Why do people like reform?

[TheGoogleMum]

I haven't been keeping very up to date with politics. I usually vote Labour. I don't really understand the popularity of reform, could anyone explain it to me?
As far as I'm aware Farage doesn't actually do anything when he wins a seat somewhere so I'm not convinced they'll actually do anything? Is it just a protest vote that's gone a bit far?

on the purely Reform running councils level all inputs welcome, preferable insightful rather than inciteful. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5329262-councils-now-run-by-reform-end-of-the-beginning-or-beginning-of-the-end?reply=144078800

@Maitri108

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination, harassment, and victimisation based on nine protected characteristics such as race, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc. For example in a workplace ensuring that hiring is done solely on merit and not influenced by these protected characteristics.

Whereas DEI initiatives seek to create a diverse workforce in terms of sex, race, sexual orientation etc. For example in a workplace ensuring that hiring is done to create a diverse workforce rather than hiring solely on merit.

That's the difference.

That sounds like you're parroting Trump and believe people who aren't white and able bodied are being hired because of diversity rather than merit.

Under the Equality Act there is a
legal duty to promote equality of opportunity, eliminate unlawful discrimination and foster good relations between 'key equality strands'. These include age, disability, sex, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity.

You inferred it was "run down" hotels being used that would be empty otherwise. It's not just those. It's more modern hotels, and even those in otherwise popular places.

I didn’t imply that at all. I said that it was clearly commercially advantageous to the companies that have contracted with the Home Office. It’s always a good idea to read what people write.

@Maitri108

"That sounds like you're parroting Trump and believe people who aren't white and able bodied are being hired because of diversity rather than merit. "

I believe that positive discrimination is simply discrimination and illegal under the Equality Act 2010.

Examples of illegal positive discrimination do happen in the UK as shown recently with the RAF:

blogs.dlapiper.com/beaware/rafs-diversity-strategy-results-in-unlawful-positive-discrimination/

Thanks I appreciate the comment. I really feel that people can’t possibly understand the impact of immigration on an area if they live in an area not affected by it. I have wonderful friends and relatives who believe in open borders but they live in beautiful, leafy, wealthy areas. Meanwhile those of us who live in poor areas with high recent economic immigration are characterised as thick and racist. It’s so frustrating.

I gave you the government's definition of DEI; a legal duty under the EA.

There have been many examples where white applicants are discouraged from applying for public sector jobs. For example, West Yorkshire Police is currently preventing white applicants for its constabulary roles. This approach has been blessed by our Home.Secretary who is happy with this racist policy. She says it seems "fair".

We are a long way from MLK these days.

That’s a misrepresentation of the situation.

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/jobs-volunteer/police-officers

I believe the government want to encourage more people from ethnic communities into the service given its reputation.

I'm wondering how, given the bias found time and again in the police, this is meant to happen. White able bodied men are often of the opinion that they have all the plum jobs because they're the best person for them.

It's not a great start though for any new recruit. "You need to police without fear or favour. But we have engineered your recruitment based on your skin colour rather than your ability as a potential member of the police force". I'm not sure that's the lesson that society should be teaching people.

Try reading the web page again.

We will always employ the best person for the job, who meets the required standard during both at the assessment and during the interview process, regardless of how they describe themselves on their application form. Enabling people from an ethnic minority background to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from a pool of applicants who reflect the diverse communities we serve.

You can't just wheel out what they say on their own website though and expect people to say "oh that must be true then..if thats what they say, that's what happens." 😆

Do we trust the police aren't biased regarding race? Given whats been happening in various Yorkshire towns?

Why not? The events in various northern towns are precisely why the police force needs to be more diverse. And the recruitment process and criteria are exactly the same for all candidates. I tend to believe people until they give me reason not to.

Why do you think what you say is true but not what they say on the website?

Are you thinking there should be more white male police officers?

What absolute crap. You just can’t bear the fact intelligent people also vote Reform - You obviously need to expand your social circles. Or your mind.

Im related to academics, journalists, bankers, doctors to name a few, and guess what? They would vote Reform if there were a GE tomorrow.

No. I'd rather the MLK approach. Everyone is judged and assessed on skin colour these days. It's depressing.

Sweet.

@BIossomtoes

"Enabling people from an ethnic minority background to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from a pool of applicants who reflect the diverse communities we serve."

Of course giving people from a particular characteristic group more time to apply for a job gives them an advantage in the application process.

Think about it logically if Group A is given (or enabled) with a one month window in which to apply for a job but Group B is only given a one week window to apply for a job then this clearly discriminates against Group B.

How about giving the same time window for everyone to apply for the job and assess the best candidate on merit?

@LarkspurLane

"Why do you think what you say is true but not what they say on the website?"

Because what they have written on their website is factually incorrect.

If you give Group A more time to apply for a job than Group B then you are discriminating against Group B.

It's basic logic.

@Maitri108

"I gave you the government's definition of DEI; a legal duty under the EA."

Under the Equality Act there should be equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome.

So the RAF policy was inequality of opportunity and was therefore against the law. The Labour Party having female only lists for prospective constituency MP is not equality of opportunity or outcome and is therefore against the law. Allowing particular ethnic groups to have more time to apply for a job than other groups is also not equality of opportunity.

However installing a wheelchair ramp to an office or a disabled toilet does help to create equality of opportunity. Doing outreach work with say poorer schools to make students aware of certain jobs encourages equality of opportunity.

You're a perfect case in point and thank you for illustrating what I'm saying so succinctly.

You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about them, just listed some professions and claimed they'd vote for them.

"Enabling people from an ethnic minority background to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from a pool of applicants who reflect the diverse communities we serve."

Does it? Sorry, you've lost me there. Those people can apply at the same time as everybody else, and we'd still have the opportunity to attract talent which reflects diverse communities. How is enabling people from ethnic minorities to 'apply early' the only way to achieve that?

Unless you are telling me that candidate quality is sufficiently low among ethnic minority applicants that unless they are given the advantage of being selected from an all non-white cohort ahead of white people being considered, they probably wouldn't actually be be chosen at all? And then if there are any vacancies still going begging after any unsuitable non-white applicants have been filtered out, white people will be considered to fill in the gaps?

Otherwise letting them 'apply early' seems completely at odds with insisting they have no unfair advantage. It literally makes no sense.

So what you're saying is that officers from ethnic minorities do not have the same training as white people and therefore are not up to the same standard. That doesn't sound right to me because they do a dangerous job and need to be thoroughly trained.