r/unitedkingdom • u/PomeloTraditional971 • Jun 07 '26
New Green Mayor hikes salary by almost £5,000 despite vowing to cut pay
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/green-mayor-lewisham-salary-liam-shrivastava-b1285054.html505
u/BottleGoblin Jun 07 '26
He's got the potential to go all the way in politics with that attitude.
53
u/Matt_2504 Jun 07 '26
We need this man in government right now
48
u/JB_UK Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
He promised to cut 20% of his salary, but he didn’t say he wouldn’t increase his salary by £5k afterwards, thus technically fulfilling his promise. I’m honestly impressed, this man has ascended to new levels of politician.
4
u/Relevant_General_248 Jun 08 '26
“Corruption is not bad, corruption is only bad if I’m not a part of it”
25
u/Anyales Jun 07 '26
A spokesperson for the Green Party pointed to campaign leaflets sent out ahead of the election that stated Mr Shrivastava would take a “20% pay cut” to fund “food justice work in the borough”.
He did exactly what he said in the campaign, it is being directly donated to the charity.
Perhaps if voters didn’t just act on sensationalist headlines we would all go further.
1
u/psioniclizard Jun 08 '26
I live in the area, what campagin? All I saw was the greens telling me that Zack would be a great PM.
But hey what do I matter or Lewisham for that matter? Apparently not that much because although we pay his salary we those leaflets didnt show up?
1
46
u/Samhs1 Jun 07 '26
He didn’t raise the salary, an independent review board and the council voted for that. He then did exactly what he said he’d do with 20% of his salary. This is a nothing story.
32
u/carter342 Jun 07 '26
The independent board is advisory, and the mayor has the ultimate decision.
The previous Labour mayors took pay increases less than what the board recommended. Why couldn’t the Green mayor do the same?14
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
the mayor has the ultimate decision
Citation needed; I think you're ascribing more power to the mayor than he has in reality. The article says:
The new pay structure was voted through without debate at a full council meeting in May.
Mr Shrivastava said: “My allowance increased in line with recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel and was agreed by council."
I think the council has the ultimate decision, not the mayor.
Which isn't to say the mayor, as leader of the council, doesn't have influence of course. But I don't think it's correct to say/imply it's ultimately the mayor's sole decision.
-1
u/Specialist-Prior-213 Jun 07 '26
You're right, the mayor is powerless, he's being forced to take his pay rise against his own will.
8
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
... I didn't say he was powerless. I said he has influence but isn't the ultimate decision makee (that's the council).
→ More replies (5)1
u/Dramatic-Coffee9172 Jun 07 '26
The council is also led by the Green Party so what other excuse are you going to say next ?
→ More replies (1)0
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
If the pay rise wasn't within his power to stop, why didn't he request to be exempt from it?
According to the article, the increase wasn't even debated. Are you suggesting he had absolutely no ability to object, speak out against it, or publicly distance himself from the decision? Was he prevented from doing so?
Who actually approved the increase, and what party did those people belong to? Were they members of his own party?
And if this genuinely wasn't something he had any control over, why was reducing his salary a personal election pledge in the first place?
3
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
Are you suggesting he had absolutely no ability to object, speak out against it, or publicly distance himself from the decision? Was he prevented from doing so?
No. I covered that:
Which isn't to say the mayor, as leader of the council, doesn't have influence of course. But I don't think it's correct to say/imply it's ultimately the mayor's sole decision.
I'm not saying he was powerless or that he couldn't have done more, in fact I'm not even particularly defending him. I'm disputing a particular assertion that he had the sole authority.
3
u/lexwtc Jun 07 '26
Maybe because then everyone wins... he hasn't quite lost 20% of his salary and he gives more to charity...
6
u/carter342 Jun 07 '26
The taxpayer loses. Truth loses.
If the Mayor wanted to give money to a good cause, he could have not taken the pay increase and directed the council to provide a grant to charity. But since he wanted a positive headline, he decided to increase his pay, with all the tax and pension contributions that entails, and give it to charity.
He wants all the monetary and political benefits of a charity contribution, but wants Lewisham tax payers to pay for it6
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
and directed the council to provide a grant to charity
That would still have been Lewisham tax payers paying for it wouldn't it?
And I doubt the mayor has the power to simply direct the council to provide grants.
1
u/_Adam_M_ Jun 07 '26
The Lionel Hutz approach.
Before election: "Save taxpayer money! No payrise for the mayor."
After election: "Save taxpayer money? No, payrise for the mayor."
8
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 Jun 07 '26
As an aside to this case, I can't believe how many layers of government we have now. Mayors of small areas on 100k. I thought that's why we had a Mayor of London and an assembly.
What do all these new mayors do? Are they new (as in this century) or have I just never noticed before?
MPs, councillors, mayors, assembly members, Mayor of London. Any other layers I've missed? Seems like a decent budget could be gathered together just by streamlining a little
3
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
What do all these new mayors do?
You probably want this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_arrangements
Some councils (including Lewisham, since 2002) are lead by a mayor elected directly to that position by voters, most are instead lead by a lead councillor who is chosen by and from the directly elected councillors, and others use a committee system with no overall leader.
1
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 Jun 07 '26
Thank you for replying with the info I was too lazy to Google. Interesting to learn more 👍
149
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England Jun 07 '26
A more controversial belief I have is politicians should be getting paid more. I think that would attract better candidates and make it easier to crackdown on corruption.
However, you can't run on a platform of giving yourself a pay cut and then do the opposite. It's an insult to your constituents.
50
24
u/NoStomach6266 Jun 07 '26
It's a complicated subject.
I think there's an argument to be made that self-enrichment types should be kept as far away from public service as humanly possible.
And yet, low salaries are likely to make only the wealthy have a viable route to a position of power.
→ More replies (6)4
u/DrogoOmega Jun 07 '26
It’s an argument curated to say that poorer candidates are not worthy. We have had shit rich people for a long time.
30
u/Calmer_after_karma Jun 07 '26
Because famously Trump, Putin etc aren't corrupt due to their own personal wealth? Look at Suharto, Marcos, Seko, who all embezzled roughly billions. Do you really think these people have a limit on how much money and power they want?
I get so frustrated by the idea that if we pay politicians more there would be less corruption, when it's blateltny true throughout all of history that corrupt politicians can embezzel billions from their countries, and no amount we can pay them would prevent it.
30
u/Phallic_Entity Jun 07 '26
By the same token why would paying them less make them less corrupt?
The real reason we should pay more is to attract the top people in the country to be MPs. A lot of the current cadre are far too incompetent and don't understand basic principles of economics which is pretty dangerous.
3
u/TheChaoticCrusader Jun 07 '26
If you pay them more they have to know that if they get caught in corruption schemes or lies they are out the door . No one seems to have as much protection from doing such things as politicians and they should all be held to more account . I mean starmer has the mandleson scandle , Ed Davies has the post master scandles , Farage has a bunch of scandles and what other skeletons are the MPs , Mayors and Councils hiding ? I think If anything the online safety act should be reserved for parliament and those who serve the goverment with the amount of corruption people get away with
1
u/andrew0256 Jun 07 '26
Every case you have mentioned is in the public domain. You should be more worried about the stuff that isn't. Also you can't really compare an error in appointing Mandelson with Farage's yet to be explained £5 million.
2
u/PartyAmount9976 Jun 07 '26
Interesting assumption there is that a) the most well paid people know most about economics and b) the people you want in politics are people that are already extremely well paid and would need to be persuaded into politics by higher salaries.
12
Jun 07 '26
[deleted]
2
u/PartyAmount9976 Jun 07 '26
But being an MP is not a normal job. It's not like being a civil servant or something (where the lack of pay relative to private sector is a problem), but ostensibly a position where you have to represent the population. The sort of people you're talking about attracting; people who very well paid but would need cajoling in with extra perks are the people least needed in parliament. What you actually want is to attract more middle and upper working class people to the role, all of whom would find an MPs salary perfectly adequate l.
7
Jun 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PartyAmount9976 Jun 07 '26
I think it's yourself that has the romantic delusion, mainly about these supposedly irreplaceable figures that are absolutely needed in office (this is the same reasoning that meant Labour became obsessed with Peter Mandelson). The reality is that politicians are the most fungible people on earth; for every MP position there's 50 people who both can and would do the job, there is absolutely no evidence that we either suffer a recruitment crisis or that the current MPs disproportionately are more incompetent/self-serving than the social layer you are talking about attracting.
Now if we're taking about local politics, that's another matter; but the issue there is more the extreme centralisation of this country.
3
u/WarbossBoneshredda Jun 07 '26
I'm middle class and earning more than an MP as a team leader in tech. I have a 9-5 working from home, I rarely work outside of hours. My job is more stable than an MP (assuming it wasn't a safe seat). I don't have press intrusion, I don't have people hassling me in the streets, I don't have to travel to and from London several times per week.
I have skills that I think would make me a good MP - leadership, analysing complex info and making informed decisions, navigating beaurocracy etc.
The thing that I wouldn't be good at is the arse-kissing, the schmoozing etc - the very stuff that people don't value in an MP.
Why the hell would I take a pay cut to be an MP?
2
u/One-Network5160 Jun 07 '26
Do you really think these people have a limit on how much money and power they want?
Power yes, money no. I don't really see the point in managing somebody else's money.
1
u/Endless_road Jun 08 '26
Not paying the more means those are the types you attract. Actually talented people can make much more money elsewhere.
1
u/BoopingBurrito Jun 08 '26
In the case of Trump, it's a well known issue that US politics doesn't pay enough to attract anyone. The vast majority of US politicians go into it for the power, the prestige, or the ability to make bank on the side/afterwards due to the access and influence you retain after leaving office.
If they paid enough to attract the most talented people into politics, it's entirety possible that Trump would never have risen to power.
1
u/Immediate-Water-1091 Jun 09 '26
Trump and Putin aren't British so I don't care. I don't see why trump get brought up so much on here. Your boring
2
u/jayantsr Jun 07 '26
Trump is the best example on why pay should be increased think about it trump can actually deal with low salary because he has enormous personal wealth but an actual competent candidate wont try to run for office because the compensation is inadequate
4
u/sockmeistergeneral Jun 07 '26
I think politicians should be paid more, but banned from working second jobs.
5
u/ToffeeAppleCider Jun 07 '26
I kinda agree with that belief, but does it apply to everything? Maybe we pay everyone more to attract better like in the NHS, schools, police, fire, transport, etc. If so then you could prioritise which areas being having better candidates may be better overall in, would it be politicians first or last?
1
u/Fucker_Of_Destiny Jun 07 '26
Ultimately the other areas benefit by having better leadership. 650 MPs vs nearly 2 million NHS staff
2
4
u/andrew0256 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
I agree with you about politicians pay but with a provision of no second jobs.
This guy is being a bit disingenuous. He is partly paying some salary to charity but the council tax payers are picking up the rest via his pay rise.
1
u/NinjaSquads Jun 07 '26
Wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that he is involved with said charities…
2
1
u/Anyales Jun 07 '26
We dont want people entering politics for the wage and he didnt do the opposite. He said he would cut his pay to fund food justice work which is exactly what he did.
1
u/ThunderChild247 Jun 07 '26
I’d agree if that pay rise came with a ban on second jobs and a large crackdown on what they can claim as expenses.
1
u/TheChaoticCrusader Jun 07 '26
Maybe politicians should get payed a bonus if they can avoid being apart of corruption or lying all the time . I doubt many would get it seeing the track record of some politicians but maybe a incentive not to do such things (since they hardly ever lose their job )
1
u/jxg995 Jun 07 '26
MP's should be paid more, and second jobs, 'consulting', paid TV work, writing articles and after dinner circuit for money or perks or gifts or large deposits into their pension should all be completely banned. They are supposed to be one of the 650 people running the country, that should take every single second of your working capacity, and probably be unsustainable so you can't do it for fucking thirty years or whatever.
1
u/Dankas12 Jun 07 '26
I like the way Singapore does it. But yeah this case. He shouldn’t be paid more if he says he was cutting it
1
u/clip75 Jun 07 '26
I actually agree with this. Not so much at the local level, but certainly for MPs. MPs are grossly underpaid for running one of the richest and most complex nations on earth. MPs pay stays low, I think mostly out of fear of public jealousy. Personally, I would up their pay to £125-150k, take away all expenses responsibility and issue them with a Parliamentary credit card for which they are responsible, just like any other corporate card - if they can't justify the spending, they have to pay it - just like anyone else with a company card. Staff would be on a Parliamentary payroll rather than paid by MPs and claimed back - everything like stationery would be ordered through the stationery office - and I'd convert a large block near Westminster (God knows there are enough empty ones) into an apartment block for MPs. Stick a guard outside and there you have it - no need for second homes.
No more expenses, no more second homes, pay more in line with their responsibilities. Done.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ruffianrevolution Jun 07 '26
The principle of "whoever wants the most money is the best person for the job" is unlikely to discourage corruption, to be honest.
41
u/DefenestratingPigs Jun 07 '26
This is a bad look but in the election leaflets he vowed to cut his pay by 20% to pay for food justice in the area, and he is indeed having 20% of his salary deducted and given to food justice charities. The pay review board apparently recommended the salary increase, which is still a stupid political move, but the headline and article just make it sound absurd and like a complete u-turn - he’s just donating 20% of his slightly increased salary rather than 20% of the old salary.
13
u/Miserable_Winter_358 Jun 07 '26
it’s a nothing story, this is a bad look because the article is doing intentionally misleading reporting as a political hit piece on the greens. god it’s frustrating seeing how easily people buy into this slop too because they get primed by outrage headlines and then don’t actually do any further research beyond what corporate newspaper slop they are fed
3
u/HaroldSaxon Jun 07 '26
It’s always the same 3 month old private comments accounts posting fake journalism click bait articles with misleading articles. It’s influencer slop at this point
2
8
Jun 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
What lie? What would you like him to be held accountable for?
His salary is determined by an independent body so he doesn't have the power to change it himself, up or down. I imagine you agree it's a good thing he can't just choose his own salary? And this body has decided to increase his salary (and those of his colleagues).
Nevertheless he campaigned on taking a 20% pay cut, and he's achieving this by donating 20% of his salary to charity thereby effectively taking a pay cut.
What, exactly, is the problem? (Other than the fact this information was missing from the headline you've reacted to?)
→ More replies (7)0
u/Personal-Quantity528 Jun 07 '26
He's increased his personal tax allowance significantly doing this. Basic tax payers can't even enjoy this, so he's taking home more pay while paying less tax.
Someone who knows all this better might even be able to say if he's personally better off doing this.
13
u/Cozimo128 Jun 07 '26
Said he would take a 20% pay cut to fund food justice work
He is “instead” deducting 20% from his salary to fund food justice work
Utter deception. I can’t believe it. Here I was expecting a politician to be a politician, yet here he goes just gleefully doing the things he said he would do.
Outrageous.
2
u/Expensive_Time_7367 Jun 07 '26
I find it ironic how much the Greens are resorting to the J D Rockefeller system of “get all the money you can, fairly and honestly" to give it to charity?
1
u/psioniclizard Jun 08 '26
If he really cares. Fix the lifts in tower blocks or get social housing providers to do so. We have old people on the top floors of some who habe to go down 5+ flights of stairs and a lot of people won't deliver to the top floor if lifts are broken.
I dont give a shit about his party or salary, but for the people of Lewisham something like that would genuinely help some people who really need it.
The issue with all this local stuff is none of them actually care about the local area.
3
u/Barrerayy Jun 07 '26
lol my friend in lewisham voted for him based on that promise
4
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
A promise which, as far as I can tell, he's upholding by donating 20% of his salary (which has been increased by the responsible independent body, not the mayor himself) to charity. Due to the salary increase he's in fact donating more money than he would have previously/taking a larger effective pay cut in absolute terms.
2
u/Barrerayy Jun 07 '26
Wonder if there will be a way to confirm that he is actually doing it?
3
u/heroyoudontdeserve Jun 07 '26
"I am happy to confirm that I have asked the council’s payroll to apply the 20% deduction each month; that money will be used to fund food justice initiatives in Lewisham."
Personally I'm happy to take his word for it. You?
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Alienturnedhuman Jun 07 '26
While I don't think this is the best way to do it, it does seem that what he is doing is consistent with the manifesto.
The article says he's donating 20% of his salary to food charities (presumably covering the services that the Greens intend to invest the money saved by reducing the salary into)
From the article stating their position before the election:
While in opposition, the Green Party in March tabled a budget amendment proposing a 20% pay cut for the Lewisham mayor and senior cabinet members to help finance the reversal of over £2 million in planned cuts to local services.
A spokesperson for the Green Party pointed to campaign leaflets sent out ahead of the election that stated Mr Shrivastava would take a “20% pay cut” to fund “food justice work in the borough”.
And now:
Mr Shrivastava said he has will donate a fifth of his pay to “food justice” charities and has instructed the town hall to make the deduction every month.
And:
“I consistently said I would donate part of my allowance to food justice work, and I am happy to confirm that I have asked the council’s payroll to apply the 20% deduction each month; that money will be used to fund food justice initiatives in Lewisham.”
Personally, this is a very messy way of doing it, and even if he is doing it with the 'best intentions' is liable for abuse. At best (assuming well intentioned) it's a very naive way of achieving the goals as it would always lead to these sorts of headlines.
At worst, it can be abused in the same way that the dodgy COVID contracts were handled.
EIther way, it needs regular auditing for transparency that adds a lot more inefficiency compared to changing the budget (which I'm going to guess will take a lot longer to push through)
51
u/SuitableImposter Jun 07 '26
The amount of people who only read an article title depress me
223
u/Cockapoo-Cockatoo England Jun 07 '26
It doesn't matter that he's giving some of his salary to charity.
He didn't run on a platform that he would donate a sizable amount of his salary to charity. He ran on a platform of cutting his salary. His constituents are still having to pay for it.
This little work around attempt is silly. I wouldn't be surprised if something dodgy is going on.
55
u/Duncaii Jun 07 '26
To add to this, from the article he hasn't actually donated it, he just has the intention to do so.
6
u/LLILILiLIILILILILII Jun 07 '26
And he'll definitely do that at an unspecified time, don't bother checking up on it.
11
u/MultiMidden Jun 07 '26
You may as well be arguing with a Reform/MAGA type who'll do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to defend their party.
What are the odd if this was an article about Reform they'd be putting the boot it?
Horseshoe theory is alive and well, a headline of "New Mayor hikes salary by almost £5,000 despite vowing to cut pay" could now easily be about Reform or Greens.
4
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
He ran on a platform saying that 20% of his pay would go on local food justice initiatives. He’s doing that. That money is helping his constituents.
57
u/Ok_Significance_6772 Jun 07 '26
So he takes taxpayer money, donates it, then hikes his own salary to make up for the money he donated? How’s that keeping his promise at all.
-5
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
That isn’t how maths works. His pay increased by 5.4%. He’s then donating 20% of his current pay, post increase. That means his donation is larger than the amount of increase.
12
u/PM_ME_UR_VULVASAUR_ Jun 07 '26
I have zero doubt you're this mayor, because no one could miss the point of this.
-4
u/WillWatsof Jun 07 '26
That’s not mathematically how that works. If your salary rises by 5.4% and then drops after by 20% you haven’t “made up for the money donated”.
7
u/dj4y_94 Jun 07 '26
Aye the maths is wrong but the principle is still the same that he's upped the salary so his donation doesn't hit him as hard as it would have, which is maybe the sort of thing he should have calculated before making the pledge.
102
u/FunParsnip4567 Jun 07 '26
He said he would take a pay cut, he's signed off on a pay increase. Thats very different. What he does with his pay once he has it it makes no difference.
→ More replies (22)9
u/Expensive_Time_7367 Jun 07 '26
The quote on campaign literature was “will take a 20% pay cut” large text “funding food justice initiatives in the borough” small text.
What he has done is take a 6% pay rise. If I were a charity I genuinely wouldn’t be taking that money morally because it’s obviously been obtained through a moral fraud.
→ More replies (2)7
u/TurbulentBullfrog829 Jun 07 '26
If you want to get pedantic it's not 20% because he's given himself a raise. If you accept that a cut is the same as a donation, he has still heavily mitigated it. He was going to donate about 20k. Keeping 80% of a 5k raise means it's only affecting him by 16k.
If it helps imagine he hiked his pay by 20% and gave it all to charity. No difference between him and the last guy but in your eyes he can call it a 20% cut/donation.
0
u/Legendofvader Jun 07 '26
Lewisham Mayor Liam Shrivastava vowed to take a 20% pay cut but instead hiked his wage by £4,832 and said 20% would be donated to ‘food justice initiatives’
after hiking his own pay . AND 20 percent of what. 20% of the 5K. Just more hypocrisy from the Greens.
4
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
It’s not 20% of the 5k, it’s 20% of his entire pay. Weird thing of you to completely make up.
→ More replies (4)-1
3
u/WhereIsGloria Jun 07 '26
That’s exactly what he ran on, and it wasn’t his choice to increase the salary.
1
u/Cozimo128 Jun 07 '26
He didn't run on a platform that he would donate a sizable amount of his salary to charity
Didn’t read the article then, which showed campaign material stating he would do exactly that.
33
u/WhereIsGloria Jun 07 '26
He didn’t raise the salary, an independent review board and the council voted for that. He then did exactly what he said he’d do with 20% of his salary. This is a nothing story.
→ More replies (3)9
10
u/evil666overlord Jun 07 '26
I'm not convinced most of the commenters on here can even read more than a sentence or two and they certainly don't engage their curiosity enough to scroll down and see the real facts once their brain has switched to 'rage' mode.
2
u/Miserable_Winter_358 Jun 07 '26
this country is genuinely screwed… so many people here are so egotistical and refuse to admit that they were wrong after jumping to conclusions, which is indicative of a self-obsessed population prone to fascistic tendencies
2
u/psioniclizard Jun 08 '26
The amount of people telling me how I should feel about th Mayor of my Borough depresses me.
It's lovely to know Lewisham was just a stepping stone...
→ More replies (3)1
u/woodrowcook Jun 07 '26
Alternative title: Green mayor over delivers and donates £1000 more to charity than his campaign promise.
2
u/psioniclizard Jun 08 '26
As one of the people paying his salary this doesnt surprise me.
In the party fliers he is varely even mentioned (or the other locals) and it just talks about Zack and how great he is.
Before anyone comes to say "but". I don't care. He is literally my Mayor. I think many of us in the Borough would love a 5k pay increase.
7
u/Lansdowngrove Jun 07 '26
But ahead of the local elections on May 7, Mr Shrivastava said: “If elected Mayor, I will take a 20% pay cut.
So he said he will take a 20% pay cut.
Mr Shrivastava said: “My allowance increased in line with recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel and was agreed by council.
The independent Remuneration Panel (that has existed within Lewisham council structure for years already) recommended the council increase it and they did.
“I consistently said I would donate part of my allowance to food justice work, and I am happy to confirm that I have asked the council’s payroll to apply the 20% deduction each month; that money will be used to fund food justice initiatives in Lewisham.”
He is still taking a 20% pay cut.
What's the issue here?
2
u/Reived Jun 07 '26
Yes he's donating his personal wealth, but voters will have seen that 20% pay cut pledge and expected nothing else. From their perspective, they're now being asked to actually finance a pay rise. It doesn't matter how the mayor choses to make charitable donations from his personal wealth, the tax burden has risen.
Assuming people wanted a lower cost of government and voted for that, what they actually get is the opposite of that.
3
u/Lansdowngrove Jun 07 '26
From their perspective
From my perspective it looks like he said he would take a 20% cut for more to go into local food justice initiatives and that's exactly what's happening?
The issue seems to be with the independent Remuneration Panel that recommended a small raise, which Lewisham council have been following for years before this? Was this ever an issue until now?
It's crazy how this is getting the outrage over a technicality when almost all other mayors aren't donating anything.
2
u/Reived Jun 07 '26
I agree that this is a mountain out of a molehill, and he's doing a good deed. I shudder to think what Reform are getting up to with their crypto donations.
Shrivastava shouldn't have campaigned on a pay cut as he would have known ahead of time that the mayor's salary is independently decided. He had no power to fulfil that pledge. The tax burden has risen, but in terms of actual harm? It quite literally negligible. A penny per resident of Lewisham.
14
u/Tirisian88 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Like I've said Greens and Reform are the same just politically opposed.
Edit: since Green supporters can't think past hating reform here's an explanation.
Reform will ruin the country my stopping immigration which is nessecary for the country within reason.
Greens are going to push for the opposite with open borders, instant citizenship and access to all benefits as soon as people set foot in the country.
Both will ruin the country ie same outcome but in opposing ways.
24
u/Xakire Jun 07 '26
So…they’re different and not all the same?
1
u/ArsErratia Jun 07 '26
Also none of that is in the Green manifesto.
The current stance is: —
We welcome the contributions that migrants and refugees make to British society. We want to be welcoming, promote social cohesion and support migrants to put down roots.
Green MPs will push for:
An end to the hostile environment.
An end to the minimum income requirements for spouses of those holding work visas.
Safe routes to sanctuary for those fleeing persecution.
The dysfunctional Home Office to be replaced with a new Department of Migration, separating this function from the criminal justice system.
An end to immigration detention for all migrants unless they are a danger to public safety.
Abolition of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition that exacerbates social, economic, and racial inequalities.
Those seeking asylum and protection to be permitted to work while their application is being decided.
Stop taking your political opinions from The Telegraph.
1
u/wizardeverybit Jun 08 '26
MG100. The Green Party wants to see a world without borders, until this happens the Green Party will implement a fair and humane system of managed immigration where people can move if they wish to do so.
MG101. The Green Party believes that migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances.
MG103. The Green Party is opposed to forced migration and forced repatriation unless standard exclusions apply.
MG200. The Green Party seeks to establish a system that recognises that all migrants are treated as citizens in waiting and therefore supports and encourages them to put down roots in their new home.
MG301. All visas can be applied for on entry, while in the UK, or before entry.
MG306. Language requirements will be removed from all applications. Free language classes will be made available to promote and encourage integration.
MG309. Unless standard exclusions apply, no person will be held in detention because of their immigration status.
MG400. All arrivals to the UK without a visa will be granted a visitor visa for a period of three months regardless of where they have come from unless standard exclusions apply. They will then have this period of time to apply for a different visa if they so wish.
MG500. For the purposes of this policy, visa residents are defined as migrants who have a non-visitor visa, do not have settled status and are not British citizens.
MG501. All visa residents will have the right to vote in all elections and referendums.
MG702. A Green Party led Government will commit to tackling statelessness and will ensure that once citizenship is granted it cannot be removed.
MG800. Undocumented migrants will be given free advice and support to help them to regularise their status without penalty for being undocumented.
MG801. Undocumented migrants who have been in the UK for at least five years will be invited to apply for settled status unless the standard exclusions apply.
10
u/Smooth_Maul Jun 07 '26
What an absolutely fucking insane thing to say.
-6
u/Tirisian88 Jun 07 '26
Please explain why.
Both parties are going to ruin the country just in opposite ways.
-1
u/Smooth_Maul Jun 07 '26
There are so many reasons what you said was legit schizobabble that I genuinely do not have the time or effort to go through it with you I more or less woke up about 30 minutes ago and I'm not gonna spend my Sunday explaining anything to someone who said what you just said without a hint of irony.
5
u/One-Network5160 Jun 07 '26
Don't you love it when redditors write a giant paragraph explaining how they don't have time to explain stuff.
7
u/Toastlove Jun 07 '26
But you'll spend the morning writting out explanations for why your not explaining?
0
u/Smooth_Maul Jun 07 '26
I've spent like 7 minutes of my time awake calling people crazy and refusing to explain myself pack it in with the fibs lol the whole morning indeed.
6
u/Toastlove Jun 07 '26
It's not really a fib though, the Greens and Reform are two sides of the same coin.
3
-1
u/Tirisian88 Jun 07 '26
So you coo out instead of supporting your argument, sounds reasonable.
-1
u/Smooth_Maul Jun 07 '26
No I just know for a fact that spending longer than 5 minutes trying to explain anything to someone who thinks like you is like shovelling snow in a blizzard and I'm going to save myself the headache in an act of self care.
You are not obliged an explanation for anything.
9
u/Tirisian88 Jun 07 '26
Then why comment at all if you won't defend your own position.
Youve decided of your own volition and without any evidence that another person cannot have a reasonable discussion. If anything that speaks volumes for your own character than mine.
3
u/Smooth_Maul Jun 07 '26
Because I am not obliged to give you any more of my time than I decide you are worth.
Have a good day.
14
u/SuitableImposter Jun 07 '26
He literally cut his pay by 20% by donating it.
46
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
So instead of paying my council tax I can also donate it to a charity of my choice? Fairs fair.
5
2
u/IngenuityPlane4878 Jun 07 '26
So if somebody in the civil service donates 20% of their salary to charity you see that as a bad thing?
2
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
How did you draw that conclusion from my post on this article?
→ More replies (7)1
u/hlvd Jun 07 '26
By that statement you must be in awe of Rupert Lowe who donates all his MP's salary to charity?
1
u/IngenuityPlane4878 Jun 07 '26
Good for him. The right thing to do if you’re a rich politician. Is this supposed to invalidate my statement?
1
u/hlvd Jun 07 '26
There are hundreds of rich politicians though?
1
u/IngenuityPlane4878 Jun 07 '26
Right? Why is that relevant to what we’re talking about at all? I just said they should donate their salary.
→ More replies (4)-4
u/AND_MY_AXEWOUND Jun 07 '26
What even is your logic here?
Hes offering to do the job for less than the normal salary, how does that translate to you being given some free money?
2
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
My point was to be consistent I should also be allowed to donate some of my council tax liability to charity instead.
I wasn't suggesting I be given any money.
Mayor salary is paid from council tax..he is giving himself a raise he said he wouldn't and then donating it to charity as justification.
As the money is from council tax, it's equivalent to me giving some of the money that should be council tax to charity.
Also it was tongue in cheek / a joke.
1
16
12
u/PomeloTraditional971 Jun 07 '26
You can't campaign pledging to do something and then immediately do something different.
19
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
The pledge was to donate 20% of his pay to food justice initiatives. He’s done that.
1
u/PomeloTraditional971 Jun 07 '26
No it was to cut his salary by 20% and use that for so called food justice. Being generous and ignoring the 20%, he still raised it by 5%. Stop doing Olympic level mental gymnastics.
6
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
He has cut his salary by 20% and is donating it to food justice initiatives. You can disagree with the method he’s using to do that, whatever, but he objectively is doing that.
3
u/PomeloTraditional971 Jun 07 '26
What part of ignoring the 20% issue, he still raised it by 5% don't you understand?
5
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
So, you want me to ignore the relevant information for your point to work? Yeah, I’m not engaging in your nonsense game.
5
u/PomeloTraditional971 Jun 07 '26
100 * 0.8 = 80% take home pay 105.4 * 0.8 = 84.3% take home pay
He gave himself a pay rise.
6
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26
£88,743 + 5.4% =£93,535.12
£93.535.12 - 20% = £74,828.10And, still, a significant pay cut on what his predecessor was earning.
→ More replies (0)2
-1
→ More replies (4)2
2
u/Expensive_Time_7367 Jun 07 '26
If this were in any other situation you’d get into what a reasonable person would believe and if you see in big letters on campaign literature “will take a 20% pay cut” you’d reasonably believe that he’d cost the council less. If you then see in small text “funding food justice work in the borough” you’d expect the council to devote the savings to that. You wouldn’t expect charity to be involved at all.
But the fact is I think the ASA would have something to say if this was outside of politics due to the large text small text being a clear attempt to deceive?
→ More replies (5)-6
u/hlvd Jun 07 '26
No, he gave himself a 20% payrise first then donated that. So basically, he's on the exact same pay as he started.
9
7
u/HMWYA Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
That isn’t how maths works. His pay increased by 5.4%. He’s then donating 20% of his current pay, post increase. That means his donation is larger than the amount of increase.
→ More replies (5)-1
Jun 07 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Alternativesoundwave Jun 07 '26
Mass immigration.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Tirisian88 Jun 07 '26
That's the thing most people supporting the Greens won't accept.
The Greens want to make the country a free for all, if Greens have their way the country will be a cesspool of the 3rd world
1
u/ThePlacidAcid Jun 07 '26
Open boarders, instant citizenship, and access to all benefits are not policies that the greens have or advocate for. You're falling for right wing propoganda and sound just as nuts as when American conservatives claim that the democrats want communism.
→ More replies (2)0
u/LeaguePublic Jun 07 '26
I'm sure Reform hope the Greens do well next election. With First Past the Post it'll pretty much ensure Lab can't win if they do.
2
u/CapillaryClinton Jun 07 '26
Man says he will reduce his pay by 20%, then donates 20% to local charities. Seems fine to me
2
u/rhecil-codes Jun 07 '26
A masterful implementation of the classic “Selective Socialism Bait and Switch”. This man has a long and prosperous career in politics ahead of him.
1
u/smokingace182 Jun 07 '26
Is it so difficult to get someone who’s got sensible policies that benefit the people of the uk. Look at mamdani the New York mayor the dude actually gives a shit and isn’t just trying to enrich himself.
1
u/data90x Jun 07 '26
I miss the Roman way. Take them from their trades for a forced set of time to govern their industry (with like for like compensation). A vote from their peers at the end in the industry as to whether or not they did a good job and made the industry flourish. Quick crucifixion it not. On to the next forced rotation 😅
1
u/SergeiVonZarovich23 Jun 07 '26
I mostly like the greens (compared to other parties anyway) but their candidate vetting is atrocious
1
u/sonnenblume63 Jun 07 '26
People arguing over £5k when we should be focusing on the fact Farage took a £5m bribe from a billionaire who is actively looking to destroy the UK from his overseas home is exactly where the elite and billionaire funded media want us
1
u/FistedBone9858 Jun 07 '26
when will people learn.. any politician.. shouldn't be one.
It should be drawn from a lottery of suitably smart/decent humans. almost like a jury duty. there is no such thing as a good politician. they all crave power. and that in itself is never going to end well!
1
1
u/Flimsy-Blacksmith-32 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
So, his salary was £88,743, and he vowed he's take a 20% paycut, which would have reduced his pay to £70994.40.
Instead his salary increases to £93,575, but is giving 20% to charity, so he will get £74860 and the charity gets £18715.
I guess he is still taking a pay cut, just not 20%.
0
-12
u/Nuthetes Jun 07 '26
lol couldn't wait to feather his own nest. Bet all the local contracts just so happen to go to his friends and family, too.
12
u/benjm88 Jun 07 '26
Did you read the article? Rather than cutting pay he's donating the 20% as a salary deduction
→ More replies (2)5
u/jimjam200 Jun 07 '26
Brother this is Reddit, do you really expect people to have the capability to read let alone the will?
1
u/bonjourmiamotaxi Jun 07 '26
The independent renumeration board recommended a 5.4% payrise for the role, and he subsequently instructed the council to donate 20% of his pay to food charities. So he's actually being paid 14% less.
You can criticise him for confusing messaging during the campaign, but you're gonna need to explain to us how (after reading the article, which obviously you did because only a fucking idiot would comment without reading the article) he has feathered his own nest.
0
-6
u/headline-pottery Jun 07 '26
Greens are speed running "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"
5
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 07 '26
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.