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?

Your case is that YP were breaking the law by being racist and recruiting people who didn't receive basic training. You also said that we live in a meritocracy and don't need DEI initiatives.

I don't believe we live in a meritocracy and used the Tories as an example. The vast majority are white, male, public school rich people. If you're using Sunak as an example of
meritocracy - he's a billionaire.

You believe that billionaires and public school educated white men are there on merit and the best possible people for the job. Eton educated millionaire Boris Johnson was there because he was the best person for the job.

You have a Telegraph subscription. I've told you what my source is. There are several articles. I just think you could easily have a look yourself and see what you think but unfortunately you "can't be arsed". So I can't help you. You need to learn not to expect to be spoon fed by randoms on mumsnet.

Perhaps you don't you agree with people whistle blowing? You seem to trust the police aways do the right thing which is great don't get me wrong. They do a great job.

I’ve read the Telegraph articles, they’re as twisted as your “facts” which I suspect you’ve gleaned from Facebook rather than from the prime source which is why you’re unable to supply links.

I'm not 100% sure Rishi can be classed as white.

I don't think I've said anything about how politicians are elected. I thought we were talking about West Yorkshire Police.

Facebook? Where on Facebook? I don't use it personally.

The "prime source" is the whistle-blower.

I didn't say that Sunak was white, I said he was a billionaire. We're talking about whether or not the UK is a meritocracy and whether the best people for the job are being employed. I'm using the Tories as an example of how we are very obviously not a meritocracy, unless you're arguing that people like Johnson are the best qualified for the job.

I understand that it's very difficult for you to grasp more than one example and will endeavour to simplify the argument.

No need to be condescending just because we disagree, perhaps? But if you think it helps me please do "simplify your argument". The problem is, I suspect, that you throwing words around like "Tory" "white" "public school" "billionaires" just doesn't seem to relate to West Yorkshire Police? I may be wrong.

I would like to live in a meritocracy rather than a country that sees skin colour as relevant to a job application. That's all.

You're saying that we're already living in a meritocracy and therefore do not need DEI initiatives.

I'm not being condescending, you seem very confused. I'm therefore trying to simplify things so they are no longer confusing for you.

There is one issue here: meritocracy.

You are arguing that we live in a meritocracy and therefore DEI initiatives are not necessary. I disagree and gave an example of how we aren't living in a meritocracy.

However I see that has confused you. Going back to YP, several enquiries have found that the police are institutionally racist.

YP said in their statement above that they were trying to create a force representative of their community and therefore were using PA in line with the EA.

If an employer has been found to be institutionally racist, they aren't a meritocracy.

I've never said we "live in a meritocracy ". I said I would like to live in a meritocracy.

And in order to get to a meritocracy we need to judge people on merit (hence the word meritocracy) rather than skin colour which has no intrinsic merit.

We both agree. I would also like to live in a meritocracy. However it seems as though just leaving it up to employers doesn't work.

We therefore have the EA which makes it the responsibility of employers to level the playing field and come up with initiatives to encourage marginalised groups to join the workforce.

I disagree with positive discrimination. I disagree with it in all areas including women in the workplace. I think it undermines people and leaves them vulnerable to accusations of simply being there due to their gender or skin colour.

The solution is education and the fact that changing demographics will mean far more members of ethnic minorities in the police anyway. This will happen naturally rather than by gerrymandering and to the detriment of people with other skin colours.

That's what I personally think as I think it is fair and not divisive. We can therefore agree to disagree on that.

You're ignoring the fact that people have biases. I gave an example of how the police have been found to be institutionally racist several times. Yet despite the evidence, you think they're going to naturally employ more people from ethnic minorities.

We live in a misogynist society, we have very high levels of violence against women and girls, yet despite the evidence, you think that men are going to employ women because they're the right people for the job.

The reason behind positive action and the EA, is to help create a meritocracy because we don't live in one. We both agreed on that.

I respect your view point and I would never suggest you are ignoring anything or misunderstanding my argument.

You think positive discrimination is good. I think it's divisive and will cause issues.

I haven't ignored the fact that people have biases. I just don't think judging people on skin colour is the way forward. Many people do not like that approach at all.

Hence another reason why Reform are doing so well, I suggest.

I don't agree that judging people by skin colour is the way forward either.

All of the above.

Well that doesn't even make any sense. If I am lying then the other two people didn't actually say those things, so they can't be lying.

If my nephew is lying to me about what the policeman said, then I am not lying to you now, I'm just repeating what I was told.

If the policeman lied to my nephew then my nephew hasn't lied to me. He has just repeated what he was told. Anyone with a brain can see they can't all be lies.

You didn't really think this through, did you?

Well Labour also likes to say 'stop the boats' and 'smash the gangs' a lot, which by your logic also appeals to the same people for the same reasons. So far they've done precisely nothing to achieve either of those things, which is why so many people who did vote Labour last year and now voting for Reform in local elections.

That's not exactly true is it. Labour aren't a one slogan party and their main mission wasn't to 'stop the boats'.

It's also not true that they haven't done anything. It's a complex problem and not as simple as dumping people in France and letting them drown. It will take a while to resolve.

More people are coming across than before. So they have achieved something, I suppose.

You need to tell us your plan.

I'm fairly sure I'm not in the Government so any of my "plans" won't have much effect? Neither have I promised to smash the gangs or stop the boats. Unlike the actual Government.

It's a shame they didn't tell the electorate that they were going to increase the number of boat crossings before the election so we knew what we were voting for. Hey ho.

It's highly unlikely you voted Labour but it's a complex problem and won't be solved in a few months. You admit that you have no idea how you'd approach the situation and Labour are working on it, as well as all the other problems we have due to terrible mismanagement.

It’s closer to 10 months and numbers plus costs are rising. Is it really going in the right direction for you?

What is Labour's plan? Asking me for a plan suggests you don't think Labour's plan is working (which it isn't as the crossings are increasing and they have made the matter worse rather than solving it) and they should start scrabbling round mumsnet to find the answer. Which would be amusing if it wasn't so utterly useless.

I didn't ask you for a plan so that I could present it to the government as an alternative. I asked if you had any better ideas than what is currently being done. You don't.

Labour's approach is to set up a specialised enforcement unit, increase detention spaces and arrange return agreements with countries of origin. They are also creating a new returns and enforcement unit to fast track removals. They are investing in the HO in order to expedite the current back log of claims.

There's also a new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently going through parliament which includes new powers in order to identify smugglers and criminalise them.