Reform UK discussion

[AlterEgo]

The bigger worry for young adults entering the jobs market would be a significant relaxation of employment legislation meaning that employers can jettison lower skilled workers once they reach a birthday where the cost of employing them goes up

That would still be illegal age discrimination under the Equality Act.

 

[35B]

That would still be illegal age discrimination under the Equality Act.

If that legislation remains under a Reform government...

As much to the point, dismissals at threshold points are widely rumoured and rarely enforced against.

 

[Harpo]

The bigger worry for young adults entering the jobs market would be a significant relaxation of employment legislation meaning that employers can jettison lower skilled workers once they reach a birthday where the cost of employing them goes up

There’s a cost to recruitment that can make it far more efficient to keep a trained employee rather than go around the loop again. Hopefully, the young person will have made a progression internally before reaching that higher rate age.

 

[Bantamzen]

No, it isn't. That someone lives with their parents is neither here nor there. Adults deserve to be paid the same, regardless of age, for doing the same work, and their pay evaluated on the same basis as their peers in the normal way. And under 18s should only be paid less if, due to their age, they are legally unable to fulfil some parts of the job (eg: some warehousing duties in a store, or alcohol handling etc).

"Yes you're in a wheelchair but in a way we are discriminating positively by paying you less, don't you see? The boss thought you might be lazy or inexperienced or less productive, but thank goodness we can save a pound an hour and give you a job".


How on earth it can be positive discrimination to pay someone less money than someone else is absurd.

"It was worse in my day/be thankful for what you've got" total guff which riddles our culture here. Under no circumstances would this ever be used to justify paying women less, or black people less, or gay people less, or Muslims less. I've been there and done it and got the T shirt myself, I would not use my own personal experiences of an unjust labour market to justify it after the fact when I'm pushing 40 and doing very nicely.

Or older people for that matter ("but they have a state pension so it's okay to pay them less").

If an 18 year old and a 22 year old are doing the same work, pay them the same. Arguing for an even wider disparity is lunacy. By the way, if the salary for a job is £15 an hour, well above minimum wage - it's illegal to pay the 18yo and the 22yo differently. This affects only the most vulnerable and neediest people - those on or near the minimum wage.

That Reform want to expand the inequality here is founded on the idea that young people are lazy and the idea that businesses would like to pay people less money to work for them.

Removing the lower minimum wage would disincentivise employers from taking on school leavers, why would they hire someone with zero experience when they could employ someone with experience for the same amount? Trust me when I say this, I have something of an inside track on this through my employer, and a lot of work has been done in the background on this very matter. Levelling the minimum wage for school leavers will very possibly disadvantage them further. It would also put additional pressures on smaller businesses, who often take on younger people, who don't have the margins to simply absorb higher wage costs.

It's already getting harder for school leavers to get into employment, we're seeing that in the data as employers struggle to keep afloat. Making it more expensive for businesses to hire young people will make the situation worse for them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Removing the lower minimum wage would disincentivise employers from taking on school leavers, why would they hire someone with zero experience when they could employ someone with experience for the same amount? Trust me when I say this, I have something of an inside track on this through my employer, and a lot of work has been done in the background on this very matter. Levelling the minimum wage for school leavers will very possibly disadvantage them further. It would also put additional pressures on smaller businesses, who often take on younger people, who don't have the margins to simply absorb higher wage costs.

It's already getting harder for school leavers to get into employment, we're seeing that in the data as employers struggle to keep afloat. Making it more expensive for businesses to hire young people will make the situation worse for them.

This amounts to "employers will discriminate on age anyway, someone who is 19 or 20 could be useless, nothing we can do about that, except maybe make it cheaper for them to employ".

Do you think disabled people should be paid a lower minimum wage, in order to improve their prospects of employment? Something like 4.5m economically inactive disabled working age adults out there.

Or, do you think disabled people deserve the dignity and equality of being paid the same as other adults doing the same work?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Feb 2026 ==

While I despise Tice and his attempts to gut protections, the argument about fairness needs to consider carefully what unfairness may result if people can't get jobs in the first place. That balance is difficult, and not helped by excessively robust assertions about fairness.

I think robust assertions about fairness are good, actually. I think it's a disgrace that young adults can be lawfully discriminated against in this way in a manner that no other protected characteristic could be. Disabled people may be entitled to lower targets as a reasonable adjustment, for example, under the law. Would you pay them less? Should I care if your organisation finds them too expensive to employ or that they would perceive their value of work to be lower? A woman might go on maternity leave for a year and you might need to find a replacement soon after hiring them. Should I care if your organisation is thinking about not offering a straight 28yo married woman a job for those reasons?

 

[35B]

This amounts to "employers will discriminate on age anyway, someone who is 19 or 20 could be useless, nothing we can do about that, except maybe make it cheaper for them to employ".

Do you think disabled people should be paid a lower minimum wage, in order to improve their prospects of employment? Something like 4.5m economically inactive disabled working age adults out there.

Or, do you think disabled people deserve the dignity and equality of being paid the same as other adults doing the same work?

I think that it can vary, and that the insistence on full equality can have the effect of preventing some disabled (especially learning disabled) from finding any place in the workforce. A recent case involving Waitrose brought this into focus, and I've seen Dominic Lawson and his wife write very movingly about the impact that work can have on people with Downs, amongst them his daughter Domenica - while also thinking that he can more easily afford to support her than many parents can their adult children.

In practice, employers recruit people to do a job, and need that job to generate income to support the wages paid. The existence of minimum wage laws brings that into sharp focus, especially at a time when government policies are increasing the costs of employing staff.

 

[Bantamzen]

This amounts to "employers will discriminate on age anyway, someone who is 19 or 20 could be useless, nothing we can do about that, except maybe make it cheaper for them to employ".

Do you think disabled people should be paid a lower minimum wage, in order to improve their prospects of employment? Something like 4.5m economically inactive disabled working age adults out there.

Or, do you think disabled people deserve the dignity and equality of being paid the same as other adults doing the same work?

Eh? I was simply pointing out why the lower band of minimum wage exists. You might not agree with it but it is a reality. Increase the cost of employing younger people at a stroke, and you will reduce their opportunities, and at a time when unemployment has been ticking steadily upwards for 3 years now.

 

[JamesT]

Eh? I was simply pointing out why the lower band of minimum wage exists. You might not agree with it but it is a reality. Increase the cost of employing younger people at a stroke, and you will reduce their opportunities, and at a time when unemployment has been ticking steadily upwards for 3 years now.

As we are seeing. The current Labour government has pledged to remove the difference in rates and has started increasing the lower bands at a faster rate. That youth unemployment has recently had a big jump you can choose to believe is either coincidence or the natural result of such a policy.
The mention of other protected characteristics is somewhat of a straw man. Reform haven’t suggested they would change those. The crucial difference being that you get older and more experienced, you don’t stop being disabled.

 

[PGAT]

As we are seeing. The current Labour government has pledged to remove the difference in rates and has started increasing the lower bands at a faster rate. That youth unemployment has recently had a big jump you can choose to believe is either coincidence or the natural result of such a policy.
The mention of other protected characteristics is somewhat of a straw man. Reform haven’t suggested they would change those. The crucial difference being that you get older and more experienced, you don’t stop being disabled.

Didn't Reform say they would abolish the Equality Act?

 

[AlterEgo]

The crucial difference being that you get older and more experienced, you don’t stop being disabled.

Wrong. A person can stop being disabled, or become more disabled, or become less disabled. This is Equality Act 101 here.

 

[brad465]

Watched this thread with interest. I have a question to ask.

Caveat for context - I live in the “St Albans bubble” (see also “Cambridge“, “Guildford”, “Bath” etc)

But… I know a number of people from all types of backgrounds, upbringings, colours and creeds, from all over the country. Amongst my closer friends and family I have people ranging from ages of 20s to 80s, from long term unemployed to Chief Execs / Exec level of companies that are (or would be if they were listed) in the FTSE250, people on benefits to people with millions in the bank.

Most of them are unhappy with the current Government, and the last couple before that too. Amongst them are people who openly (and in some cases, proudly) state they support Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, and one of them (until recently!) was very pro SNP. A few of them actively campaign for their preferred party, and two are councillors.

But not one of my friends has said they support Reform.


My question therefore is: Assuming there are the number of reform supporters in the country that the polls suggest there are, why do they seem to be reluctant to say so in public? Are they embarrassed? Do they know deep down it is ‘wrong’ but like what they hear?

Or, is that I have a self selecting group of friends that appear to be reasonably sensible?

It's quite possible a lot of those saying they'll vote Reform UK are only doing so as a mid-term protest vote/opinion. For several election cycles the main opposition party has led in the polls for a good portion of it, but the incumbent governing party has gone onto win the next election. The difference this time is it's Reform UK rather than the Tories. If as the next election nears Reform's polling slides away, then this historic trend has somewhat continued, if however it doesn't, then there probably is a sizeable "shy Reform" group.

 

[Cdd89]

If an 18 year old and a 22 year old are doing the same work, pay them the same. Arguing for an even wider disparity is lunacy. By the way, if the salary for a job is £15 an hour, well above minimum wage - it's illegal to pay the 18yo and the 22yo differently. This affects only the most vulnerable and neediest people - those on or near the minimum wage.

People should be paid the salary they can negotiate based on their skills / experience / what they bring to the table.

I am not in favour of age discrimination, or any other form of discrimination (which is obviously illegal, as you say), but the reality is that an 18 year old is likely not to bring significant skills and experience, the latter of which is relevant even for unskilled work.

Allowing a lower minimum wage is a recognition of this fact and allows people in this age range to find their first job without being looked over by employers because there will always be a more experienced 22-year-old. This is not the same as saying those aged 18 to 20 should always be paid less - although it's a subtle difference.

And it's positive discrimination in favour of younger people because they would choose to accept work at that lower salary; a higher minimum wage would just prevent them from doing so. In the same way that a 30-year-old with no experience is discriminated against by the current laws as they will find it hard to find work because the minimum wage implicitly assumes a minimal amount of experience.

(Admittedly I am coming at this from the position of not really liking minimum wages, or really any price floors/ceilings, in the first place – in my opinion employers should pay what they like (barring discriminatory reasons), people's incomes should be supported by the government, and if this means some companies are paying less than they could afford then tax their profits them more – but I accept that in the absence of this a minimum wage is a necessary evil, with realistic carve-outs like this one to avoid people from being priced out of the job market).

 

[nw1]

It's quite possible a lot of those saying they'll vote Reform UK are only doing so as a mid-term protest vote/opinion. For several election cycles the main opposition party has led in the polls for a good portion of it, but the incumbent governing party has gone onto win the next election. The difference this time is it's Reform UK rather than the Tories. If as the next election nears Reform's polling slides away, then this historic trend has somewhat continued, if however it doesn't, then there probably is a sizeable "shy Reform" group.

I suspect that a lot of right-wingers will be put off Reform with time after two or three more years of Trump's antics, and after realising they may well screw up the economy as they appear (to me) to be driven by reactionary politics.

I can see this group drifting back to the Tories. As I've said before, I'd say it's quite likely the Tories will come first in the next election, though probably won't gain a majority as, in their current form, they aren't going to get the socially-liberal Southern seats they need back.

 

[AlterEgo]

And it's positive discrimination in favour of younger people because they would choose to accept work at that lower salary

That is not what positive discrimination means.

It's not positive discrimination to let employers employ women for 20% less salary than men doing the same job because maybe the employer is sexist and doesn't want the hassle of maternity leave or the "hassle of dealing with women" or they think "women can be a bit useless and emotional", and "well maybe if it cost less, they'd employ more women".

18 year olds and 22 year olds must produce the same quality of work - there is nothing in employment law that says they should be treated any differently with relation to job performance.

What you are justifying is simply legalised discrimination that some people should be paid less and that it is in their own interests, and that people should not have the protection of a minimum wage or a minimum standard of living in an economy which will justify neither.

This is doing Reform's work for them.

 

[Cdd89]

18 year olds and 22 year olds must produce the same quality of work - there is nothing in employment law that says they should be treated any differently with relation to job performance.

The fact you can employ someone and fire them if you don't like their work does not fully offset the drag factor of making a bad hire. (This would be even worse if the proposed 0-day unfair dismissal reforms had occurred).

Come at it from the other perspective: if you are an employer paying a price floor, why would you employ the 18-20 candidate who statistically has no experience of any kind of work, over the 20-22 candidate who statistically does?

The only negotiating power an inexperienced 18-20 has is to offer to accept a lower salary. You're suggesting we should take that away from them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Feb 2026 ==

It's not positive discrimination to let employers employ women for 20% less salary than men doing the same job because maybe the employer is sexist and doesn't want the hassle of maternity leave or the "hassle of dealing with women" or they think "women can be a bit useless and emotional", and "well maybe if it cost less, they'd employ more women".

The people losing out by holding these sorts of outmoded viewpoints are the bad employers themselves. I don't accept the equivalence between some wooly claim of emotional immaturity over the concrete factor of statistical lack of experience.

 

[35B]

People should be paid the salary they can negotiate based on their skills / experience / what they bring to the table.

The key issue here is that the ability of a prospective employee to negotiate pay and terms is very limited - especially in low skill, low wage jobs. While I err towards the economic libertarian myself, I recognise that there is a fundamental inequality between employer and prospective employee where, in line with classic free market theory going back to Adam Smith, the state has a role in ensuring that the market can operate freely and fairly (and, per Smith, within the rules of society at large).

The existence of a minimum wage mitigates the effect of this, although at two key risks - pricing out low skill individuals from employment, and lowering average wages as employers trend towards the minimum as a rule of thumb.

For me, based on that perspective, the questions that then follow are about where that minimum should be set, and whether it should be flat or tapered in order to mitigate the pricing out impact. That is not positive discrimination, but an acknowledgement that in certain cases, there may be a justification for giving some people less favourable treatment.

The people losing out by holding these sorts of outmoded viewpoints are the bad employers themselves. I don't accept the equivalence between some wooly claim of emotional immaturity over the concrete factor of statistical lack of experience.

The evidence from tribunals and other sources is that, while the employers may well be victims of this, there are plenty of people who are also subject to discrimination and suffer as a result. That is, yet again, reason why a level of employment legislation is justified - especially at the bottom end of the employment pyramid.

I was discussing this last year with someone who runs a business, and has an American branch. He was arguing for American "hire at will" rules, and used the example of a senior manager he'd appointed where it didn't work out and "hire at will" allowed a rapid split. He couldn't see, despite being a good and progressive employer at his factory, how this might not work so well with employers less socially conscious than he is.

The rules need to deal with what happens when things go wrong, and protect all interests.

 

[Bevan Price]

Youth unemployment has been rising. Making it more attractive to hire young people is likely to be an overall benefit for them. The current net zero policies are already leading to thousands of job losses in oil and gas, and other industries affected by our high energy prices.
He may be coming at it from a climate sceptic position, but he’s not wrong that things need to change to get us out of this stagnation we’ve been in for the last two decades.

Tice's failure to appreciate the consequences of global warming is typical short-term nonsense. Yes, there may be an apparent temporary reduction in some energy costs. But the long term result will be ever more fierce weather systems, causing increasingly severe damage to property, farmland, etc. - the costs for fixing will be massive.

 

[Cdd89]

I was discussing this last year with someone who runs a business, and has an American branch. He was arguing for American "hire at will" rules, and used the example of a senior manager he'd appointed where it didn't work out and "hire at will" allowed a rapid split. He couldn't see, despite being a good and progressive employer at his factory, how this might not work so well with employers less socially conscious than he is.

The UK is (and will continue to be) "hire at will" for the first six months of someone's employment. I am strongly in favour of keeping that and think it is a good balance between the US system and a UK system (a bad fit will likely reveal themselves within that timeframe). Also don't forget that the US system does not permit dismissal for discriminatory reasons.

The key issue here is that the ability of a prospective employee to negotiate pay and terms is very limited - especially in low skill, low wage jobs.

The best way to increase the ability of employees to negotiate their pay and terms is to ensure a high (though not 100%) level of employment such that employers aren't the ones dictating all the terms. The problem is we have economic stagnation and lower levels of employment than we need. It's hard to see how adding more burdens to employing people in the UK would reverse this trend, and price floors don't prevent less-experienced candidates from being exploited, rather they prevent them from being employed.

The evidence from tribunals and other sources is that, while the employers may well be victims of this, there are plenty of people who are also subject to discrimination and suffer as a result. That is, yet again, reason why a level of employment legislation is justified

I do agree with this, but it's important be mindful of the limits. Employment legislation cannot turn bad or unscrupulous employers into good employers. The most it can do is prevent the most egregiously unfair treatment until the employees move on, which they will do the first chance they get. This is actually another way that price controls cannot 'control' the market - two employers might pay the minimum wage, but if one employer is terrible while the other is good, the latter will retain the employees who have more options.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact you can employ someone and fire them if you don't like their work does not fully offset the drag factor of making a bad hire.

Agreed, but the law is such that it is illegal to consider one's protected characteristics as "likely to make a bad hire".

"The Muslim guy might not fit in, the woman will get pregnant and I'm on the hook for maternity pay and to pay for cover, the disabled person might get more disabled and take up HR time and become unproductive, I don't want a gay or trans person serving my customers, the old woman will get slower and need to be managed out" - these are all illegal. It's also illegal to deny an 18 year old a job on the grounds you think they might turn up late (whether that is because the last 18 year old did the same or not).

(This would be even worse if the proposed 0-day unfair dismissal reforms had occurred).

Come at it from the other perspective: if you are an employer paying a price floor, why would you employ the 18-20 candidate who statistically has no experience of any kind of work, over the 20-22 candidate who statistically does?

Do I get to interview both of them or not? And, legally, they'll have to do the same work, right? I mean, I'm not being launched 20 year olds and 22 year olds at me from a cannon am I?

I'm assuming here if I employ the 20 year old because I can pay them £50 a week less, the 22 year old loses out - what does this solve in our society, exactly?

The only negotiating power an inexperienced 18-20 has is to offer to accept a lower salary. You're suggesting we should take that away from them.

They don't have that negotiating power anyway. They have a non-negotiable legal minimum wage!

And I would not *give them that* because it is exploitative. The only negotiating power that some people in the economy have is to work for even less, and below the legal minimum wage, and enter into near- or actual- modern slavery conditions. I don't think people can or should be able to consent to that in the same way you can't consent to most crimes against their person.

What we should have instead is what every other protected characteristic has - the right to fair treatment and to be paid the same without recourse to inalienable characteristics one cannot choose for themselves.

What has harmed young people the most is not some sort of discrimination where 22 year olds are taking all the jobs, but actually that many entry level roles are simply *not being recruited for* as the nature of work changes and employers shore up their outgoings. A big part of this issue is rising NICs which have affected employers of all sizes and employees of all ages.

Reform would love to do away with all the minimum wages I'm sure, and the Equality Act, and the people who will benefit are large businesses who can pay pisspot wages to people who don't get a say other than to work for less.

No thank you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Feb 2026 ==

The UK is (and will continue to be) "hire at will" for the first six months of someone's employment. I am strongly in favour of keeping that and think it is a good balance between the US system and a UK system (a bad fit will likely reveal themselves within that timeframe).

We can at least find common ground here!

 

[Oxfordblues]

The news on Thursday night will be interesting. The bookies's favourite in Gorton & Denton is the Green, closely followed by Reform UK with Labour trailing well behind, possibly fourth after The Lib Dems. If so, Starmer could be forced to resign and Reform UK might demand equal air-time to Labour and the Tories (remember them?)

PM in danger zone if he loses Gorton and Denton by-election, Labour MPs warn

SIR Keir Starmer will be plunged into the danger zone if he loses this week’s by-election, Labour MPs warn. Voters will go to the polls in Gorton and Denton, Manchester, this Thursday in a battle b…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Cdd89]

Reform would love to do away with all the minimum wages I'm sure, and the Equality Act, and the people who will benefit are large businesses who can pay pisspot wages to people who don't get a say other than to work for less.

While I don't like minimum wages, I would not vote for Reform on this point because they would not do the second half of the equation which is supporting people's incomes and taxing employers more to "balance the books". I accept that in the current system minimum wages are a necessary evil.

I'm assuming here if I employ the 20 year old because I can pay them £50 a week less, the 22 year old loses out - what does this solve in our society, exactly?

The 22 year old does lose out, but another employer will probably hire them because of their experience so it's evening out the disadvantage rather than concentrating it into the youngest age group. The £50 less is not a "free gift" to you as an employer, it's compensation for the fact that you are taking a risk. Also don't forget that the 20 year old will become a 22 year old, at which point you cannot fire them (and rightly so).

In reality if the minimum wage is equalised for all ages, the market will "sort itself out", but that will manifest itself in less employment for 18-20 year olds. That's the outcome I strongly object to, in part because employment early in adult life is extremely important to future life chances, and also because I remember how horrible it was to be looking for my first job when I had pretty much nothing to offer an employer other than risk and uncertainty. (My first salary was £20k full time Central London in 2012, which was astonishingly low for the type of work, but they turned out to be a great employer who I am still with to this day, now being paid several times that!).

 

[brad465]

The news on Thursday night will be interesting. The bookies's favourite in Gorton & Denton is the Green, closely followed by Reform UK with Labour trailing well behind, possibly fourth after The Lib Dems. If so, Starmer could be forced to resign and Reform UK might demand equal air-time to Labour and the Tories (remember them?)

PM in danger zone if he loses Gorton and Denton by-election, Labour MPs warn

SIR Keir Starmer will be plunged into the danger zone if he loses this week’s by-election, Labour MPs warn. Voters will go to the polls in Gorton and Denton, Manchester, this Thursday in a battle b…

www.thesun.co.uk

Pretty sure they already have near-equal airtime already. In parliament they don't, but that's by long-standing convention of their seat count, and if anyone wanted to make a claim more "airtime" in parliament than the Tories, it's the Lib Dems with their 72 MPs.

 

[Purple Train]

That would still be illegal age discrimination under the Equality Act.

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I could name and shame at least one such business (disclaimer: I was not the employee concerned) for definite. Obviously I'm sure Reform would praise said business for their excellent nous/greed (delete as appropriate)! Would any Reform supporters on here be willing to back them up?

 

[Cross City]

The 22 year old does lose out, but another employer will probably hire them because of their experience

Doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

 

[AlterEgo]

Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I could name and shame at least one such business (disclaimer: I was not the employee concerned) for definite. Obviously I'm sure Reform would praise said business for their excellent nous/greed (delete as appropriate)! Would any Reform supporters on here be willing to back them up?

Ah, so they don't magically "get more experience" and their labour valued more by the employer when they're 21? Not even when they've been *doing the job already*? Who'd-a thunk it?

 

[35B]

Ah, so they don't magically "get more experience" and their labour valued more by the employer when they're 21? Not even when they've been *doing the job already*? Who'd-a thunk it?

No it doesn't. But what it illustrates are two things. The first, which is a statement of the very obvious, is that some employers are awful.

The second is that, where the cost of employment is artificially raised, it creates an incentive to avoid paying the higher wage. That isn't just a cost of compliance, but also about whether anyone is hired in the first place.

A common, and well aimed, criticism of the French system of employment regulation is that in the way it protects serving employees, it deters recruitment. That protects those who have jobs at the cost of excluding those without jobs - and is a major contributor to the problem of the banlieus.

 

[The exile]

Wrong. A person can stop being disabled, or become more disabled, or become less disabled. This is Equality Act 101 here.

“Can” / “Might” being the operative word. Someone under 22 will become someone over 22 - or at least if they don’t, discussions about levels of pay are purely academic. Viewed tge other way around it’s 100% - all over 22s were once aged under 22.

 

[MP33]

Rupert Lowe leaving, due to Nigel Farage trying to take Reform (UK) towards the Centre Right. It is another one, that does not get it, that there is only a very limited amount of support for Far Right or Left Politics.

 

[AlterEgo]

“Can” / “Might” being the operative word. Someone under 22 will become someone over 22 - or at least if they don’t, discussions about levels of pay are purely academic. Viewed tge other way around it’s 100% - all over 22s were once aged under 22.

Let's pay the elderly less because they are often slow and useless. No takers?

 

[35B]

Rupert Lowe leaving, due to Nigel Farage trying to take Reform (UK) towards the Centre Right. It is another one, that does not get it, that there is only a very limited amount of support for Far Right or Left Politics.

No, he is another ideologue who believes against all evidence that Britain wants his brand of ethno-nationalism