How can Reform UK support the Armed Forces Covenant if EDI is 'a con'?
Monday 28 July 2025 at 13:41
Visible to anyone in the world
Back in the days when I was a Labour Party County Councillor I was a big advocate for helping armed services veterans leaving Her Majesty’s forces. (Such strident support was relatively rare in Labour in those days, it got far worse under Jeremy Corbyn - but that’s another story.)
In my role I petitioned my County Council to adopt a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans applying for jobs providing they met all essential criteria of the job description. It was a scheme designed to ensure forces leavers were not disadvantaged in recruitment as many of the skills they develop do not have transferrable qualifications into the civilian sector (or certainly did not then have). Skills were often learnt instead of accredited.
It was a scheme specifically designed to remove disadvantage, and promote equality, to a thoroughly deserving group within our community.
In the end my County Council did not adopt a guaranteed interview scheme, instead we became co-signatories to the Armed Forces Covenant.
I remain incredibly proud that we adopted the covenant, it’s objectives are incredibly clear.
But I’m also very clear that in that the Armed Forces Covenant, rightly so, is a version of EDI.
It is exactly the same sentiment as expressed in the Armed Forces Covenant.
Ensuring people are not disadvantaged in life. The Armed Forces Covenant talks about those who serve or have served, generally EDI talks about protected characteristics. But the principle is the same.
An advanced society tries to make access to services, including recruitment, equitable to everyone, especially those groups who find it difficult to break through. EDI is in principle really no more complex than that.
The first, and most important, point of course is understanding that not everyone is able to access public services in the same way. EDI is about making sure ‘different’ isn’t ‘excluded’, just as the Armed Forces Covenant is.
What Reform UK must decide is why the dislike EDI?
Is it because they are against the concept of removing disadvantage, because it is too costly to the taxpayer?
To me that is a disagreeable position but it is, at least, intellectually coherent, but, in which case, logically, the now Reform UK led Leicestershire County Council should remove support for the Armed Forces Covenant.
Or, is it because, the most visible beneficiaries of EDI as they see it are easily targetted groups (and non-target voters)?
How can Reform UK support the Armed Forces Covenant if EDI is 'a con'?
Back in the days when I was a Labour Party County Councillor I was a big advocate for helping armed services veterans leaving Her Majesty’s forces. (Such strident support was relatively rare in Labour in those days, it got far worse under Jeremy Corbyn - but that’s another story.)
In my role I petitioned my County Council to adopt a guaranteed interview scheme for veterans applying for jobs providing they met all essential criteria of the job description. It was a scheme designed to ensure forces leavers were not disadvantaged in recruitment as many of the skills they develop do not have transferrable qualifications into the civilian sector (or certainly did not then have). Skills were often learnt instead of accredited.
It was a scheme specifically designed to remove disadvantage, and promote equality, to a thoroughly deserving group within our community.
In the end my County Council did not adopt a guaranteed interview scheme, instead we became co-signatories to the Armed Forces Covenant.
I remain incredibly proud that we adopted the covenant, it’s objectives are incredibly clear.
But I’m also very clear that in that the Armed Forces Covenant, rightly so, is a version of EDI.
EDI, or Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, is the bête noire of Reform UK councillors up and down England. Reform UK councils, taking office at an opportune time, ordered the removal of flags during LGBTQ+ Pride Month, and notably the Deputy Leader of Leicestershire County Council describes EDI as ‘a con’.
The principles of EDI talk about equality and disadvantage. No lesser institution than Oxford University states clearly “Equality is about ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities, and no-one is treated differently or discriminated against because of their personal characteristics.”
It is exactly the same sentiment as expressed in the Armed Forces Covenant.
Ensuring people are not disadvantaged in life. The Armed Forces Covenant talks about those who serve or have served, generally EDI talks about protected characteristics. But the principle is the same.
An advanced society tries to make access to services, including recruitment, equitable to everyone, especially those groups who find it difficult to break through. EDI is in principle really no more complex than that.
The first, and most important, point of course is understanding that not everyone is able to access public services in the same way. EDI is about making sure ‘different’ isn’t ‘excluded’, just as the Armed Forces Covenant is.
What Reform UK must decide is why the dislike EDI?
Is it because they are against the concept of removing disadvantage, because it is too costly to the taxpayer?
To me that is a disagreeable position but it is, at least, intellectually coherent, but, in which case, logically, the now Reform UK led Leicestershire County Council should remove support for the Armed Forces Covenant.
Or, is it because, the most visible beneficiaries of EDI as they see it are easily targetted groups (and non-target voters)?
I think we probably know the answer.