Reform Policies

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
It is a fact that white young men are disadvantaged. Something that "white privilege", DEI woke preachers, like to ignore.

In your opinion, which is tainted by your anti-immigrant sentiment.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
If everyone else gets a leg up, then you are left at a disadvantage.

find me a job advert where white boys are particularly encouraged to apply in accordance with the above.

Encouraging applications from underrepresented groups is not 'giving them a leg up'.
It's trying to create a level playing field and remove barriers for underrepresented groups.

Lawful Discrimination still applies in recruiting.

MNW67 said:
But starting at the beginning, with school. Is there anything in the Equality Act which causes boys from poor white families to get worse results than boys from poor ethnic minority families.

This is where MBK gets confused. Lawful Discrimination applies when all other things are equal.
But when underrepresented groups are better qualified, when they do apply, they are recruited more often over their poorer achieving indigenous white applicants.
It's a know phenomenon that foreign/female sounding names or disabled applicants are at a disadvantage during the early stages of recruitment. Positive Action encourages underrepresented groups to apply, in the knowledge that their foreign/female sounding names or their disability will not disadvantage them.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
You are making a good case to scrap chapter 2.

I don't have a problem with people with disabilities etc. getting a leg up. But Ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation. Why?

Because prejudice still persists in UK, and it is most often evident in recruitment.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
I think you do. If you are playing a board game, where depending on the colour of your piece you either start at the begging (lets say blue pieces) or slightly ahead (all the other pieces), then surely you can understand you have less chance of winning with a blue piece?

You want employers to be allowed to maintain the 'white privilege'?

motorbiking said:
We are guessing about what they propose to change. Unless you can find more detail, we can only guess.

But you are already arguing for what changes you want: to allow discrimination to be legalised.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
Turn it the other way around, what is wrong with removing chapter 2?

Chapter 2 defines what conduct is prohibited, i.e. which prejudices are deemed to be illegal during recruitment.
You want that to become subject to personal and individual consideration?

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
Protection need only go as far as preventing discrimination. It does not need to artificially level the playing field. That is the point Reform are trying to make.

The elimination of discrimination demands actions to artificially level the field. Otherwise the status quo persists.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,"

motorbiking said:
because the new recruit imagined he'd be unwelcome?

Based on the existing workforce, or rumour.

motorbiking said:
An alternative - is simply to welcome everyone and give everyone an equal chance at the job based on merit. If there is bullying or discrimination, act accordingly.

Positive Action communicates to potential applicants that will happen.

motorbiking said:
So now turn it the other way around, what is wrong with removing chapter 2?

King Billy said:
Chapter 2 defines what conduct is prohibited, i.e. which prejudices are deemed to be illegal during recruitment.
You want that to become subject to personal and individual consideration?

Black applicants and Asian applicants are 45% and 29% respectively less likely to receive an offer than white applicants.

UK employers less likely to recruit disadvantaged ethnic minority graduates

Ethnic minority graduates from a low socio-economic background are 45% less likely to be offered entry-level professional roles compared to more advantaged White applicants, finds a new report led by UCL researchers.

www.ucl.ac.uk

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

MNW67 said:
As regards the rest, you are utterly clueless about why these sort of rules are needed. So, the discussion is rather pointless.

They usually are.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
you haven't, you created a scenario where a person perceives he wont fit in and will be unwelcome.

If you see a commercial enterprise with no employees from the underrepresented groups you wouldn't question their recruiting ethics?
Or maybe you wouldn't see it.

MNW67 · 21 Feb 2026

King Billy said:
Chapter 2 defines what conduct is prohibited, i.e. which prejudices are deemed to be illegal during recruitment.
You want that to become subject to personal and individual consideration?

There is more than one Chapter 2 in the Equality Act.

I believe @motorbiking is referring to the one which deals with positive action.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

MNW67 said:
There is more than one Chapter 2 in the Equality Act.

I believe @motorbiking is referring to the one which deals with positive action.

You mean there is more than 1 Part in Chapter 2? Or more than one Chapter 2s in other Parts?
in that case, perhaps MBK can be more specific about which parts and chapters he objects to?

MNW67 · 21 Feb 2026

King Billy said:
You mean there is more than 1 Part in Chapter 2? Or more than one Chapter 2s in other Parts?
in that case, perhaps MBK can be more specific about which parts and chapters he objects to?

The one in bold.

He linked to the specific one originally.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

MNW67 said:
The one in bold.

He linked to the specific one originally.

I think that is the one to which the majority of my comments addresses.

motorbiking said:
Already posted it, I think : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2

I can see how one of my comments might have been misleading.

King Billy said:
Chapter 2 defines what conduct is prohibited, i.e. which prejudices are deemed to be illegal during recruitment.
You want that to become subject to personal and individual consideration?

The chapter 2 referred to by MBK lists the actions that are allowed, which he wants removed so that 'young, white, male, abled-bodied advantage' is allowed to be applied, and take precedence, during recruitment.
He ignores the fact that Positive Discrimination is unlawful, and he argues from the perspective that it has become conflated with Positive Action

Anyone who feels that they have been treated unfairly have access to a tribunal.
But he failed to list any such examples of Positive Action being ruled unfair, despite his claim that it was applied unfairly.

King Billy said:
Any examples of genuine Positive Action policies in the UK, that have been ruled illegal,
You've already mentioned the RAF one which was well intentioned but poorly executed and was ruled as Positive Discrimination. So not Positive Action.

motorbiking · 21 Feb 2026

MNW67 said:
I missed this bit.

Why would a white candidate be put off by a note from an all white firm welcoming applications from ethnic minorities. I wouldn't be. You are getting all this ar$e about face. You seem to have zero understanding of power dynamics.

Straw man.

You seem unwilling to accept that DEI targets lead to programs designed to favour “minority” applicants at the exclusion of others.

It’s good news that Reform are ready to look at the problem.

King Billy · 21 Feb 2026

motorbiking said:
Straw man.

motorbiking said:
you haven't, you created a scenario where a person perceives he wont fit in and will be unwelcome.

You are arguing that a black/female/old/disabled person would not be discouraged by an all-white/male/young/able-bodied workforce.
In reality, that is exactly what happens, plus the frequency of new recruits drawn from the families of existing staff perpetuates the overrepesented groups.
MNW is suggesting that a note explaining that applications from underrepresented groups would be welcome to allay their concerns.
It's not promising any favouritism in the selection process.

motorbiking said:
They aren't needed, they create resentment and disadvantage those who are not in scope for the positive action.

It's simply a mechanism to allay the concerns of the underrepresented groups.
Without such a mechanism underrepresented groups in the workforce will continue. As will an unusual percentage of unemployment among those underrepresented groups.

motorbiking · 21 Feb 2026

doesn't seem to have made any difference, other than cause resentment.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06385/SN06385.pdf

Reform Policies

Similar threads