Reform Policies

[MNW67]

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?

I don't understand what you are getting at.

Zia Yusuf was saying that scrapping the Equality Act would help boys from poor white families do better at school. I can't see the link. That's what I am hoping somebody will explain.

 

[noseall]

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.

No. Chicken biker of course, won't (can't) answer. He will repeatedly and pointlessly keep posting up the Act. It impresses the intellectually challenged on here.

 

[motorbiking]

I don't understand what you are getting at.

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?

Zia Yusuf was saying that scrapping the Equality Act would help boys from poor white families do better at school. I can't see the link. That's what I am hoping somebody will explain.

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

 

[motorbiking]

This is all I can find:

• New Legislation: Reform UK intends to replace the existing Act with a new Workplace Fairness Act. This proposed legislation would focus on "personal responsibility" and "meritocracy" rather than "protected characteristics".
• Targeting "DEI" Culture: The challenge specifically targets Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, which the party claims have led to "unfair recruitment policies" and "positive discrimination".

That seems to be chapter 2.

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

 

[MNW67]

That seems to be chapter 2.

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

Consider what we have just been discussing.

Two boys at the same school from poor families. One is white, the other is from an ethnic minority. For some reason, the white boy gets worse exam results. They both want to work for the same local employer. All the existing staff are white. The boy from the ethnic minority feels put off by this. Even though he is the better candidate, he imagines that he will have no chance of getting the job and that even if he does he worries will be bullied. But the next time the firm advertises, their advert says that they welcome applications from ethnic minorities. He applies and gets the job. The firm provides race relations training to the existing staff.

 

[blup]

Re form voters aren’t interested in equal rights, repealing the Equality Act is all Farridge needs to promise.

 

[festive]

Re form voters aren’t interested in equal rights, repealing the Equality Act is all Farridge needs to promise.

What do you think they are interested in?

What party do you support?

 

[motorbiking]

Consider what we have just been discussing.

Two boys at the same school from poor families. One is white, the other is from an ethnic minority. For some reason, the white boy gets worse exam results. They both want to work for the same local employer. All the existing staff are white. The boy from the ethnic minority feels put off by this. Even though he is the better candidate, he imagines that he will have no chance of getting the job and that even if he does he worries will be bullied.

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.

But the next time the firm advertises, their advert says that they welcome applications from ethnic minorities. He applies and gets the job. The firm provides race relations training to the existing staff.

because the new recruit imagined he'd be unwelcome?

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.

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

 

[MNW67]

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.

So, you would be happy for the better candidate to be put off from applying in my scenario?

 

[motorbiking]

So, you would be happy for the better candidate to be put off from applying in my scenario?

sounds like he's the sort of chap who would be put off:
- having a difficult conversation with a customer
- putting his ideas forward
- dealing with conflict
- contributing to a positive work environment.

He is being put off applying because of things he perceives or imagines. Where as the white male candidate is clearly being put off from a job that says "we particularly welcome applications from [not you]"

You still haven't said what you think we lose by deleting chapter 2.

 

[MNW67]

sounds like he's the sort of chap who would be put off:
- having a difficult conversation with a customer
- putting his ideas forward
- dealing with conflict
- contributing to a positive work environment.

He is being put off applying because of things he perceives or imagines. Where as the white male candidate is clearly being put off from a job that says "we particularly welcome applications from [not you]"

You still haven't said what you think we lose by deleting chapter 2.

My answer is implicit in my reply. I have said twice now why I believe positive action can help.

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

 

[motorbiking]

My answer is implicit in my reply. I have said twice now why I believe positive action can help.

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

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

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

I would retain them only for people with disabilities. Hopefully that is Reform's plan.

 

[MNW67]

Where as the white male candidate is clearly being put off from a job that says "we particularly welcome applications from [not you]"

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.