It’s ironic that Lowe’s party is becoming a continuity UKIP, a single issue party, with a big personality at the centre, putting out soundbites. The advantage Reform has is a head start in evolution and the experience of running councils in real life, with a chance to do some proper homework. Whether they do is another matter, maybe the problems are too great relative to ability but there is at least an opportunity there. When it comes to DEI roles, yes, a better understanding of what they can do usefully, with better and clearer legislation will be a great help.
It makes you realise there is so much legislation that would need to be swept aside to make a dent in any of the nonsense DEI culture we live in. A mammoth/almost
Impossible task to restructure the country in a term.
Starmer won't be in the job for long now, and will soon retire to enjoy the largely tax-exempt taxpayer-funded pension scheme available exlusively to hard-working ex-DPPs that he made sure to secure for himself (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65037136). He'll also probably need a large taxpayer-funded and well-armed security/protection team to keep the ghastly unwashed pitch-fork wielding hoi-polloi at bay from the private gated community typically enjoyed by such deserving working-class socialist equality-champion multimillionaire barristers. Presumably the throngs of eastern-European rent-boys will have to form an orderly queue at the Starmer household's tradesman's entrance. Lucky Victoria!
If Rupert Lowe promises to cancel Starmer's protection detail such that the two-tier-turd has to pay through the nose for it out of his own pocket, then I'll vote Restore on principle. No ifs. No buts.
I said initially that I would give Lowe six months but your analysis over the last few day would indicate that the only serious policy he really has is to screw Farage and Yusuf into the ground!
That is the same question that should be asked about all the libertarian right policies. I understood that employees could be taken advantage of when employment was tight. The last 10 years jobs have been abundant, admittedly Reeves is doing her best to reverse that, but what is stopping a care worker being a delivery driver, warehouse operator or supermarket cashier. I'd like to know the anwer, as I really don't understand the equalities act. I guess that confirms Pete's point. Detailed analysis of the equalities act and why legislation was introduced is needed and arguments as to why they subsequently need to be removed have to be made.
To a large extent this really is a rerun of Brexit, as many supporters had the gut feel, right or wrong, that we were being strangled by legislation. That feeling if anything has only gotten worse, and Starmer's Labour more than any other party epitomzes that, so Restore is completley reacting to peoples gut, so Lowe is literally being the man in the pub's spokeperson and is analysis is probably just as deep.
Great analysis Pete. I maintain that the Birmingham case is absurd and has been completely against public interest, though thankfully I don't live in Brum myself. Organisations must have the freedom to pay differently for different job roles. The bullet point you include from the employment rights bill about 'equality action plans' makes me recoil. However, any idea how the 'gender pay gaps' are defined? The perception on the right is that it is across the whole organisation, which sounds ridiculous (ie. Put a few women in high paying positions and the 'pay gap' is gone).
The thrust of your points is thoughtful. We should use the same approach with race relations and remigration. The last time anyone on the right thought about these issues from a practical perspective was probably during the Thatcher period, when major social legislation was passed (the Community Care Act, the Children Act, and key Race Relations Acts), and the odd minister got their heads around them. During the last period in office, it was clear to me that the ministers who were sceptical about the direction of travel in equality and diversity had no idea how to stop, amend or reverse it.
Unpicking the legislation without losing reasonable rights and quintessential English fair play needs serious meditation. Reasonable moderate legislation can be unearthed. What we need to dismantle is the culture of resource transfer. and the rise of equal outcomes and radical social reorganisation. And to do this, we need to find a way to stop the DEI industry from simply moving the goalposts by redefining the task of equality legislation towards social reconstruction, decolonisation, and the maintenance of a client group and network of patronage; and all the rest of it.
In my opinion, the 2000 Relations Amendment Act shifted power from local communities to councils but ultimately placed them under the control of national government departments. This created the opportunity for the subsequent burgeoning industry of advisors and advocacy groups that often have little real foundation in their various “hard-to-reach” communities.
This all culminates in the Trans ideology that takes the dubious ideas of a fact within a minute section of society and, via the crucible of gender studies, seeks to redefine 99.9% of the population's views of sex, biology, and identity. I have not had time to read the Remigrating proposals that Restore produced, but it at least appeared as though they were seriously reflecting on the legislation and treaty changes.
Many of these problems require on-the-ground knowledge. Simply removing translation services in the NHS could have a hugely detrimental effect on diagnosis and discharge planning. Provisions that have taken decades to reach the nefarious situation they are in now will require a dramatic but thoughtful dismantling.
Evidence based behavioural recruitment processes has been extremely beneficial to all applicants, but the move form positive action (additional night classes for sections of the population to retrain, at their own expense) to positive discrimination (the setting of KPI targets for sections of the workforce and the eventual codification of protected categories and with that a hierarchy of privilege arising for strategic court cases) will; have to be rolled back.
Another key issue is the use of government money to finance the network of political NGO's - in America, this was most visible with USAID and other departments. In the UK, USAID was a huge funder of Stonewall, and I think the UK DCMS is often being used as an LGBTQ/Green/Islamist slush fund.
I’ve thought for some time now that the Equality Act has become a bit of a bogeyman for the right, and I’m not sure repealing it would even solve any of the issues that concern them.
The main purpose of it is to collate various strands of anti-discrimination legislation into one body of law. There are even documented instances of it being cited to defend white men from discrimination.
A few targeted amendments to remove problematic elements of the Act and explicitly outlaw undesirable, ideologically-driven practices (i.e. discriminatory hiring where candidates are ‘equally qualified’) could accomplish as much if not more than simply binning the legislation without addressing underlying workplace culture.
Going for a complete repeal also makes it easier for your opponents to misrepresent your intentions - meaning the issue will absorb more attention and focus than it merits, when in truth we don’t want a government expending too much political capital on DEI issues.
It’s ironic that Lowe’s party is becoming a continuity UKIP, a single issue party, with a big personality at the centre, putting out soundbites. The advantage Reform has is a head start in evolution and the experience of running councils in real life, with a chance to do some proper homework. Whether they do is another matter, maybe the problems are too great relative to ability but there is at least an opportunity there. When it comes to DEI roles, yes, a better understanding of what they can do usefully, with better and clearer legislation will be a great help.
It makes you realise there is so much legislation that would need to be swept aside to make a dent in any of the nonsense DEI culture we live in. A mammoth/almost
Impossible task to restructure the country in a term.
Starmer won't be in the job for long now, and will soon retire to enjoy the largely tax-exempt taxpayer-funded pension scheme available exlusively to hard-working ex-DPPs that he made sure to secure for himself (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65037136). He'll also probably need a large taxpayer-funded and well-armed security/protection team to keep the ghastly unwashed pitch-fork wielding hoi-polloi at bay from the private gated community typically enjoyed by such deserving working-class socialist equality-champion multimillionaire barristers. Presumably the throngs of eastern-European rent-boys will have to form an orderly queue at the Starmer household's tradesman's entrance. Lucky Victoria!
If Rupert Lowe promises to cancel Starmer's protection detail such that the two-tier-turd has to pay through the nose for it out of his own pocket, then I'll vote Restore on principle. No ifs. No buts.
I said initially that I would give Lowe six months but your analysis over the last few day would indicate that the only serious policy he really has is to screw Farage and Yusuf into the ground!
Who tells women they should be paid less, or stops them working on the bins?
Indeed, isn't that the fundamental.
Are market forces working correctly?
That is the same question that should be asked about all the libertarian right policies. I understood that employees could be taken advantage of when employment was tight. The last 10 years jobs have been abundant, admittedly Reeves is doing her best to reverse that, but what is stopping a care worker being a delivery driver, warehouse operator or supermarket cashier. I'd like to know the anwer, as I really don't understand the equalities act. I guess that confirms Pete's point. Detailed analysis of the equalities act and why legislation was introduced is needed and arguments as to why they subsequently need to be removed have to be made.
To a large extent this really is a rerun of Brexit, as many supporters had the gut feel, right or wrong, that we were being strangled by legislation. That feeling if anything has only gotten worse, and Starmer's Labour more than any other party epitomzes that, so Restore is completley reacting to peoples gut, so Lowe is literally being the man in the pub's spokeperson and is analysis is probably just as deep.
Great analysis Pete. I maintain that the Birmingham case is absurd and has been completely against public interest, though thankfully I don't live in Brum myself. Organisations must have the freedom to pay differently for different job roles. The bullet point you include from the employment rights bill about 'equality action plans' makes me recoil. However, any idea how the 'gender pay gaps' are defined? The perception on the right is that it is across the whole organisation, which sounds ridiculous (ie. Put a few women in high paying positions and the 'pay gap' is gone).
The thrust of your points is thoughtful. We should use the same approach with race relations and remigration. The last time anyone on the right thought about these issues from a practical perspective was probably during the Thatcher period, when major social legislation was passed (the Community Care Act, the Children Act, and key Race Relations Acts), and the odd minister got their heads around them. During the last period in office, it was clear to me that the ministers who were sceptical about the direction of travel in equality and diversity had no idea how to stop, amend or reverse it.
Unpicking the legislation without losing reasonable rights and quintessential English fair play needs serious meditation. Reasonable moderate legislation can be unearthed. What we need to dismantle is the culture of resource transfer. and the rise of equal outcomes and radical social reorganisation. And to do this, we need to find a way to stop the DEI industry from simply moving the goalposts by redefining the task of equality legislation towards social reconstruction, decolonisation, and the maintenance of a client group and network of patronage; and all the rest of it.
In my opinion, the 2000 Relations Amendment Act shifted power from local communities to councils but ultimately placed them under the control of national government departments. This created the opportunity for the subsequent burgeoning industry of advisors and advocacy groups that often have little real foundation in their various “hard-to-reach” communities.
This all culminates in the Trans ideology that takes the dubious ideas of a fact within a minute section of society and, via the crucible of gender studies, seeks to redefine 99.9% of the population's views of sex, biology, and identity. I have not had time to read the Remigrating proposals that Restore produced, but it at least appeared as though they were seriously reflecting on the legislation and treaty changes.
Many of these problems require on-the-ground knowledge. Simply removing translation services in the NHS could have a hugely detrimental effect on diagnosis and discharge planning. Provisions that have taken decades to reach the nefarious situation they are in now will require a dramatic but thoughtful dismantling.
Evidence based behavioural recruitment processes has been extremely beneficial to all applicants, but the move form positive action (additional night classes for sections of the population to retrain, at their own expense) to positive discrimination (the setting of KPI targets for sections of the workforce and the eventual codification of protected categories and with that a hierarchy of privilege arising for strategic court cases) will; have to be rolled back.
Another key issue is the use of government money to finance the network of political NGO's - in America, this was most visible with USAID and other departments. In the UK, USAID was a huge funder of Stonewall, and I think the UK DCMS is often being used as an LGBTQ/Green/Islamist slush fund.
Hard to disagree
I’ve thought for some time now that the Equality Act has become a bit of a bogeyman for the right, and I’m not sure repealing it would even solve any of the issues that concern them.
The main purpose of it is to collate various strands of anti-discrimination legislation into one body of law. There are even documented instances of it being cited to defend white men from discrimination.
A few targeted amendments to remove problematic elements of the Act and explicitly outlaw undesirable, ideologically-driven practices (i.e. discriminatory hiring where candidates are ‘equally qualified’) could accomplish as much if not more than simply binning the legislation without addressing underlying workplace culture.
Going for a complete repeal also makes it easier for your opponents to misrepresent your intentions - meaning the issue will absorb more attention and focus than it merits, when in truth we don’t want a government expending too much political capital on DEI issues.