thrush infections – making them more difficult to treat. It also means that more severe Candida infections, which can occur in people who have a weakened immune system or are taking long courses of antibiotics, will become even harder to manage.

Antifungal resistance may also be contributing to the rise in recurrent thrush (thrush infections which continue to come back). This affects around 138 million women worldwide, but is expected to rise to 158 million people by 2030.

Why resistance is growing

The antifungal resistance landscape has changed dramatically over the past few decades.

In the early–to-mid 2000s, antifungal resistance was rare. Fluconazole worked well for most Candida albicans infections, less than 5% of which were resistant to it.

But Candida albicans is a highly adaptable microorganism, which can easily develop resistance to antifungals under the right conditions.

Research shows that resistance among Candida albicans has been trending upwards over the past eight years at least. A small study of patients in Egypt found that in 2024, nearly 26% of Candida albicans isolates from blood samples were resistant to fluconazole. However, more research is needed to understand whether this picture is the same worldwide.

Candida can develop resistance to antifungal drugs through genetic mutations which make them less susceptible to antifungals, or help them reduce the drug’s effectiveness.

Candida can also protect itself from antifungal drugs by forming tough biofilms. These slimy layers of fungal cells block drugs from getting in, help the fungus pump any drugs which have penetrated the barrier back out, and allow some cells to hide in a resting state until treatment is over. Candida can also alter the structure of molecules targeted by antifungals in order to prevent the drugs from binding effectively.

A person holds a box of fluconazole, the medicine used to treat thrush. — Fluconazole is usually the first-line treatment for thrush infections.
luchschenF/ Shutterstock

The key reason Candida infections are becoming harder to treat is because the fungi are adapting to survive antifungal drugs. But this resistance isn’t happening by chance. There are several factors that are contributing to the problem, including misuse and overuse of antifungal drugs (not just by people but in agriculture too) and the limited number of effective antifungal drugs that are available (which are difficult and expensive to develop).

Increasing environmental temperatures, ecological stress and fungicide use are also creating conditions that favour heat-tolerant and drug-resistant Candida strains – such as Candida auris, which is highly resistant to multiple classes of antifungal drugs, and can cause severe infection in people who have a weakened immune system.

Preventing antifungal resistance

Candida is primarily transmitted through person-to-person contact, sexual contact and contact with contaminated objects or surfaces. In healthcare settings, Candida can also spread through contaminated medical equipment and devices.

Airborne transmission is not common with Candida. However, an alarming recent study reported that species of Candida resistant to common antifungal drugs were detected in urban air samples in Hong Kong. This included Candida albicans.

The presence of Candida in air could increase the likelihood of community spread and elevate the risk of inhalation – particularly in hospitals, crowded areas or care homes with immunocompromised people. This represents a potential route of exposure that has previously been underestimated. More studies will be needed to investigate where urban Candida originates and how infectious it may be.

Candida generally doesn’t cause harm under normal conditions and if you have a healthy immune system. Maintaining a healthy micriobiome is key to protecting yourself: the beneficial bacteria in your body help keep Candida levels under control and prevent it from overgrowing and becoming problematic.

However, when the balance of your friendly bacteria is disrupted – for example, by antibiotics, poor diet, a weakened immune system or high stress – Candida can grow out of control, leading to illnesses.

Microbiome disruption can also create conditions where antifungal-resistant Candida can overgrow, form resistant biofilms and become harder to treat.

Looking after your microbiome can make a significant difference in reducing the risk of Candida and other infections. This involves eating a diverse, fibre-rich diet – including fermented foods – and limiting highly processed foods.

Only take antibiotics when prescribed. Probiotics and prebiotics may also help maintain your microbiome balance, especially after antibiotic use or recurrent infections.

While most Candida infections are treatable, drug-resistant strains and infections in vulnerable people can be serious. However, we can all do our part to prevent resistant strains from developing – including by only taking antifungal medicines exactly as prescribed, completing the full course, and maintaining good hygiene.

Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Antifungal resistance is making thrush hard to treat – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/antifungal-resistance-is-making-thrush-hard-to-treat-heres-why-267915

December 1, 2025

Speaker Johnson’s choice to lead by following the president goes against 200 years of House speakers building up the office’s power

Source: The Conversation – USA – By SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor, Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Politics, University of Virginia

House Speaker Mike Johnson has given a lot of effort to pushing the agenda of President Donald Trump. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When the framers of what became the U.S. Constitution set out to draft the rules of our government on a hot, humid day in the summer of 1787, debates over details raged on.

But one thing the men agreed on was the power of a new, representative legislative branch. Article I – the first one, after all – details the awesome responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the Senate: power to levy taxes, fund the government, declare war, impeach justices and presidents, and approve treaties, among many, many others.

In comparison, Article II, detailing the responsibilities of the president, and Article III, detailing the Supreme Court, are rather brief – further deferring to the preferred branch, Congress, for actual policymaking.

At the helm of this new legislative centerpiece, there was only one leadership requirement: The House of Representatives must select a speaker of the House.

The position, modeled after parliamentary leaders in the British House of Commons, was meant to act as a nonpartisan moderator and referee. The framers famously disliked political parties, and they knew the importance of building coalitions to solve the young nation’s vast policy problems.

But this idealistic vision for leadership quickly dissolved.

The current speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, holds a position that has strayed dramatically from this nonpartisan vision. Today, the leadership role is far more than legislative manager – it is a powerful, party-centric position that controls nearly every aspect of House activity.

And while most speakers have used their tenure to strengthen the position and the power of Congress as a whole, Johnson’s choice to lead by following President Donald Trump drifts the position even further from the framers’ vision of congressional primacy.

A large room with many people sitting in semicircular rows. — The opening of the second session of the 59th Congress in 1906, with Speaker Joseph Cannon presiding.
Artist Frances Benjamin Johnston, Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

Centralizing power

By the early 1800s, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, first elected speaker in 1810 as a member of the Whig Party, used the position to pursue personal policy goals, most notably entry into the War of 1812 against Great Britain.

Speaker Thomas Reed continued this trend by enacting powerful procedures in 1890 that allowed his Republican majority party to steamroll opposition in the legislative process.

In 1899, Speaker David Henderson created a Republican “cabinet” of new chamber positions that directly answered to – and owed their newly elevated positions to – him.

In the 20th century, in an attempt to further control the legislation Congress considered, reformers solidified the speaker’s power over procedure and party. Speaker Joseph Cannon, a Republican who ascended to the position in 1903, commandeered the powerful Rules Committee, which allowed speakers to control not only which legislation received a vote but even the amending and voting process.

At the other end of the 20th century was an effort to retool the position into a fully partisan role. After being elected speaker in 1995, Republican Newt Gingrich expanded the responsibilities of the office beyond handling legislation by centralizing resources in the office of the speaker. Gingrich grew the size of leadership staff – and prevented policy caucuses from hiring their own. He controlled the flow of information from committee chairs to rank-and-file members, and even directed access to congressional activity by C-SPAN, the public service broadcaster that provides coverage of Congress.

As a result, the modern speaker of the House now plays a powerful role in the development and passage of legislation – a dynamic that scholars refer to as the “centralization” of Congress.

Part of this is out of necessity: The House in particular, with 435 members, requires someone to, well, lead. And as America has grown in population, economic power and the size of government, the policy problems Congress tackles have become more complex, making this job all the more important.

But the position that began as coalition-building has evolved into controlling the floor schedule and flow of information and coordinating and commandeering committee work. My work on Congress has also documented how leaders invoke their power to dictate constituent communication for members of their party and use campaign finance donations to bolster party loyalty.

This centralization has cemented the responsibilities of the speaker within the chamber. More importantly, it has elevated the speaker to a national party figure.

Major legislation passed

Some successful leaders have been able to translate these advantages to pass major party priorities: Speaker Sam Rayburn, a Democrat from Texas, began his tenure in 1940 and was the longest-serving speaker of the House, ultimately working with eight different presidents.

Under Rayburn’s leadership, Congress passed incredible projects, including the Marshall Plan to fund recovery and reconstruction in postwar Western Europe, and legislation to develop and construct the Interstate Highway System.

In the modern era, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat and the first and only female speaker, began her tenure in 2007 and held together a diverse Democratic coalition to pass the Affordable Care Act into law.

But as the role of speaker has become one of proactive party leader, rather than passive chamber manager, not all speakers have been able to keep their party happy.

Two men at a desk, speaking, with an American flag hung behind them. — Republican Minority Leader Joseph William Martin Jr., left, and Democratic Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn confer on the House rostrum in January 1956.
PhotoQuest/Getty Images

Protecting Congress’ power

John Boehner, a Republican who became speaker in 2011, was known for his procedural expertise and diplomatic skills. But he ultimately resigned after he relied on a bipartisan coalition to end a government shutdown in 2014 and avert financial crises, causing his support among his party to plummet.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted in 2023 from the position by his own Republican Party after working with Democratic members to fund the government and maintain Congress’ power of the purse.

Although these decisions angered the party, they symbolized the enduring nature of the position’s intention: the protector of Article I powers. Speakers have used their growing array of policy acumen, procedural advantages and congressional resources to navigate the chamber through immense policy challenges, reinforcing Article I responsibilities – from levying taxes to reforming major programs that affect every American – that other branches simply could not ignore.

In short, a strengthened party leader has often strengthened Congress as a whole.

Although Johnson, the current speaker, inherited one of the most well-resourced speaker offices in U.S. history, he faces a dilemma in his position: solving enormous national policy challenges while managing an unruly party bound by loyalty to a leader outside of the chamber.

Johnson’s recent decision to keep Congress out of session for eight weeks during the entirety of the government shutdown indicates a balance of deference tilted toward party over the responsibilities of a powerful Congress.

This eight-week absence severely weakened the chamber. Not being in session meant no committee meetings, and thus, no oversight; no appropriations bills passed, and thus, more deference to executive-branch funding decisions; and no policy debates or formal declarations of war, and thus, domestic and foreign policy alike being determined by unelected bureaucrats and appointed judges.

Unfortunately for frustrated House members and their constituents, beyond new leadership, there is little recourse.

While the gradual, powerful concentration of authority has made the speaker’s office more responsive to party and national demands alike, it has also left the chamber dependent on the speaker to safeguard the power of the People’s House.

SoRelle Wyckoff Gaynor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Speaker Johnson’s choice to lead by following the president goes against 200 years of House speakers building up the office’s power – https://theconversation.com/speaker-johnsons-choice-to-lead-by-following-the-president-goes-against-200-years-of-house-speakers-building-up-the-offices-power-270440