Elections

Defections in the once solidly Conservative southern “blue wall” drove large losses in recent municipal elections.LITTLEWICK GREEN, England — Aged 22 and not long out of college, George Blundell never expected to win when he ran in municipal elections against a Conservative Party bigwig in a region long loyal to the Tories. But for a young, enthusiastic, former politics student it still seemed worth a shot.“I was like, ‘Well, what’s stopping me’? It’s not something you get to do every day, is it?” recalled Mr. Blundell, a member of the centrist Liberal Democrats, as he sipped a beer outside the village pub where he once washed dishes as a summer job.To his surprise, Mr. Blundell is now a councilor representing the area around Littlewick Green, having defeated the powerful incumbent in perhaps the biggest upset from local elections that have sent shock waves through Britain’s governing Conservative Party.Unhappy about Brexit and aghast at the economic chaos unleashed during Liz Truss’s brief leadership last year, traditional Conservative voters are deserting the party in key English heartlands, contributing to the loss of more than 1,000 municipality seats in voting this month.With a general election expected next year, that is alarming for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who has earned solid marks as a problem solver and seems to have stanched the party’s bleeding from the Ms. Truss fiasco, but whose party nevertheless lags far behind the opposition Labour Party in opinion polls.In these affluent areas within reach of London — called the “blue wall” after the campaign color of the Conservatives — the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, rather than Labour, made big gains in this month’s local elections. But when the next general election comes, the defection of voters from the Conservative Party could deprive Mr. Sunak of a parliamentary majority and propel Labour’s leader, Keir Starmer, into Downing Street.The village pub at Littlewick Green, near Maidenhead.Olivia Harris for The New York TimesIt could also sweep from Parliament prominent Conservatives — like the chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, and the senior cabinet minister, Michael Gove — who hold seats in Conservative southern heartlands, as does the former prime minister, Theresa May, the member of Parliament for Maidenhead.According to Robert Ford, professor of political science at the University of Manchester, they have only themselves to blame because many moderate Conservatives feel their party has abandoned them, rather than the other way around.“Their Conservative Party was about stable government and low taxes, and looking after the City of London,” he said, referring to the financial district to which many voters here commute. “This Conservative government has delivered none of that.”“Rishi Sunak turning up and saying ‘Don’t worry, I know we spent five years burning down the house, but someone who is not an arsonist is in charge now,’” Professor Ford said. “Well, it’s not enough.”Certainly, it proved insufficient in Littlewick Green which, with its village pub, cricket field and pavilion flying British flags, is an unlikely spot for a political insurrection.Yet, so successful was Mr. Blundell that, when he joined a crowd of around 200 people celebrating the coronation of King Charles III, they greeted their newly-elected representative with spontaneous applause.Mr. Blundell, who works as a training adviser for an education firm, said he blushed so hard that “I basically turned into a human tomato.” He added: “I’ve known them all for a long time, and I want to do well by them and help them out — even if it’s the smallest things.”Mr. Blundell prevailed in Littlewick Green, despite its tony image as a place having a cricket field, a village pub, and a pavilion flying British flags.Olivia Harris for The New York TimesIn this quintessential corner of “blue wall” Britain, Mr. Blundell lives with his siblings (he is a triplet) and mother, a vicar, in a house that was once used as a set by the makers of “Midsomer Murders,” a TV detective show featuring gory crimes in scenic English villages.Mr. Blundell attributes his victory to a combination of national politics, local factors and the complacency of local Conservatives. The night of the count was “spectacular,” he added.Simon Werner, the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Windsor and Maidenhead, thinks the success can be repeated in a general election. “The ‘blue wall’ is crumbling,” he said. “We’ve proved we can do it on a local basis and now we have to step up and do it at the general election next year.”In part, the events here represent the aftershocks of the polarizing leadership of Boris Johnson, who won a landslide general election victory in 2019 with the support of voters in deindustrialized areas in the north and middle of England. But Mr. Johnson’s bombastic, pro-Brexit rhetoric, disdain for the business sector and focus on regenerating the north of England never endeared him to moderate Conservatives in the south.Most stuck with the Tories in 2019 because Labour was then led by the left-winger, Jeremy Corbyn. But with the more centrist Mr. Starmer now firmly in charge, the prospect of a Labour government is no longer so scary for many traditional Tories, liberating them to abandon the Conservatives.Professor Ford added, the Tories had caricatured and pilloried their own supporters for years, with some Conservative politicians characterizing such voters as a privileged elite.“If you tell people often enough that they are not welcome, eventually they will get the message,” said Professor Ford.Even some Conservative lawmakers admit they are worried by the appeal of the Liberal Democrats to these voters.“Those traditional moderate Conservatives for whom the world works very well — who were happy to be in the European Union because it worked for them — yes, I am concerned to attract them back from the Liberal Democrats,” said Steve Baker, a government minister and lawmaker who represents Wycombe, close to Windsor and Maidenhead.Mr. Blundell chats with his mother in Littlewick Green.Olivia Harris for The New York TimesThere are demographic factors at play as well, as younger voters relocate from London, a Labour stronghold, forced out by high property prices.But local issues are important, too. At Maidenhead Golf Club, which was established in 1896, there is anger that the Conservative-controlled municipality facilitated plans to construct around 1,800 houses on the 132 acres of land the club rents — threatening to make the club homeless.Merv Foulds, a former club treasurer and lifelong Conservative voter, said that on election day he decided not to join his wife at their polling station, adding: “If I had I would not have voted Tory.”Both locally and nationally the Conservatives are seen as untrustworthy, he said, while Mr. Sunak has yet to prove persuasive.“Sometimes, when he speaks, you just get the feeling he is speaking down to you,” said Mr. Foulds, an accountant. “At least with Boris you felt that he was talking to you — even though he might have been talking drivel, and maybe lying through his back teeth as well.”In Woodlands Park, a less affluent district of Windsor and Maidenhead, Barbara Hatfield a cleaner, said she had voted for several parties in recent elections but was worried about hikes in food prices and angry about development in the town center.A house decorated with a Union Jack in Littlewick Green.Olivia Harris for The New York Times“Maidenhead is terrible, it looks like Beirut,” she said of the town, where there has been construction work, adding that she was unsure how she would vote in a general election.Another uncommitted voter is Mr. Blundell’s mother, Tina Molyneux, who ministers at local churches as well as being head of discipleship and social justice in the diocese of Oxford. She has her own theory of why her son was victorious.“Everybody was saying ‘There’s got to be a change,’” she said. “There was something to do with youth and a fresh approach.”Rev. Molyneux said she had previously voted for Mrs. May, whom she still respects, but will not support her at the general election because the Conservatives have “gone to the right.” More

Timothy Parlatore, who has been defending the former president in the investigations into classified documents and Jan. 6, is leaving as federal prosecutors appear to be nearing decisions about bringing charges.Timothy Parlatore, one of the lawyers representing former President Donald J. Trump in the federal investigations into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has resigned from the former president’s legal team.In a brief interview on Wednesday, Mr. Parlatore declined to discuss the specific reasons for his departure, but said it was not related to the merits of either inquiry — both of which are being led by a special counsel, Jack Smith. Mr. Parlatore said that he informed Mr. Trump of his decision directly and that he left the legal team on good terms with the former president.His departure was reported earlier by CNN.Mr. Parlatore’s withdrawal from the twin special counsel cases leaves Mr. Trump a lawyer short at a moment when prosecutors under Mr. Smith seem to be nearing the end of their sprawling grand jury investigations and may be approaching a decision about whether to bring charges.Two other lawyers — James Trusty and John Rowley — will for now continue to take the lead in representing Mr. Trump in both of the cases.Mr. Parlatore informed Mr. Trump’s team on Monday that he anticipated withdrawing, according to a person familiar with the events.Since last summer and until recently, Mr. Parlatore played a key role in Mr. Trump’s attempts to use attorney-client and executive privilege to limit the scope of the testimony provided by a series of witnesses who appeared in front of grand juries hearing evidence in both of the matters.Over and over in sealed filings and at closed-door hearings, Mr. Parlatore and his colleagues sought to assert privilege on behalf of Mr. Trump in the hopes of narrowing testimony from top Trump aides like Mark Meadows, the former chief of staff, and former Vice President Mike Pence. But their efforts were almost completely unsuccessful.At one point, Mr. Parlatore himself was subpoenaed to appear in front of the grand jury investigating the documents case. During his appearance, he answered questions about efforts made by Mr. Trump’s legal team to comply with a subpoena issued by the Justice Department last May demanding the return of all classified material in the former president’s possession.Among the things that Mr. Parlatore said he discussed with the grand jury were searches — ordered by a judge in response to a push from the Justice Department — that he oversaw at the end of last year of several properties belonging to Mr. Trump, including Trump Tower in New York; Mr. Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J.; and a storage site in West Palm Beach, Fla. During the search of the storage site, investigators found at least two more documents with classified markings.Those searches followed a search in August of Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, by the F.B.I., which led to the discovery of more than 100 classified documents that had not been returned in response to the earlier subpoena.Mr. Parlatore was brought on to the legal team by Boris Epshteyn, who had been serving as something of an in-house counsel, hiring and negotiating contracts for lawyers. Mr. Epshteyn has shown a penchant for delivering sunny news to Mr. Trump despite bad circumstances, and for creating a bottleneck for the lawyers in dealing with the client, according to several people familiar with the events.Last month, Mr. Parlatore wrote a letter to Congress asking lawmakers for help in taking the documents investigation away from prosecutors and giving it to the intelligence community — a move that, among other things, would have removed the threat of a criminal indictment against Mr. Trump.The letter also seemed to preview some of Mr. Trump’s potential defenses in the documents case, noting that during his chaotic departure from the White House, aides “quickly packed everything into boxes and shipped them to Florida.” This hasty process, Mr. Parlatore argued, suggested that “White House institutional processes,” not “intentional decisions by President Trump,” were responsible for sensitive material being hauled away.Last week, Mr. Trump appeared to undercut those assertions on live television, declaring at a CNN town hall event that he knowingly removed government records from the White House and claiming that he was allowed to take anything he wanted with him as his personal property.“I took the documents,” he said at the event. “I’m allowed to.” More

Donna Deegan is only the second Democrat to be elected mayor of Florida’s biggest city in the past three decades.MIAMI — Donna Deegan, a Democrat, was elected mayor of Jacksonville on Tuesday, shaking up the politics of Florida’s largest city, where Republican mayors have been in power for all but four of the last 30 years.Ms. Deegan, a former television news anchor, defeated Daniel Davis, a Republican endorsed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who had been seen as the likely favorite in the traditionally Republican stronghold. In recent years, Jacksonville had been the most populous city in the country with a Republican mayor, Lenny Curry, who is term-limited; that distinction now goes to Fort Worth, Texas.Ms. Deegan’s victory is a rare bright spot for Florida Democrats, whose losses have mounted in recent elections to the point that the party has little sway in the State Capitol and a thin candidate bench.But while Florida has become decidedly more Republican — and while many have viewed Mr. DeSantis, a likely 2024 presidential contender, as all-powerful in state politics — Jacksonville has emerged as a swingy corner of the state. A majority of voters in Duval County, which shares a consolidated government with the city of Jacksonville, voted for the Democratic nominee for governor in 2018, for the Republican mayor in 2019, for President Biden in 2020, for Mr. DeSantis last year, and now for Ms. Deegan, who will be the city’s first female mayor.“We made history tonight,” Ms. Deegan told cheering supporters Tuesday night after Mr. Davis conceded.Mr. Davis, the chief executive of the local chamber of commerce, out-raised Ms. Deegan by a margin of four to one and seemed like the sort of business-friendly Republican that has long dominated elections in Jacksonville.Corey Perrine/The Florida Times-Union, via Associated PressMs. Deegan campaigned as a change candidate, leaning into the relationships she had made in the community as she overcame breast cancer three times while working on television and as she later created the Donna Foundation, a nonprofit organization that helps people diagnosed with breast cancer.“I made a decision when we got into this race that, no matter what happened, no matter what the landscape was like, we were going to lead with love over fear,” Ms. Deegan said Tuesday night. “We would not go with division. We would go with unity.”Mr. Davis, the chief executive of the local chamber of commerce, out-raised Ms. Deegan by a margin of four to one and seemed like the sort of business-friendly Republican that has long dominated elections in Jacksonville, a Navy and shipping town. Mr. Curry, the outgoing mayor, was previously the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida.Mr. Davis was known as more of a moderate when he was a state lawmaker, and as the leader of JAX Chamber he supported positions such as protections for the L.G.B.T.Q. community. But as a mayoral candidate, he campaigned from the political right, promising to promote causes espoused by the conservative group Moms for Liberty, which is closely aligned with Mr. DeSantis. He also pledged to be tough on crime in a city that has struggled with stubbornly high crime rates for years, including under Republican leadership.In advertisements, Mr. Davis and other Republicans cast Ms. Deegan as “radical” for backing demonstrators after the murder of George Floyd in 2020 — though Mr. Curry and other local Republicans also supported the protests at the time.On Tuesday night, Mr. Davis said he would be willing to help Ms. Deegan for the good of the city. “I’m going to do everything I can to make sure Mayor-elect Deegan is successful in making Jacksonville the best Jacksonville it can be,” he said. The city has a strong-mayor form of government, giving the mayor broad administrative powers.Mr. DeSantis, who won Duval County by an 11 percentage-point margin in November, did not endorse Mr. Davis until late March — after Mr. Davis had already been forced into Tuesday’s runoff against Ms. Deegan.Beyond his lukewarm endorsement, which took place via Twitter on a Friday afternoon, Mr. DeSantis offered Mr. Davis little support. The governor did not visit Jacksonville to campaign, unlike one of Florida’s other top Republicans, Senator Rick Scott, who spent last weekend knocking on voters’ doors.In 2020, Ms. Deegan lost a congressional race by 22 percentage points. On Wednesday morning, unofficial results showed she had won about 52 percent of the vote, compared with Mr. Davis’s 48 percent, a difference of about 9,000 votes. Turnout was about 33 percent.Though 39 percent of Duval County voters are registered Democrats, compared with 35 percent registered Republicans and 24 percent registered without party affiliation, Republican voters outnumbered Democratic ones by about 3.5 percentage points on Tuesday — meaning that Ms. Deegan won independents and crossover Republican votes.Five other Jacksonville Democrats were elected on Tuesday, one as property appraiser and four to the City Council.Ashley Walker, a political consultant for Ms. Deegan, said that campaigning on local issues and with a candidate who connected well with voters were key to flipping Jacksonville from red to blue.“Democrats in Florida have to eat the elephant piece by piece,” she said. “We have to go win in these local areas that are purple and get down to the base of some local campaigns to have any chance of coming back statewide.”Nicholas Nehamas More

A dysfunctional investigation led by a Trump-era special counsel illustrates a dilemma about prosecutorial independence and accountability in politically sensitive matters.The limping conclusion to John H. Durham’s four-year investigation of the Russia inquiry underscores a recurring dilemma in American government: how to shield sensitive law enforcement investigations from politics without creating prosecutors who can run amok, never to be held to account.At a time when special counsels are proliferating — there have been four since 2017, two of whom are still at work — the much-hyped investigation by Mr. Durham, a special counsel, into the Russia inquiry ended with a whimper that stood in contrast to the countless hours of political furor that spun off from it.Mr. Durham delivered a report that scolded the F.B.I. but failed to live up to the expectations of supporters of Donald J. Trump that he would uncover a politically motivated “deep state” conspiracy. He charged no high-level F.B.I. or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either.Predictably, the report’s actual content — it contained no major new revelations, and it accused the F.B.I. of “confirmation bias” rather than making a more explosive conclusion of political bias — made scant difference in parts of the political arena. Mr. Trump and many of his loyalists issued statements treating it as vindication of their claims that the Russia inquiry involved far more extravagant wrongdoing.“The Durham Report spells out in great detail the Democrat Hoax that was perpetrated upon me and the American people,” Mr. Trump insisted on social media. “This is 2020 Presidential Election Fraud, just like ‘stuffing’ the ballot boxes, only more so. This totally illegal act had a huge impact on the Election.”Mr. Trump’s comparison was unintentionally striking. Just as his and his supporters’ wild and invented claims of election fraud floundered in court (Fox News also agreed to pay a $787.5 million settlement for amplifying lies about Dominion Voting Systems), the political noise surrounding Mr. Durham’s efforts ultimately ran up against reality.In that sense, it was less that Mr. Durham failed to deliver and more that Attorney General William P. Barr set him up to fail the moment he assigned Mr. Durham to find evidence proving Mr. Trump’s claims about the Russia investigation.There were real-world flaws with the Russia investigation, especially how the F.B.I. botched applications to wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser. But the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found those problems, leaving Mr. Durham with depleted hunting grounds.Indeed, credit for Mr. Durham’s only courtroom success, a guilty plea by an F.B.I. lawyer who doctored an email during preparations for a wiretap renewal, belongs to Mr. Horowitz, who uncovered the misconduct.At the same time, Mr. Horowitz kneecapped Mr. Durham’s investigation by finding no evidence that F.B.I. actions were politically motivated. He also concluded that the basis of the Russia inquiry — an Australian diplomat’s tip related to the release of Democratic emails hacked by Russia — was sufficient to open a full investigation.Before Mr. Horowitz released his December 2019 report, Mr. Durham lobbied him to drop that finding, arguing the F.B.I. should have instead opened a preliminary inquiry. When Mr. Horowitz declined, Mr. Durham issued an extraordinary statement saying he disagreed based on “evidence collected to date” in his inquiry.But even as Mr. Durham’s report questioned whether the F.B.I. should have opened it as a lower-level investigation, he stopped short of stating that opening a full one violated any rule.Mr. Durham also used court filings in those cases to insinuate that the Clinton campaign framed former President Donald J. Trump for collusion.Sophie Park for The New York TimesA remaining rationale for the Durham investigation was that Mr. Horowitz lacked jurisdiction to scrutinize spy agencies. But by the spring of 2020, according to officials familiar with the inquiry, Mr. Durham’s effort to find intelligence abuses in the origins of the Russia investigation had come up empty.Instead of wrapping up, Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham shifted to a different rationale, hunting for a basis to blame the Clinton campaign for suspicions surrounding myriad links Trump campaign associates had to Russia.By keeping the investigation going, Mr. Barr initially appeased Mr. Trump, who, as Mr. Barr recounted in his memoir, was angry about the lack of charges as the 2020 election neared.But Mr. Barr’s public statements about Mr. Durham’s investigation also helped foster perceptions that he had found something big. In April 2020, for example, he suggested in a Fox News interview that officials could be prosecuted and said: “The evidence shows that we are not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness. There is something far more troubling here.”Mr. Trump and some of his allies in the news media went further, stoking expectations among his supporters that Mr. Durham would imprison high-level officials. Those include the former directors of the F.B.I. and C.I.A., James B. Comey and John O. Brennan, and Democratic leaders like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joseph R. Biden Jr.In fact, Mr. Durham only ever developed charges against two outsiders involved in efforts to scrutinize links between Mr. Trump and Russia, accusing them both of making false statements to the F.B.I. and treating the bureau as a victim, not a perpetrator.While in office, Mr. Barr worked closely with Mr. Durham, regularly meeting with him, sharing Scotch and accompanying him to Europe. When it became clear that Mr. Durham had found no one to charge before the election, Mr. Barr pushed him to draft a potential interim report, prompting Mr. Durham’s No. 2, Nora R. Dannehy, to resign in protest over ethics, The New York Times has reported.Against that backdrop, the first phase of Mr. Durham’s investigation — when he was a U.S. attorney appointed by Mr. Trump, not a special counsel — illustrates why there is a recurring public policy interest in shielding prosecutors pursuing politically sensitive matters from political appointees.But the second phase — after Mr. Barr made him a special counsel, entrenching him to remain under the Biden administration with some independence from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland — illustrates how prosecutorial independence itself risks a different kind of dysfunction.The regulations empowered Mr. Garland to block Mr. Durham from an action, but only if it was “so inappropriate or unwarranted under established departmental practices that it should not be pursued” and required him to tell Congress. Mr. Garland gave Mr. Durham free rein, avoiding Republican accusations of a cover-up.Mr. Durham continued for another two and a half years, spending millions of dollars to bring the two demonstrably weak cases involving accusations of false statements; in each instance, a jury of 12 unanimously rejected the charges. One of Mr. Durham’s handpicked prosecutors resigned from his team in protest of the first of those indictments, The Times has reported.But Mr. Durham’s use of his law enforcement powers did achieve something else. He used court filings to insinuate a theory he never found evidence to charge: that the Clinton campaign conspired to frame Mr. Trump for collusion. Those filings provided endless fodder for conservative news media.Even after Mr. Durham’s cases collapsed, some Trump supporters held out hope that his final report would deliver a bombshell. But it largely consisted of recycled material, interlaced with conclusions like Mr. Durham’s accusation that the F.B.I. had displayed a “lack of analytical rigor.”Attorney General William P. Barr bestowed Mr. Durham with special counsel status.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Durham’s own analytical rigor was subject to scrutiny. At one point he wrote that he had found “no evidence” that the F.B.I. ever considered whether Clinton campaign efforts to tie Mr. Trump to Russia might affect its investigation.Yet the same page cited messages by a top F.B.I. official, Peter Strzok, cautioning colleagues about the Steele dossier, a compendium of claims about the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia that, it later became clear, were Clinton campaign-funded opposition research. He wrote that it “should be viewed as intended to influence as well as to inform” and whoever commissioned it was “presumed to be connected to the campaign in some way.”As Mr. Horowitz uncovered and criticized, the F.B.I. later cited the Steele dossier in wiretap applications, despite learning a reason to doubt its credibility. But Trump supporters often go further, falsely claiming that the F.B.I. opened the entire Russia investigation based on the dossier.Mr. Durham’s report appeared to nod to that false claim, saying that “information received from politically affiliated persons and entities” in part had “triggered” the inquiry. Yet elsewhere, his report acknowledged that the officials who opened the investigation in July 2016 had not yet seen the dossier, and it was prompted by the Australian diplomat’s tip. He also conceded that there was “no question the F.B.I. had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” that lead.Tom Fitton, a Trump ally and the leader of the conservative group Judicial Watch, expressed disappointment in the Durham investigation in a statement this week, while insisting that there had been a “conspiracy by Obama, Biden, Clinton and their Deep State allies.”“Durham let down the American people with few and failed prosecutions,” Mr. Fitton declared. “Never in American history has so much government corruption faced so little accountability.”But Aitan Goelman, a lawyer for Mr. Strzok, said that while the special counsel accused the F.B.I. of “confirmation bias,” it was Mr. Durham who spent four years trying to find support for a preformed belief about the Russia investigation.“In fact, it is Mr. Durham’s investigation that was politically motivated, a direct consequence of former President Trump’s weaponization of the Department of Justice, an effort that unanimous juries in each of Mr. Durham’s trials soundly rejected,” he said.Adam Goldman More

Rob Szypko, Rachelle Bonja, Michael Simon Johnson and Lisa Chow and Diane Wong and For two decades, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has loomed large over Turkish politics. But skyrocketing inflation and a devastating earthquake have eroded his power and, in a presidential election over the weekend, he was forced into a runoff.Ben Hubbard, The Times’s Istanbul bureau chief, discusses how Turkey’s troubles have made Mr. Erdogan politically vulnerable.On today’s episodeBen Hubbard, the Istanbul bureau chief for The New York Times.A crowd with a banner of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, the Turkish capital, on Monday. Mr. Erdogan still leads his closest challenger by a comfortable margin heading into the runoff.Necati Savas/EPA, via ShutterstockBackground readingDespite the headwinds, Mr. Erdogan appears to be in a strong position to emerge with another five-year term. Here’s what to know.The election suggested that even if Mr. Erdogan’s grip on power has been loosened, it has not yet broken.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Ben Hubbard More

The Kuomintang nominated Hou Yu-ih, a popular mayor who has said little about geopolitical issues, as the party tries to appeal to voters wary of Beijing.Once a dominant political force, Taiwan’s main opposition party lost the last two presidential elections in large part because it has promoted closer ties with China. Now, faced with voters who have been alarmed by Beijing’s aggression toward the island, the Kuomintang is placing its hopes on a new type of candidate: a popular local leader with a blank slate on the thorny question of China.The Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, on Wednesday nominated as its presidential candidate Hou Yu-ih, a 66-year-old, two-term mayor of New Taipei City and former police chief who has tried to strike a middle ground within the Kuomintang on the island’s relations with China. Mr. Hou launched his bid with a rallying call.“We must unite for victory, especially at this stage when our country is facing fierce and dangerous international circumstances,” Mr. Hou said following the announcement of his nomination. His candidacy sets the stage for a tight race next January that could chart a new course for Taiwan in the big-power standoff between China and the United States and reshape tensions around the Taiwan Strait, one of the world’s most dangerous flash points. Under the seven-year leadership of President Tsai Ing-wen of the governing Democratic Progressive Party, Taiwan has come under intensifying military and diplomatic pressure from China and pushed back by bolstering ties with the United States.Within the Kuomintang, Mr. Hou is regarded as a capable administrator with broad appeal, who “would generate the least internal party controversy, align with the general expectations of society and have the highest likelihood of winning in the presidential election,” said Huang Kwei-Bo, a professor of international relations at the National Chengchi University and a former deputy secretary-general of the Nationalist Party.Terry Gou, the founder of the iPhone and electronics manufacturer Foxconn. He was a contender to be Taiwan’s next president, but his lack of political experience lost him the Kuomintang’s nomination.Ann Wang/ReutersMr. Hou’s nomination pits him against Lai Ching-te, the governing party candidate and current vice president. A win for Mr. Lai would likely mean a continuation of China’s policies to freeze out Taiwan from any high-level engagement, as well as Taiwan’s continued closeness with the United States. A victory for Mr. Hou and the Kuomintang could reopen communication channels with China and tamp down military tensions, potentially reducing the pressure on Taiwan to strengthen ties with Washington.Mr. Hou faced tough competition from Terry Gou, the founder of the iPhone and electronics manufacturer Foxconn, who failed despite holding rallies around the island to make his case for nomination. Analysts said Mr. Gou’s lack of experience in politics and his business interests in China made him an unviable candidate for the Kuomintang.The Kuomintang in recent years has struggled to balance its China-friendly leanings with the Taiwan population’s souring sentiment toward Beijing. That juggling act has been complicated by Beijing’s crackdown on Hong Kong in 2019 and its ramped-up military drills around Taiwan. The governing D.P.P. has positioned itself as a defender of Taiwan’s sovereignty and democracy, and pointed to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an example of the urgent threat of authoritarian expansionism.But the Kuomintang scored big last year, prevailing in almost two-thirds of local mayoral elections contested, races in which geopolitics matter less than bread-and-butter issues. Mr. Hou handily won his re-election as mayor and has since topped multiple polls within the party for the candidacy.The chairman of the Kuomintang, Eric Chu, second from left, followed by Mr. Hou in the center, and Wayne Chiang, a Taipei mayoral candidate, at an election rally last year.Ann Wang/ReutersUnlike most politicians in Taiwan, Mr. Hou began his career as a police officer, in the 1980s. He rose through the ranks and was a key investigator into the 2004 assassination attempt against President Chen Shui-bian. In 2006, Mr. Chen’s administration promoted Mr. Hou to the position of chief of the island’s police force, the youngest officer ever to serve in the role.In his turn to politics in 2010, he joined hands with Eric Chu, who was then the mayor of New Taipei City. Mr. Hou served as the deputy mayor under Mr. Chu and succeeded Mr. Chu as mayor in 2018. Mr. Chu is now the chairman of the Kuomintang.Supporters of Mr. Hou in New Taipei City say that he takes real actions to improve the lives of residents. Jax Chen, a 28-year-old nonprofit worker, referred to Mr. Hou’s effort to transform a giant, decades-old garbage dump into green park space as one example.“In Taiwan’s political scene, it seems like everyone is just talking too much,” he said. “But if there is a person who is pragmatic with capabilities to enforce policies, I believe it would be great and everyone would be willing to accept the person.”Mr. Hou, right, in 2004, when he was the commissioner of the Criminal Investigation Bureau and a key investigator of the assassination attempt against President Chen Shui-bian.Saeed Khan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesLess well established are Mr. Hou’s views on major geopolitical questions such as how Taiwan should navigate its relationships with China and the United States. China claims Taiwan as its territory, to be absorbed with force if necessary, and accuses the D.P.P. of seeking formal independence. The Kuomintang has asserted that it is the party with the best chance of engaging China and avoiding war.In an apparent effort to thread the needle, Mr. Hou has said he both opposes Taiwan independence and the “one country, two systems” formulation proposed by China to absorb Taiwan. The position eschews two extremes but leaves open a huge number of possible viewpoints on the existential issue of cross-strait relations.The lack of clarity about his stance on China has already been criticized by some observers, a potential disadvantage for him on top of his lack of experience in foreign affairs, said Paul Chao-hsiang Chu, a politics professor at National Taiwan Normal University who studies party politics and voters’ behavior.At the same time, Mr. Hou’s reticence could make him more appealing to centrist voters, said Liao Da-chi, an emeritus professor of political science at the National Sun Yat-Sen University. That is in contrast to Han Kuo-yu, the Kuomintang’s presidential candidate in 2020, who made rousing speeches and pledged to restore closer relations with China but lost in a landslide to President Tsai.Despite vowing to improve relations with China, the Kuomintang’s 2020 presidential candidate, Han Kuo-yu, center, lost to President Tsai Ing-wen.Ritchie B Tongo/EPA, via ShutterstockOverall, Mr. Hou has had very few interactions with the United States, said Bonnie Glaser, a Taiwan expert and managing director of the Indo-Pacific program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Mr. Hou has said that he has met with officials at the American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto embassy for the United States, at least eight times. But American congressional delegations to Taiwan since its reopening have not been able to meet with him.As Beijing stokes tensions in the Taiwan Strait, the Kuomintang’s contact with China has sometimes put it in an awkward position.Earlier this year, just as President Tsai traveled to the United States, Ma Ying-jeou, a former president of Taiwan and an influential leader in the Kuomintang, headed for China on an unofficial trip. Mr. Ma was criticized in Taiwan for appearing to kowtow to China on an inappropriately timed visit. (In retaliation for Ms. Tsai’s visit to the United States, China sent record numbers of military aircraft, as well as naval ships and an aircraft carrier, near Taiwan to conduct military drills.)“To win the election, it is imperative for the Kuomintang to persuade the people that voting for them is the safer and more promising choice in achieving peace,” Dr. Chu said. “At the same time, how it would convince the Taiwanese people they will not betray Taiwan or allow China to completely swallow up Taiwan’s sovereignty presents a significant challenge for Kuomintang.”A Chinese naval vessel near Dongju Island, Taiwan, in April.Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times More

South Africa’s largest city is now on its sixth different mayor in 22 months. While politicians argue over power, residents struggle with dry taps, heaps of garbage and dilapidated buildings.NOW HIRING: A mayor of Johannesburg.DUTIES: Managing fickle governing partners. Dodging insults from opposition parties. And cleaning up piles of garbage.LENGTH OF TERM: Likely very short.This was once a city of dreamers, a gold town that seduced prospectors from all over hoping to strike it rich. Lately, though, Johannesburg has been something of a political punchline, a metropolis where many residents’ spirits are as dark as the streetlights.This month, after days of brinkmanship and arm twisting, the city inaugurated its sixth different mayor in 22 months: Kabelo Gwamanda, a first-term city councilor from a political party that got just 1 percent of the vote in the last municipal election.His ascent came after he won the majority of the votes of the city’s 270 elected council members. And it capped the latest chapter in a political soap opera where mayoral terms are measured in weeks and months, and where the inability of council members to stick with a leader has resulted in a municipal mess, with Johannesburg residents the biggest losers.While political leaders bicker over power and cliques, exasperated residents often struggle through days without electricity and water, dodge cratered roads and fret about dilapidated buildings.Kabelo Gwamanda, center, celebrating after being elected mayor of Johannesburg, on May 5.Joao Silva/The New York TimesFrom a leather sectional in the safety of her $300-a-month, two-bedroom unit in the Elangeni Gardens residential complex, Pretty Mhlophe counts her blessings but also cringes at what city leaders have let fester.Elangeni Gardens, developed in a public-private partnership in 2002 to address the city’s affordable housing shortage, boasts a patch of blue-and-green artificial turf, a jungle gym and a basketball court where children play freely. But the drab, boxy building across the street, once an apartheid government checkpoint for Black workers, is dripping with trash. It is so overcrowded with squatters that some have erected tin shacks in the back lot.“Inside the complex it’s a home, outside the complex it’s scary,” Ms. Mhlophe, 42, said.Many South Africans fear that what is unfolding in Johannesburg, official population of 5.6 million, could be a bad sign of what’s to come after national elections next year.Uncollected trash in Johannesburg. While the city’s political leaders bicker over power and cliques, exasperated residents often struggle through days without electricity and water, dodge cratered roads and fret about dilapidated buildings. Joao Silva/The New York TimesWhen no party earns more than half of the vote in an election in South Africa, parties seek to get above that 50 percent threshold by forming coalitions, which allow them to control the council and choose a mayor. In Johannesburg over the past two years, parties in ruling coalitions have on multiple occasions fallen out with each other, leading to the creation of new alliances that install a new mayor.“This is childish,” Junior Manyama, a disgruntled member of the city’s — and country’s — largest political party, the African National Congress, said as he smoked a cigarette in his car outside of City Hall earlier this month, waiting for council members to elect a new mayor.Mr. Manyama, 31, was furious that his party, with 91 seats on the council, agreed to a power-sharing arrangement that allowed someone from a party that holds just three seats to lead South Africa’s largest city.“We can’t trust these people anymore,” he said, referring to political leaders.For about two decades after the first democratic elections in 1994, South Africans did not have to worry about these on-again, off-again political romances because the A.N.C. dominated at the ballot box, nationally and locally. But the party has recently lost hold of many major municipalities.The interior of a building in Johannesburg that has been taken over by squatters.Joao Silva/The New York TimesSome analysts think it may slip below 50 percent in a national election for the first time next year, meaning the country’s president and other top leaders will have to be selected through one of these shaky coalition arrangements.“It’s the worst case scenario playing out right now,” Michael Beaumont, the national chairman of ActionSA, the third largest party in Johannesburg, said outside the council chamber before the most recent mayoral vote. “I think the A.N.C. is going to actively campaign on the ticket of saying, ‘Better the devil you know than this kind of coalition mess.’”Since its birth as a muddy mining camp that turned into a booming gold town, Johannesburg has struggled to serve all its residents. Home to one in 10 South Africans, the city is still battling to overcome apartheid’s impact, which led to urban flight and created vastly disparate worlds crammed into 635 sprawling square miles.The highway connecting the northern suburbs to the southern townships winds past upscale malls and leafy communities where Spanish tiled roofs poke above high security walls. It passes over abandoned mine dumps yellow with gold dust, then past factories with darkened windows, before arriving in Soweto, where closely packed homes range from neglected workers’ hostels to sturdy bungalows with ornate pillars guarding the entrances.Playing football at the Elangeni Gardens apartment complex in Johannesburg.Joao Silva/The New York TimesNearly half the city’s population lives beneath the poverty line. And the last time Johannesburg saw a major infrastructure boom was before the 2010 FIFA World Cup, with new bus lanes and paved sidewalks. By now, even those have deteriorated.“A world-class African city,” reads the tagline on the municipal logo, and indeed Joburg — as it’s commonly called — can inspire with its energy.Live music and festivals are aplenty. Fine-dining restaurants and roadside vendors serve up cuisines from around the globe. Theater and art exhibits can be part of the daily itinerary.Not far from the Elangeni Gardens, trendy, gentrified markets speak to a vibrant city that many young people find attractive.But those amenities can be of little consolation for Ms. Mhlophe and her neighbors, who have repeatedly called the police to report the thieves who have targeted their visitors and their cars, and the drug dealers loitering on the corner. Once, a woman was thrown from a fourth-floor window.Pretty Mhlope, right, in her home at Elangeni Gardens.Joao Silva/The New York TimesThey have asked city housing officials to clean up the neighboring building, where trash sags on the second-floor eaves, and where on a recent afternoon a street vendor balancing a crate of oranges on her head had to skirt around a three-foot-tall trash heap to get into the building.“We as the government have to provide services that are at least worth paying for,” Mr. Gwamanda, 38, said during his inauguration speech, bowed over a podium speaking softly.He exchanged smiles and hugs and posed for pictures with fellow council members, including Dada Morero, who served 26 days as mayor last year.“Let us collaborate in bringing back the heartbeat of the city of Johannesburg,” Mr. Gwamanda said.He didn’t say how long that would take or whether he would be the mayor when it happens.An abandoned public bathhouse.Joao Silva/The New York Times More

If she wins the general election in November, she will be the first woman to lead the city.After a crowded primary, Cherelle Parker, a former state representative and City Council member who campaigned on hiring more police, won the Democratic nomination for Philadelphia mayor on Tuesday night, emerging decisively from a field of contenders who had vied to be seen as the rescuer of a struggling and disheartened city.If she wins in November, which is all but assured in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than seven to one, Ms. Parker will become the city’s 100th mayor, and the first woman to hold the job.Of the five mayoral hopefuls who led the polls in the final stretch, Ms. Parker, 50, was the only Black candidate, in a city that is over 40 percent Black. She drew support from prominent Democratic politicians and trade unions, and throughout the majority Black neighborhoods of north and west Philadelphia. Some compared her to Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, noting her willingness to buck the party’s progressives with pledges to hire hundreds of police officers and bring back what she has called constitutional stop-and-frisk.But she said that many of her proposed solutions had roots in Philadelphia’s “middle neighborhoods” — working and middle-class areas that have been struggling in recent years to hold off decline.“They know it’s not Cherelle engaging in what I call ‘I know what’s best for you people’ policymaking, but it’s come from the ground up,” Ms. Parker said on Tuesday morning at a polling place in her home base of northwest Philadelphia.Solutions should come from the community, she said, “not people thinking they’re coming in to save poor people, people who never walked in their shoes or lived in a neighborhood with high rates of violence and poverty. I’ve lived that.”Ms. Parker did not attend her own victory party on Tuesday. Her campaign told the Philadelphia Inquirer that she had emergency dental surgery last week, and issued a statement saying that she had required immediate medical attention at the University of Pennsylvania on Tuesday evening for a “recent dental issue.” Her Republican opponent in the November general election is David Oh, a former City Council member.If Ms. Parker wins in November, she would be taking the reins of a city facing a host of problems, chief among them a surge in gun violence that has left hundreds dead year after year. Philadelphians routinely described crime as the city’s No. 1 problem, but the list of issues runs long, including crumbling school facilities, blighted housing stock, an opioid epidemic and a municipal staffing shortage.The punishing list of challenges had exhausted the current mayor, Jim Kenney, a Democrat whose second term was consumed with Covid-19, citywide protests and a soaring murder rate, and who spoke openly of his eagerness to be done with the job.The primary to replace Mr. Kenney was congested from the start and remained so into its final days. Up to the last polls, no front-runner had emerged and five of the candidates seemed to have a roughly equal shot at winning, each representing different constituencies and different parts of town.The candidates at the finish line included Rebecca Rhynhart, a former city controller with a technocratic pitch who was endorsed by multiple past mayors; Helen Gym, a former councilwoman endorsed by Bernie Sanders and a range of other high-profile progressives; Alan Domb, who made millions in real estate and served two terms on the City Council; and Jeff Brown, a grocery store magnate and a newcomer to electoral politics.The early days of the race were dominated by TV ads supporting Mr. Brown and Mr. Domb, but other campaigns soon joined the fray and in the final weeks the ad war grew increasingly combative. SuperPACs spent millions on behalf of various candidates and eventually became an issue themselves, when the Philadelphia Board of Ethics accused Mr. Brown, who led in early polls of the race, of illegally coordinating with a SuperPAC.But for all the money and the negative campaigning, no candidate seemed to rise above the crowded field for Philadelphians who were busy with their daily lives.“People have option fatigue,” said State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta, a Democrat, who on Tuesday was chatting with candidates and local politicos as they packed into a traditional Election Day lunch at South restaurant and jazz club.In the last polls before the election, large numbers of voters remained undecided, but many of them seemed to break in the end for Ms. Parker, whose win was more substantial than many were expecting.The victory of a moderate like Ms. Parker in Philadelphia stood in contrast to some races elsewhere around the state. In Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh lies, progressives racked up one primary win after another on Tuesday, with candidates from the left flank of the Democratic Party winning the nominations for a range of top offices, including county executive and district attorney.Democrats also held onto their slim control of the Pennsylvania House on Tuesday, as Heather Boyd won a special election in southeast Delaware County. Top Democrats, including President Biden and Gov. Josh Shapiro, had made a push in the race, framing it as crucial to protecting reproductive rights in Pennsylvania.In a separate special election, Republicans held a safe state House seat in north-central Pennsylvania when Michael Stender, a school board member and a firefighter, won his race.Neil Vigdor More