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?

@Maitri108

"I have yet to speak to a Reform voter who knows anything about them. They just want to "stop the boats" and Reform say that's what they'll do.

Reform have no feasible plan to do that but that's not important,"

A few points to unpack here.

Firstly no political party including Reform and Labour has any feasible plan to stop illegal immigration because by its very definition it is illegal. The only solution is to deter (make the UK a less attractive destination eg ID cards ), detect (find out for example where the smuggling gangs are getting their boats from and making it harder) and to actually deport failed asylum seekers.

Secondly have you actually even spoken to anyone that voted for Reform. I have and they explained that whilst immigration is certainly a big issue they also supported policies such as scrapping the BBC licence fee, scrapping net zero, tax cuts for small businesses etc etc.

Firstly no political party including Reform and Labour has any feasible plan to stop illegal immigration because by its very definition it is illegal. The only solution is to deter (make the UK a less attractive destination eg ID cards ), detect (find out for example where the smuggling gangs are getting their boats from and making it harder) and to actually deport failed asylum seekers.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal. I'm not sure how many times you've heard that.

The Tories tried to make the UK a 'hostile environment' and it evidently hasn't worked as the boats have increased.

You're evading the point being made. People are voting for Reform because they believe they will stop the boats and Reform are telling people that's what they'll do. They have put forward a plan to do that which involves coming out of various human rights agreements and dumping people in France.

I've already explained to you that under the EA there is a legal duty to promote equality of opportunity and eliminate against unlawful discrimination.

It is unlawful to hire someone solely on the basis of their sex or race but it is a requirement to promote vacancies or provide extra support for underrepresented people. That would include people with disabilities or ethnic minorities.

Why do you think that's what I'm saying? The word "recruitment " is not the same meaning as the word "training" as far as I know.

Again, this issue has been all over the news recently so it's easy to bone up on it if you've missed it.

The way I read it, @1dayatatime was saying that we should deport failed asylum seekers. Not that they are "illegal" asylum seekers. I may be wrong of course.

Is deporting failed asylum seekers something you would agree with?

@Jackrussellsaremad
But we have engineered your recruitment based on your skin colour rather than your ability as a potential member of the police force

I interpreted what you were saying was those recruited due to the legal requirement to promote equality of opportunity and eliminate unlawful discrimination, were recruited solely on their skin colour and not on their ability to do the job.

The ability to do the job is dependent on passing training. You're saying that officers from ethnic minorities are not capable of doing the job and therefore cannot pass the necessary training.

@Maitri108

"Asylum seekers aren't illegal. I'm not sure how many times you've heard that. "

Claiming asylum in the UK is not illegal.

However entering the UK without a valid passport and any necessary visa is illegal. Under Section 40 Nationality and Borders Act anybody who enters the UK (without a visa) and claims asylum will be going against this law.

For example coming across on a dinghy without a visa or passport is illegal. Coming to the UK on a tourist or student visa then claiming asylum is not illegal.

There's some confusion here, so I'll clarify.

You're talking about entering the country without the necessary documents. I'm talking about asylum seekers entering the country to claim refuge.

Asylum seekers are protected under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. Under Article 31 refugees can seek protection without being penalised for breaching immigration or other laws, due to unauthorised entry into a country.

I'm assuming you know what I mean if you have been reading the news. West Yorkshire Police are illegally blocking white applicants in their recruitment process.

They also intervened to give an ethnic minority candidate favourable treatment despite the fact she failed the interview. This was to increase the number of ethnic minority recruits. The applicant got one E, four Ds and one C. You usually need As and Bs. An E indicates "no answer given or answer irrelevant ". However the orders were given that she was to be given an "A* level of service" and the entire interview process was then scrapped so that she could be given the job despite not being suitably qualified.

Do you think this is fair?

Do you think this method of recruitment will improve the safety of the public? (Which ultimately is presumably the point of the cops, rather than being a vehicle for social engineering).

Do you think ethnic minority applicants themselves will be pleased by this approach or do you rather thing it undermines the general perception of their own achievements ie the general public might suspect they only got the job because they were given an "A* level of service" rather than on merit like other applicants.

@Jackrussellsaremad

“In West Yorkshire Police, we are committed to improving equality, diversity, and inclusion within the organisation, and strive to be more representative of the communities we serve.

“Our Diversity, Equality and Inclusion team supports and consults with those with different protected characteristics such as sex, disability, sexual orientation, and race to ensure their views can influence and improve the service the force delivers. They also work to improve the wellbeing of everybody in the organisation and inclusivity overall.

“The most recent census found that 23 per cent of people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is around nine per cent. To address this under-representation, we use Positive Action under the Equality Act 2010. Our use of this was recently reviewed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services in an Activism and Impartiality inspection and no issues were identified.

“Positive Action allows people from under-represented groups who express an interest in joining the force to complete an application, which is then held on file until a recruitment window is opened. No interviews are held until the window is officially opened to all candidates. Enabling people from under-represented groups to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process, it simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from this pool of applicants.”

They are saying that what they are doing is legal under the EA.

Again, any recruit has to pass training. You seem to be suggesting that recruits retained under 'Positive Action' won't have to pass training and therefore won't be trained to the same standard as other officers.

To answer your question: I do not think that police who are incapable of passing the training should be retained and nor are they safe.

If that is what they are doing, they are endangering the public and other officers.

It's a bit like having a quota to fill according to how much melanin someone has. If you have more than another applicant, your application gets put in a special box and the next time a vacancy comes up your name will be top of the list and you receive A* treatment. This is because these days the amount of melanin a person has in their skin is of paramount importance. Not their ability.

And it's certainly the first thing any reasonable person would look for if they were attacked. They would only want to talk to a police officer that had the same amount of melanin, even if there was someone far better able to solve the crime of who attacked them. That's Inclusive Tolerant Britain.

West Yorkshire police are taking people for imbeciles.

I voted Reform because there are really limited options if you don't want to vote labour or conservative. Something really needs to change, getting a bit sick of how our country works, working families taxed to the hilt, yet can't get timely healthcare, dentist, education is a mess based on archaic systems, transport networks are shocking (road, rail), illegal immigration continues to rise, more people on benefits because there's no incentive to come off them and many loop holes in the system, costs rising and wages not increasing (don't get me started on energy costs). To be honest as a country I don't know why we're not doing more about it.

It's any under-represented group, not just skin colour. This could be women, gay men, people with disabilities. You seem to be focusing on skin colour but they are looking at a whole range of things.

I honestly can't see a problem with this provided the people selected are good enough to be police officers.
Police are trained in blocks, so all it means is that when a block of training comes up, they look at everyone who applied and pick people for that block.

I agree that a vote for Reform is about so much more than just immigration and 'stopping the boats' but there is a concerted effort in the left leaning media to focus heavily on that so that people think is nothing more to Reform or Reform supporters than 1970s style racism and xenophobia, or 'far right' and straight up fascism, if you read the Guardian. It's very cynical.

I have never voted Reform by the way. I quite possibly will in the next GE. But that's a long way off and anything could happen before then. I'll vote for the people I think are best equipped to deal with whatever we need at the time. I don'y yet know who that will be, but it certainly won't be Labour, it never is. Anything they appear to make better on the surface and the in short term is always at the cost of making everything much, much worse in the long run.

It's just a load of rubbish though, in real life. Surely a meritocracy is better rather than a focus on immutable characteristics. Who cares about a police officer's sexuality if someone's been burgled.

@Jackrussellsaremad

West Yorkshire police are using 'Positive Action' in order to increase diversity in their workforce as they explain in their statement.

You can of course reduce people to melanin, ovaries, wheelchairs but the issue is a workforce representative of the population.

Unconscious or conscious bias can affect interviews, people can be reluctant to apply because they don't feel the job is for them and they may also feel as though they can't do the job because of disabilities for example.

Initiatives are therefore developed to encourage people such as mentoring. I'm wondering how you would approach it. How would you try to be more inclusive and diversify the workforce?

I wouldn't. I would employ on merit in such a vital role. I don't agree with DEI.

It's already been explained to you that in order to be a police officer, you need to pass the training. If you were recruited because you had ovaries for example, but were unable to pass the training, you would be let go. Everyone is trained to the same standard.

As has "already been explained to you" (I understand the point you are trying to make but disagree with you) unfortunately we can no longer assume that all people who are police officers have passed "the training" . If the interview system is cancelled because certain ethnic minority candidates are unable to pass it then the suspicion is that some fiddling of the system at the expense of standards is happening to fulfill a quota. That is the entirely predictable result of using skin colour to judge people in any stage of the process to qualify as a police officer. You may hope that people are being employed on merit but unfortunately the very existence of a quota means that standards will be undermined.

The police didn't say they had a quota. You're embellishing.

You obviously have more information than me and I would love it if you could share. Where does it say that some people don't have to pass police training?

Telegraph

Could you provide a link to the police force policy of people recruited through Positive Action, not going through training. Thanks

I'm assuming you aren't a Telegraph subscriber so I can't send you those link(s) as to the reports on the racist application system in West Yorkshire Police.

West Yorkshire Police have put a block on white applicants. Black and far east Asian candidates were considered particularly under-represented and given a “gold” ranking, followed by those of south-east Asian origin who were in the silver tier. “White others”, including candidates from Irish and eastern European backgrounds, were bronze

You can Google it yourself tbough perhaps? The policy was exposed in the last month or so. Yvette Cooper thinks that's all fine.

I know it's hard for us all to believe so I can see why you won't accept it here and won't look it up yourself. I don't wish to burst any bubbles and of course don't seek to persuade those that will not accept these things are happening. But people should be treated equally particularly if they are applying for a job where everyone should be equal under the law.

I've pasted the YP statement on their Positive Action policy and have asked you for evidence that the YP are not training people recruited via PA.

You keep waving me towards the Telegraph. I assume you don't have that evidence because you know it's not true. It's not possible that the police have a policy of not training some recruits.

If you nonetheless take on people that have failed an interview then you have lowered standards. If you waive through people despite not having passed the requirements then you lower standards. This will infect all aspects of police training.

You can post West Yorkshire Police's own public policies of course but that means nothing in practice. You can't mark your own homework.

I can't post the Telegraph link about the whistle-blower because it's behind a pay wall but on the basis Yvette Cooper commented on it it's presumably available online if you care to look. You don't seem to want to so I can't help you further.

While we can deny that West Yorkshire Police are preventing white applicants and giving A* treatment to ethnic applicants it does appear to be happening and it's really rather disturbing. We can stick our heads in the sand or not. I will leave it there.