mayors

Mayors across England will be given new powers to overrule local councils on some planning decisions.

The change would apply to proposals with more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space or buildings over 30 metres.

Mayors in 13 areas including Manchester, Liverpool, the West of England and the West Midlands will gain similar powers to Sir Sadiq Khan in London, who is already able to “call in” planning decisions.

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said the powers were an “essential part of the toolkit that mayors need to effectively deliver new homes and regeneration”.

The Conservatives questioned whether it was right for councils to lose the “ability to make planning decisions in their own communities”.

The powers will also be available to mayors in the Combined Authorities in North East England, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire, Hull and East Yorkshire, Greater Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, East Midlands, and Tees Valley.

Housebuilding has fallen in London in recent years, but Pennycook insisted the “call in” powers had helped the mayor “unblock strategic growth sites” in the capital.

In the 2024 general election, the Labour government promised to build 1.5 million homes in England by the end of the decade but housebuilders have warned the target could be missed.

Pennycook said the government was “absolutely determined to stick with that ambition”.

He acknowledged the target was “really stretching” but said nearly 180,000 children were in temporary accommodation and “any smaller target wouldn’t be commensurate with the scale of the challenge”.

In addition to gaining the new “call-in” powers, mayors are set to be able to grant “up-front permission”, which the government says will allow building to begin “without a developer having to apply”.

A consultation on how the powers will work is due to be published next week.

The government has sought to stress that local councils will continue to decide the majority of applications and that all decisions must still follow planning rules.

It has also said mayors will get a “bigger say” over how housing funding is spent in their area, with the government directing national agency Homes England to focus on local mayors’ priorities.

New Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who served as mayor for Greater Manchester for nearly a decade, has repeatedly expressed his desire to transfer more powers to local mayors.

“Challenge does need to be made to local decision-making and actually it cuts both ways,” he told the Sunday Times.

“Sometimes it’s the other way round. It’s the local authority putting forward something that’s unacceptable in terms of the impact on the community. It’s a two-way street.”

Last month, Burnham promised to give all mayors a share of income tax revenue, saying he wanted to “bring power home” to “every postcode”.

Earlier this week, he announced a secondment programme to send high-performing civil servants to work in mayoral offices.

The approach has faced criticism from some in his own party and the Liberal Democrats, who fear it could create a “two-tier system” that discriminates against those areas that do not have an elected mayor.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham will give all mayors of city regions in England a share of income tax revenue for the first time, as part of his drive to transfer power from Westminster to local leaders.

Burnham will also allow mayors of English strategic authorities to keep some cash from business rates collected in their areas, and gain greater control over services such as housing, transport, skills.

The government has not yet decided the exact portion of taxes mayors will get, with more details to be announced when Chancellor John Healey delivers his first budget in the autumn.

The Conservatives said the plans lacked detail and could lead to areas with weaker economies losing out on funding.

But Burnham said the move would “make good” on his pledge to “bring power home” to “every postcode in the country”.

“Under our plans, more of the taxes raised in a community will stay in that community,” the prime minister added.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, First Secretary of State Louise Haigh said areas would not need mayors to benefit from investment.

She said: “We won’t be imposing mayors to areas that don’t want it but we will be creating strategic authorities in every area of England and they will be able to hold these powers and resources as well.

“They don’t need to have mayors in order to control them or in order to retain a share of their income tax and business rates.”

Strategic authorities bring together local councils to control regional issues such as transport and economic development, with decisions taken collectively by council leaders rather than a single elected mayor.

For example, the Lancashire strategic authority will take in Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blackpool Council and Lancashire County Council, which form the Lancashire Combined County Authority area, despite the area not having a mayor.

Haigh added: “Vast swathes of England don’t have strategic authorities or mayors and today’s blueprint will set out that roadmap for every area of England to be covered by strategic authorities that will ultimately be able to retain a proportion of their income tax, business rates and set an overnight visitor levy should they wish, so they can generate revenue and really reinvest it in their local area.”

The power to raise and control tax revenues is highly centralised in the UK, making the country an outlier by international standards.

The share of national taxes collected at a local level in the UK is 5.8%, the lowest in the G7, according to the OECD, external, a global policy forum.

That share is far below that of other countries with large economies such as France (20.4%), Japan (36%), and the US (45.7%).

As it stands, mayors of strategic authorities in England receive most of their funding from central government grants.

During his time as Greater Manchester mayor, Burnham pushed for greater control over tax revenue, rather than having to rely on government grants.

The UK government had already been exploring whether a share of revenue from national taxes could be distributed to metro mayors, before Burnham became prime minister earlier this month.

But in a major speech on devolution in June, Burnham said he would “oversee the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen” if he became prime minister.

Burnham has put devolution at the heart of his plan for government, arguing that metro mayors are best placed to boost economic growth across the country.

Mayor Karen Bass’ press relations office communicates through WhatsApp messages that auto-delete every 24 hours, potentially shielding the messages from public records requests, according to three sources familiar with the office.

The press office is under scrutiny over its use of an unpaid consultant as a spokesperson for the first half of the year. Just weeks after the consultant, Yusef Robb, ceased working as a spokesperson for the city, he took a job doing crisis communications for Lineage, whose cold food storage facility in Boyle Heights caught fire last month, spreading smoke and foul odors. Robb continued to work for Bass as an informal advisor until The Times and other outlets reported his dual roles.

Even though he was no longer a spokesperson, Robb remained in several WhatsApp group channels with mayoral press staffers, all set to auto-delete, until at least a week after he started working for Lineage, said two sources, who requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions. L.A. Material first reported Robb’s presence in the channels.

The Times has filed a public records request for all messages that Robb received or sent to the mayor or her press office between June 1 and July 10, including WhatsApp messages. The city administrative code requires records to be retained for at least two years.

The Bass administration declined to comment on the press office’s use of disappearing messages on WhatsApp.

Bass herself has also communicated through disappearing messages.

In response to a public records request from The Times for Bass’ texts in the aftermath of the January 2025 Palisades fire, her office initially declined to turn over any messages. City lawyer David Michaelson told The Times that “texts are ephemeral types of electronic communication” that aren’t subject to the city record retention requirement.

He also said Bass’ phone was “set not to save text messages.”

The city ultimately recovered more than 100 messages to and from Bass during that period and released them to The Times.

The Times still sued the city, alleging that it unlawfully withheld and deleted the mayor’s text messages and other public records from the catastrophic wildfire.

“Their contention is they don’t have to retain them, and our contention is they do,” said Kelly Aviles, outside counsel for The Times in the lawsuit, in an interview Thursday.

In a court filing, attorneys representing the city argued that keeping work-related messages for up to two years was “absurdly impractical.”

“The Times’ proposed rule requires a degree of intrusion into City employees’ personal sphere that is, at the very least, offensive if not violative of California and federal constitutional rights,” wrote Reuben Camper Cahn, an attorney for the city.

In the past, some city employees communicated with each other each other through Google Chat messages that auto-deleted after a day.

In January 2025, the city stopped that practice and required that Google Chats be saved “indefinitely.”

Retention of messages has also been an issue in the federal government, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio setting some of his Signal chats to auto-delete.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman cut deeper into the lead of reality television personality Spencer Pratt on Saturday, as his lead slimmed to just a single percentage point.

Pratt fell to just over 27% of the vote while Raman jumped up to slightly over 26%, according to the results from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder. Pratt now leads Raman by just 7,494 votes.

“We’ve seen Nithya Raman catching up on every update and the last two in particular she’s accelerated,” said Paul Mitchell, vice president of the bipartisan voter data firm Political Data Inc. “She’s continued to gain at a rate that means she will eventually catch up unless Pratt starts getting some ballots coming in that are either geographically or demographically better for him.”

Democratic consultant Michael Trujillo, who doesn’t represent anyone in the mayoral race, said the results suggest Raman will surpass Pratt as more votes are counted.

“I think it’s over,” Trujillo said. “It appears Nithya will be in the runoff. Pratt doesn’t appear to be growing much more.”

The second-place finisher in the mayoral primary will face Mayor Karen Bass in a Nov. 3 runoff. On election night Tuesday, the Associated Press determined that Bass had secured enough votes to qualify for the runoff.

Pratt has been in second place since then, but Raman has gradually eroded his lead as mail-in ballots have been counted. The updated vote tally released Thursday showed Pratt with 29% of the vote and Raman with 23%.

With Friday’s update, Raman’s share had risen to 25% and Pratt’s shrank to 28%, for a 3 percentage point gap.

In the most recent batch of mail-in ballots counted, Raman received 23,514 votes, while Pratt gained 10,336.

Election analysts expected Raman to gain ground as the mail-in ballots were tallied, reasoning that many left-of-center voters — Raman’s base — held onto their mail-in ballots until the last minute as they waited to choose between Democratic gubernatorial candidates. They also say younger, more progressive voters tend to hold onto their ballots longer generally.

Although the mayor’s race is nonpartisan, Pratt is a Republican in a city that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democratic voters and elected officials.

A poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, which was co-sponsored by The Times, had Pratt running in third place behind Bass and Raman.

The poll of 1,351 likely voters conducted May 19-24 had Bass with 26% support, Raman with 25% support and Pratt with 22% support, with a 3% margin of error.

Los Angeles voters have become accustomed to seeing election results change as late-arriving ballots are tabulated. In the 2022 mayoral primary, real estate developer Rick Caruso led the pack for about a week before Bass pulled ahead.

Pratt was favored in many of the same neighborhoods that voted for Caruso, according to a Times analysis of precinct-level returns provided by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder on Wednesday, when an estimated 62% of the projected vote had been counted. Raman, by comparison, made inroads in progressive areas dominated by Bass four years ago.

Pratt, whose Pacific Palisades fire home burned in the January 2025 fire, was strong there and on the Westside, as well as in the San Fernando Valley communities of Encino, Woodland Hills, Chatsworth and Sunland-Tujunga.

Raman dominated precincts known for their progressive politics, particularly those with younger people in renter-heavy neighborhoods stretching from Hollywood to Highland Park, including her home base of Silver Lake.

Mail-in ballots with an election day postmark will continue to be accepted by county election officials through Tuesday.

June 4 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s National Election Commission has failed to clearly explain an unprecedented ballot paper shortage in the June 3 local elections, leaving two Seoul ballot boxes uncounted and delaying the formal confirmation of the Seoul mayoral winner.

The commission said Thursday it would establish a fact-finding committee to investigate the ballot paper shortage that occurred during voting. The committee will be composed mainly of outside experts and will examine the cause of the problem, identify responsibility and recommend measures to prevent a recurrence, the commission said.

The controversy has continued because the commission has not provided a detailed explanation of how the shortage occurred or how many voters were affected.

More than a day after voting ended, the Seoul mayoral race had still not been formally completed. People Power Party candidate Oh Se-hoon’s victory was effectively confirmed around 9:30 a.m. Thursday, but the vote count remained stalled at 99% for hours because two ballot boxes from Jamsil 7-dong’s second polling station in Songpa district had not been moved to the counting center amid protests by residents.

Under Article 191 of the Public Official Election Act, the winner of a local government chief election is the candidate who receives the largest number of valid votes. The law does not clearly state how to handle a case in which vote counting has not been completed because ballot boxes remain uncounted.

The Seoul Election Commission said no decision had been made on formal confirmation of the winner. Winners in other Seoul races, except for the Seoul mayoral race and Songpa district, had already been confirmed.

Critics said the commission’s poor management and lack of clear public explanation deepened public distrust and prolonged the standoff at the polling station.

The National Election Commission held an emergency public apology briefing at 9 p.m. Wednesday. At the briefing, it said voter turnout at some polling stations had exceeded expectations, leading to the shortage of ballot papers. But it did not provide detailed figures on the affected polling stations, the number of additional ballots delivered, delays in voting or the number of voters affected.

The commission repeated that it would disclose more information after confirming the facts.

Calls are also growing for National Election Commission Chairman Noh Tae-ak to take responsibility. Noh did not appear at the public apology briefing. Huh Chul-hoon, secretary-general of the commission, said he was the proper official to apologize because the chairman is a non-standing member and the secretary-general oversees election administration.

The commission was also found to have prepared ballot papers for the affected Songpa polling stations equal to only 50% of registered voters, reportedly because it had taken early voting turnout into account.

Some legal experts said the case exposes structural problems in the election commission, which has long been treated as an institution with limited democratic oversight.

Ji Sung-woo, a professor at Sungkyunkwan University Law School, said the facts should be confirmed first but added that the election commission faces weak oversight.

“The biggest problem with the National Election Commission is that it is the only institution with weak parliamentary control,” Ji said. “Because lawmakers are themselves candidates, parliamentary control is structurally weak.”

“No institution should be free from oversight,” he said. “Control by other institutions, such as the Board of Audit and Inspection or civic groups, needs to be strengthened.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260604010001582

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass made what sounded like a victory speech Tuesday night.

Councilmember Nithya Raman made what sounded almost like a concession speech.

And former reality TV star Spencer Pratt relayed a message from the heavens.

“Well, obviously God wanted five more months of me exposing all the failures of our mayor, so it’s gonna be a fun ride,” Pratt said. “I hope she’s ready.”

Assuming Pratt holds on to one of the two spots in the Nov. 3 general election as the final votes are tallied in the next few days, the smart money will be on Bass, for reasons I’ll get into in a moment.

But the supreme being and patron of all pontiffs has to be considered a wild card. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that an incumbent mayor in the City of Angels would be running against a challenger whose campaign manager is God Almighty.

So here we go. We could be in for one of the more remarkable electoral adventures in city history, with a complete novice and MAGA conservative going up against a liberal career politician in a deep-blue city and state full of people who are tired of hearing excuses from Democrats. (If Raman ends up ousting Pratt, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. But it’s not my fault. The devil made me do it.)

If you intend to follow closely, as of course you should, maybe you can help me count the number of times Pratt plays the faith card. I went to St. Peter Martyr School and attended the church by the same name, and I don’t recall ever hearing a nun or a priest drop God’s name as often as Pratt does.

In fact, I just watched a clip of Pratt talking to Fox News TV host and Donald Trump disciple Kayleigh McEnany, and over the course of 1 minute and 52 seconds, he mentioned God or Jesus 10 times.

“Thankfully, I married an angel who was very connected with Jesus and has brought me to the light,” Pratt said of his wife and former reality TV co-star Heidi Montag. “It’s been very empowering to just pray and just be on his path and just say, ‘God, if you want me to save these animals, save these humans and protect my city, just keep putting me in the place where I can do that.’”

Is he running for mayor or cardinal?

Look, I totally respect your average true believer. But I’m not entirely comfortable with a mayor who might be sitting around City Hall waiting for signs and smoke signals rather than knowing what to do on his own.

God has a lot on his plate. He might be busy multiplying fishes and loaves so people don’t go hungry thanks to the president’s tariffs and warmongering. Is he going to rush to answer a prayer for guidance about underfunded parks or broken sidewalks in Los Angeles?

How did we get here, you ask?

Well, Pratt is an AI creation, in a way. A composite of sorts. You combine the forces of social media, political rebellion, second-rate celebrity obsession and the Peter Principle, and here’s a little Trump puppet walking around L.A. like he’s the chosen one.

Add to that the very real essence of his appeal to some voters:

Los Angeles has problems. Big problems that don’t get fixed quickly enough or at all, and Pratt represents the angry voter who wants to know why City Hall can’t do better and where all the money went. He’s absolutely right when he says we shouldn’t have people living on the streets, using drugs on the streets and dying on the streets.

But if Pratt is in the general election rather than Raman, we’re in for a national media circus rather than a summit on solutions. Raman is well-versed on matters of relevance and could have pushed back against Bass in substantive, detailed ways. On the other hand, as Pratt has fairly argued, Raman headed City Council’s homelessness committee, so isn’t she partly to blame for the failures she tried to pin on Bass?

As for Pratt’s policy chops, he has not responded to my offers of a get-together. Absent that, and given his careful avoidance of local reporters who know their stuff, I read his platform on his campaign website and I can tell you that while he touches on many of the right issues — public safety, fiscal integrity, homelessness — attention to detail and depth of knowledge are not God-given strengths.

Maybe Pratt can actually deliver on his promise of a “treatment-led recovery model that addresses mental illness and addiction as the primary drivers of chronic homelessness.” But that would require an act of God (which I suppose is possible given their relationship), because those matters are primarily under the direction of the county, not the city.

This is the main problem here. Bass was beatable, and could have been pushed by a serious challenger to do better.

In the last election, Rick Caruso gave her a scare. That was partly because he had some depth on the issues, he was a successful businessman and philanthropist, he had served on the police commission and the water and power board, he had built relationships across the city and, along with his family, he had poured time and millions of dollars into underserved communities.

In this election, it looks as though Bass could get lucky and face off against a guy who lost his house in the Palisades fire, saw a few homeless encampments through his car window, and decided he wanted to be mayor. Some might have questioned his hubris, but only before learning that he was on a mission from God.

If you’re keeping count, that’s nine mentions of God so far in this column.

One more for the tie, with an eye toward five more months of campaign fodder.

Thank you, God.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Well, I gave him a chance, offering my services.

I was willing to give the young novice a primer on what a mayor can and can’t do, and let him know City Hall is a reality show like no other he’s been on. But Spencer Pratt didn’t call me in response to my column last week.

I did, however, hear from a slew of his most ardent supporters.

Steven C. had this to say: “You’re a left-wing idiot, and … it’s time for you to retire. You’re a joke!!! You always have been!!! God bless Spencer Pratt and the 45th and 47th President of the United States Donald Trump!!!!!”

You may be onto something, Steven!!! I’ve been thinking about retiring!!!! But then a former reality TV star like Pratt comes along and tells Vanity Fair he had a chat with God, who told him He wants Pratt to be mayor of L.A!!!!! With people like this running for office, how can I retire?!!!!!

R.W. wrote to say: “You say Spencer has never done anything in his life…What credentials do you have? From what I’ve read about you, you are a lousy commie journalist who has never accomplished anything in your life!!”

Just recently, R.W., I replaced a broken toilet tank flush valve and I learned two Willie Nelson songs on the guitar. That’s not nothing.

Peter did not mince words: “Your piece on Pratt is a hit piece filled with bull— . You should go f— yourself before someone takes you out, which is the appropriate response to a s—bag like yourself. So please f— off and drop dead, which is exactly what you deserve.”

Peter, I did drop dead once. Cardiac arrest. While on the other side, I saw God, who told me to snap out of it because He was going to tell Spencer Pratt to run for mayor. Who knew God had a defibrillator?

All of these, by the way, were actual emails, and there were many more just like them. But it’s only fair to note that despite the fulminating knucklehead wing of Pratt’s posse, he’s tapped into a justifiable sense of frustration with City Hall, given homelessness, the Palisades inferno and budget issues that squeeze all manner of basic city services.

That’s why Mayor Karen Bass is paddling furiously, trying to keep her political career afloat. In the latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll, Bass is at 26%, Nithya Raman at 25% and Pratt at 22%. That’s so tight, it appears that no one will get the 50% needed to win outright, and if we get a top-two runoff, it’s not clear who will go to the dance.

So as we close out the primary, with the election on Tuesday, five talking points come to mind.

Which candidate knows the city best?

Los Angeles has 114 distinct neighborhoods spread across 470 square miles (that’s 10 times the size of San Francisco), with an estimated 220 languages spoken. Diversity is a defining characteristic, and roughly half the population is Latino, which makes it a shame there’s no Latino candidate for mayor, especially given the raids and roundups by President Trump.

A mayor doesn’t have to speak six languages and know every corner of the city, but residents want to be seen and heard, and feel like they’re understood and represented.

Raman is well-versed on homelessness policy, and she’s spot-on about the need for greater urgency in problem-solving, but as my colleague Noah Goldberg reported, constituents in her district complain that they haven’t seen enough of her.

As I said, Pratt has wisely targeted municipal failure. But in the realm of outsider candidates with Republican credentials, Rick Caruso, who ran against Bass last time, was comfortable whether he was in the Valley, South L.A. or anywhere in between. And he easily connected with people. Would Pratt be a tourist in his own city?

By virtue of her job the last four years, Bass — who raised a blended Black and Latino family — knows the city best, although her unfavorability rating is a big problem.

What about the other candidates?

In the aforementioned poll, minister and housing activist Rae Huang had 9% and former educational technology businessman Adam Miller had 5%. Virtual unknowns, neither had a legit chance of winning, but they could be spoilers for one of the top three candidates.

I spoke to both, and if you’re undecided, you should read up on them before voting. On Huang’s website, the first words are “Homes are for people, not profit.” Miller wants to bring his success in the business world to City Hall, and when you consider his policy agenda along with his nonprofit work with veterans and homelessness, he’s a better candidate than Pratt.

But he wasn’t on a reality TV show.

Democrats ruined L.A. and California, right?

If only I had a nickel for every time a reader suggested that.

By 101 measures, Los Angeles is one of the great cities of the world and California has built the world’s fourth-largest economy while leading on climate change, so apocalyptic diagnoses are a bit off the mark.

Also, local elections are nonpartisan. You don’t run for mayor as a D or an R.

And yet it’s true that Democrats and their policies and sensibilities rule the day, and they have a lot to answer for in Los Angeles and in California.

But would the same critics suggest that in conservative cities like Fresno and Bakersfield, which have their own homelessness and other problems, Republicans are to blame?

When it comes to housing, poverty, healthcare and streets occupied by people who are addicted or mentally ill, the failures go back decades, touch all levels of government, and cross party lines.

Have I given up on Los Angeles?

When I pointed out that Pratt seemed unaware of these complexities, and of the structural limits of mayoral power, readers suggested he was rising to the challenge while I was giving up on L.A.

Not at all. I care about L.A. enough to hold its leaders to a higher accountability, and to scrutinize posers and pretenders who think they can do a better job.

My advice for the next mayor.

Fix what’s broken, celebrate what works and take responsibility for what doesn’t.

Now let me try one more time:

Spencer, give me a call.

You can’t tell us you had a conversation with God about running for mayor and not share more details.

Did God scold you for referring to the mayor as Karen “Basura,” which means trash in Spanish?

Did He say we should pull out of the ‘28 Olympics, or have any advice on how to fill potholes and fix sidewalks?

If you’re having regular conversations about City Hall with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, we’re dying to know:

On homelessness, what would Jesus do?

steve.lopez@latimes.com