New mayors can name up to 32 tsars to support policies such as ‘active travel'
New mayors can name up to 32 tsars to help them with their policies and work, Government papers suggest.
Local government minister Jim McMahon has launched six surveys to help develop new mayoral authorities across England, a move which he said will help shift 'power out of Whitehall and into our regions'.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has named Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton as the six areas working towards mayoral polls in May 2026.
I encourage local residents to be part of our 'devolution revolution' by contributing to these consultations
Jim McMahon, local government minister
Directly elected mayors will have new powers, including the right to establish a 'key route network' on their area's most important roads, a greater say in railway planning, and control over grant funding for new homes and regeneration.
According to survey documents, mayors can appoint non-constituent members of the new mayoral authority from organisations, including from district councils, NHS trusts or the police and crime commissioner.
They can also appoint associate members 'who can provide particular experience or expertise – for example, on active travel or local businesses' – but will not have voting rights on the proposed mayoral boards.
They will sit alongside constituent members of the authority, chosen by county or unitary councils.
Greater Essex's mayor will be able to appoint up to seven non-constituent and associate members.
Mayors in the Cheshire and Warrington and Sussex and Brighton areas will have up to six appointees, while the mayor in Hampshire and the Solent – which includes the Isle of Wight – has up to five picks.
Mayors covering Cumbria and Norfolk and Suffolk each have a maximum of four.
In the surveys, the Government has asked respondents to say to what extent they agree or disagree that establishing a new authority 'will deliver benefits to the area' and 'will support the economy of the area'.
Existing mayors already have appointees to help them develop and execute their policies, including Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who is supported by nine deputies and a suite of 'special appointments', including a walking and cycling commissioner and a victims commissioner.
Mr McMahon said: 'We are committed to shifting power out of Whitehall and into our regions, ensuring local leaders have the tools they need to tackle local priorities and realise their areas' potential as part of our Plan for Change.
'Our Devolution Priority Programme will deliver that power at pace and I encourage local residents to be part of our 'devolution revolution' by contributing to these consultations.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How much money Elon Musk lost because of feud with Donald Trump
The controversial former-head of DOGE Elon Musk has reportedly lost more than $34billion from his personal net worth after his fall from grace at the White House and very online break up with the US President. Shares in Musk's Tesla also dropped more than 14 per cent at the end of yesterday, losing about $150billion in market value - the largest single-day decline in the company's history. It is the second largest loss of personal net worth, beaten only by Musk's own wipe out again in November 2021, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index of the 500 wealthiest people on the planet. He remains the richest man in the world, with a huge $334.5 billion fortune. Musk, who officially left the White House last week, reached a peak of nearly $500 billion in the months after Trump's election success. The valuation of his companies had surged thanks to the belief they would profit from his close relationship with Trump and his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, it was reported. But his government contracts with the US were on the line last night as he continued to take part in a savage war with words against Donald Trump, with their partnership breaking down over a tax-cut and spending bill. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump posted on Truth Social. The withdrawal would have potentially huge consequences for his Tesla and SpaceX revenue. SpaceX has been awarded over $17 billion in government contracts since 2015, according to ABC news. Much of that money comes from NASA and the Department of Defence. One of Trump's oldest advisors, Steve Bannon, went further and suggested the government seize SpaceX under the Defense Production Act - a move that would undoubtedly trigger challenges. Musk, who had threatened to decommission the SpaceX Dragon capsule - a critical lifeline for transporting American astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station - ultimately retreated. After a user on X suggested he 'cool off and take a step back for a couple of days', Musk abruptly posted: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' It was not before he claimed that Trump is 'in the Epstein files', suggested that he should be impeached and replaced with 40-year-old Vice President J.D. Vance. Moments before the Epstein charge, Trump had taken to Truth Social and said he had asked Musk to leave his administration and said the billionaire went 'CRAZY!' With that, Musk announced that it was 'time to drop a really big bomb.' This 2014 image shows Elon Musk (right) alongside Ghislaine Maxwell (left) who facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. She's currently serving time in federal prison '@RealDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. 'Have a nice day, DJT!' Jeffrey Epstein is a serial child sex offender who died in prison in 2019. Trump pledged to release the files related to Epstein, with Attorney General Pam Bondi releasing some pages in February, but most of that information was already in the public domain. 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out,' Musk added. Asked for comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Mail in a statement: 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted.' The brawl started when the X-owner had originally campaigned to stop the 'disgusting abomination' of the x bill which he believed would contribute too much to the country's $36.2 trillion debt. Trump's big, beautiful bill' called for getting rid off electric vehicle tax credits - the cause of Musk's frustration, according to Trump. Analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that the bill would cut about $1.2 billion from Tesla's full-year profit. Despite staying quiet at first, Trump then told reporters he was 'very disappointed' in Musk and they 'had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore'. Musk immediately responded via tweet, saying: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election'. He had spent nearly $300 million backing Trump's campaign among other other Republicans in last year's election. However, the drastic drop in net worth might not reveal the true impact on Musk who increasingly relies on his private enterprises as a source, it was reported in Bloomberg.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Illegal immigration is turning us into a lockdown society
The mild weather has, we are told, exacerbated the problem of small boats crossing the English Channel. The pledge to 'smash the gangs' is no longer being repeated endlessly by Labour spokespeople (perhaps the recent sunny weather distracted Border Force?) But fear not. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has a plan. She thinks a gigantic governmental IT project is what is now needed to get a grip on the explosion in immigration. Whenever politicians run out of road in trying to solve a problem, it's never long before the introduction of ID cards rears its ugly head. One might say this is an exercise using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but that would be unfair. The issues at stake tend to be rather bigger than nuts – terrorism, mass uncontrolled immigration, widespread welfare fraud and the like. No, it's more like wildly swinging a sledgehammer in an idiotic attempt to repair a window. The way ID schemes work is to split the population into two cohorts – one which is entitled to something and one which isn't. You want to visit your local GP? You'd better whip out your digital ID card to do so. A police officer doesn't like the cut of your jib and wonders if you should be in the UK at all? You'd be advised to have data on hand to prove your citizenship. Three problems immediately emerge. First, the law-abiding majority are obliged to undertake an ever-increasing number of checks and tests to go about their ordinary lives. Second, it assumes that the people you want to collar are not adept at melting into the black market economy. How many employers are hiring large numbers of illegal immigrants unknowingly and were genuinely just about to get round to making sure they all had the right to work here? None. Third, it relies on the state actually operating a complex IT system successfully. We have surely learnt over recent years that in the vast number of ways the government is able to waste huge tranches of taxpayers' money, botched IT projects are probably top of the list. You can bank on a new digital ID system to break, be littered with errors or both. Ronald Reagan's old dictum – 'there are no easy solutions, but there are simple solutions' – is typically honoured in the breach. The Home Secretary is overreaching for a solution which is difficult and complex but – she is hoping – avoids being especially controversial. Instead, to tackle the immigration disaster, we need to get back to basics. The vast numbers of people coming to our shores are doing so because enforcement is weak, the legal system is soft and the incentives to come here are too great. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with those root causes, there is no database – however magical you may imagine it to be – that will be of much assistance. The reason we have failed to deport many undesirables is not because we are sitting across a desk from them and can't identify who they are or what they are entitled to. Rather it's because our asylum system works at a snail's pace, allows fatuous appeals under human rights legislation, and the package of goodies you receive while you are here is too good to resist. We need to speed up the system so claims take eighteen days (or, ideally, eighteen hours) to process rather than eighteen months. We must ensure that your child's preference for British-made chicken nuggets is not an admissible basis for resisting deportation. We have to find a more robust way of policing the English Channel. None of these are easy to achieve, but they are simple to grasp. Instead, the political elite – this time in the form of Yvette Cooper – prefers to rush down the rabbit hole of believing a flashy computerised system is the answer to our prayers. It probably won't happen. It certainly won't work.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Waspi campaigners say they have been given green light for High Court challenge
Waspi campaigners say they have cleared a hurdle in their battle for a High Court challenge. The Women Against State Pension Inequality group is seeking a judicial review to force the Government to reconsider its decision to rule out a compensation package for women affected by the way changes to the state pension age were communicated. The campaigners said they have received an update to say that their case is arguable, setting them on course for a court hearing. A previous report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PSHO) suggested compensation ranging between £1,000 and £2,950 could be appropriate for each of those affected. But in December 2024, the Government said that, while it accepted the ombudsman's finding of maladministration and apologised for there being a delay in writing to 1950s-born women, a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified. Waspi campaigners submitted arguments back in February for a legal case challenging the decision not to compensate women. Lawyers for the campaigners argue that the Government's reasons for concluding that people should not receive any remedy are a breach of legal principles. Waspi said it also expects a hearing to consider its application for a costs capping order, so that campaigners would not be forced to pay unknown costs to cover the legal fees should they lose. The group said that it may be forced to withdraw its challenge without this financial safeguard. It is also calling on supporters to help raise further funds for the legal challenge. Waspi chairwoman Angela Madden described the green light in its legal challenge as a 'landmark moment in our campaign'. She said: 'We are grateful for the funds raised so far and understand the country's purse strings are tight, but the Government cannot be allowed to brush this injustice aside.'
