Are you now more likely to vote for REFORM (the party)

[Decisiondecisions]

NC for this and apologies if Q already asked. My quick search yielded no result.

Reform plan to undo the reversal of 2 child cap benefit. Are you now likely (or more likely) to vote for them? There have been endless threads about the welfare bill.

NO

Thanks for explaining, clearly PP didn’t fancy it.

I had a feeling that was the avenue they were going down, and would point out that they said “white working class,” where you’ve just made clear really we’re talking about middle aged, middle class men. So hardly the same demographic, and I’d hardly say middle aged white wealthy men are oppressed. They’re more likely to be the oppressors.

I would struggle to believe that a corporate multi national is discriminating against Steve the van man - he’s not applying there. It’s clutching to suggest otherwise.

I don’t believe in recruitment on the basis of ethnicity or sex - I’m a female leader who firmly believes in the right person for the job, regardless of whether they’d hit a quota or not.

If they were doing it in the UK they were breaking the law. Sometimes people break the law. It doesn't mean the law says it's legal. If we got rid of the law (EA) then it would be legal.

Right. And what I’ve said, is that with an asylum system that functioned, those refused asylum would leave. Everyone’s happy, right?

We’re talking about asylum, not immigration. Migrants and asylum seekers aren’t the same thing.

The “British public” can be as fed up as they like with immigration. You said yourself you work with a largely migrant workforce - unless you’ve got people on standby for the jobs they’re filling, we need migration to function.

Never. They're fascists.

Being a labour MP doesn't fall under protected characteristics.

Being Male or white does, because sex is a protected characteristic under the EA and so is race. Note it's characteristics that are protected not groups. So "women" isn't a protected group. Sex is a protected characteristic. Which means everyone is protected from discrimination not minorities. And you can't bar someone for being white and male.

Belief is also protected so you can't bar someone for being a Catholic or Gender Critical. I guess that could stretch to political belief if they were banning people for supporting Labour. But I guess if it only targeting MPs it isn't.

No

I thought we had rising unemployment. They can take on these jobs

There s no conspiracy theory, is there?

Here is one link

https://bylinetimes.com/2026/02/03/in-putins-orbit-the-crypto-politics-of-jeffrey-epstein-and-peter-thiel/

Or you could come out of retirement and do the jobs. The older generation could really show those lazy gen Zers how it's done?

No

The issue we face is one that every western Country faces. The indigenous population refuse to work for slave wages. By introducing immigrants who have no choice but to work for slave wages we can get the work done and generate tax which will subsidise the indigenous population

I thought political opinions were not generally protected characteristics either.

Maybe if hell freezes over, and I wake up next week a size 8, with a huge lottery win, and......oh, wait ✋ still no.

No but belief is. I admit Im woolly about exactly where the line falls. You could argue being Gender Critical is a "political position" but it's protected as a belief, and therefore you can't legally be barred from a pub for being GC even if you are going there after a (political) demonstration.
You can't bar someone for how they voted because you can't know how they voted anyway I guess but I don't know if you could bar someone just for wearing a Labour/Reform rosette. Hmmm. Public Houses are different to eg workíng mens clubs which have more freedom to choose who they want as members and therefore who to serve so they could.
I reçkon it could be an interesting court case íf you were barred for supporting Labour and wanted to argue that supporting Labour was a result of your beliefs. But its not really relevant when its only MPs or political figures (eg Tommy ten names) being banned.

absolutely fucking not.

You see, this is the 'Do your own research' trope.

The response is Hitchens' Razor: A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Mind you, the clue might be in the word 'multinational' - they tend to have a broader outlook in terms of what effective recruitment looks like for them. Unless you can evidence that companies are deliberately exclusing superior white British candidates in favour of less suitable minority candidates, you've got nothing.

DEI is an American term. It has no relevance to UK companies

DEI appears to be a common term in the UK (random search):

NHS Bristol Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)
Last updated: 09/10/2025
https://www.uhbw.nhs.uk/p/about-us/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dei

Co-operatives UK
The importance of DEI in the workplace
How to build a DEI strategy
https://www.uk.coop/events-and-training/practitioners-forum
EY UK report highlights role of DEI in boosting productivity and talent
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/newsroom/2025/01/ey-report-highlights-critical-role-of-dei-in-uk-business
The boss of Deloitte UK has signalled a split with the firm’s US arm by reaffirming its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) targets.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/deloitte-uk-trump-america-diversity-b2696677.html

Yes rising unemployment and AI decimating some industries/taking jobs so we have plenty of people.

Bloody hell - that's desperate.

Epstein was in contact with Bannon who advised that Brexit was an opportunity. By association the Brexit campaign was being fronted by Farage.

None of this gives any evidence to your post "Do you care about Farage's Russian links" and your theory that Farage had Russian links which I think I have clearly demonstrated (beyond appearing on RT and his comments on Putin) he doesn't have any.

No legal relevance then. My mistake I didn't realise the term had been adopted by some companies. Did you read the policies? My assumption is though they might talk about encouraging applications/removing barriers/making the workplaces proactively safe spaces/corporate speak they won't mention hiring quotas etc. Because in the US environment you can use affirmative action to make sure X percent of new hires are from a minority. In the UK they can't. You can have a "target" but you are very limited in what you can do to meet that target. I haven't read the policies I'm to lazij. I'm just guessing they wont be breaking employment law.

No, I am not. Furthermore, I would vote for any party that's not even more far right in order to keep them out. I know they see that as unfair, but boo hoo.

Good idea. Will consider it when I reach retirement if I need the money.

If we cut benefits they might have to reconsider.

Are you also going to lower housing, energy and food costs? Because if you reduce the pittance that UK benefits are, you're going to end up with more street homeless, more crime, more civil unrest.

Why is it that your kind always want to take money away from those who already struggle and hand it to those who are already wealthy?