So...anybody ask for any of this?

[TheFaQQer]

Why would you need to go over there to see that. The general tone of their representatives here make it utterly clear how contradicting views would be treated there..

A point that I have made in the IPSE forums as well.

[tractor]

...

A point that I have made in the IPSE forums as well.

And the most glaring fact is that since you (and others) have made the point, nothing has changed. They don't even accept that there is a problem

[mudskipper]

Why would you need to go over there to see that. The general tone of their representatives here make it utterly clear how contradicting views would be treated there..

I managed to have quite a sensible discussion over there yesterday. It might have even changed my mind a bit.

[malvolio]

Indeed, but clearly Mal would rather not admit that the PCG/IPSE forums are anything other than an active hotbed of support, he'd not let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of his bottomless support for the sainted (in his eyes) PCG/IPSE.

Since their forum is members only and I have absolutely no desire to appear to lend the IPSE (formerly PCG) the excuse to claim my mandate or spend my money I clearly can't present my views, or for that matter support other peoples views.

Except that IPSe canvases a lot more people than its forum users and commissions genuine, in-depth academic research on the key issues to inform its decision making. That's rather more reliable than depending on the views of a self-appointed minority who happen to like forums.

[malvolio]

And the most glaring fact is that since you (and others) have made the point, nothing has changed. They don't even accept that there is a problem

OK, your challenge for today. Go back to the IPSE boards and show me where I have actually rubbished your views. I may have offered an alternative viewpoint, but that is how you have a debate; if that is considered to be "rubbishing" or "being dismissive", then perhaps you have a clue why.

You also assume that I always agree with IPSE's views on a subject. I may, I may not, all I try to do here is present their side in the interests of balance, a point that appears to be lost on some.

[tractor]

Except that IPSe canvases a lot more people than its forum users and commissions genuine, in-depth academic research on the key issues to inform its decision making. That's rather more reliable than depending on the views of a self-appointed minority who happen to like forums.

Yes but the decision making process that determines what IPSE supports goes like;

Board and CC have an idea, commission some research, decide what to do, tell the membership (maybe) at some point after all the decisions are made. You should always START with the membership. At no point in the process do you assess the value that THE MEMBERS place on the initiative.

Conversely, when members broach or raise a subject, unless it fits with the plan, it gets no traction whatsoever. Just take the Opt Out farce as an example. What is IPSE doing about the abuse of contractors legal rights by agents, whether or not they are REC/APSCO members?

OK, your challenge for today. Go back to the IPSE boards and show me where I have actually rubbished your views. I may have offered an alternative viewpoint, but that is how you have a debate; if that is considered to be "rubbishing" or "being dismissive", then perhaps you have a clue why.

You also assume that I always agree with IPSE's views on a subject. I may, I may not, all I try to do here is present their side in the interests of balance, a point that appears to be lost on some.

Yes, points are lost on some. For my part it is because all I ever see you do is make claims that you cannot substantiate. For example, I am still waiting to see where the 'consensus of opinion' you mentioned yesterday came from. I guess you are still ignoring the question hoping it will go away. Well, it won't; you made the claim, you just need to back it up.

Your view of a debate is my understanding of lip service. IPSE will never do anything about the abuse of Opt Out. When I asked about it originally months ago, I was told if I had a real business, I didn't need the protection of an opt out. That is an outrageous response.

A large part of the problem really is the arrogance of it all. Many people have explained and complained about the attitudes over there and here you are giving me my 'challenge for today'. Well, here is yours; go get your arrogance seen to.

And while you are at it, perhaps you would like to elaborate on what a FLC will look like in terms of fiscal requirements and responsibilities, taxation proposals, insurance requirements, legal requirements, likelihood of wholesale acceptance by agents and clients. How it will be protected from HMRC attacks specifically targetting FLCs etc etc. If it's confidential, you don't have to post it here, just put the research on IPSE fora so all members can see.

You might like to do the same with the research that your academic partners have produced with regard to merged tax and NI.

Facts please not bluster.

[TheFaQQer]

Board and CC have an idea, commission some research, decide what to do, tell the membership (maybe) at some point after all the decisions are made. You should always START with the membership. At no point in the process do you assess the value that THE MEMBERS place on the initiative.

I think you are overstating the importance of the CC to a certain extent.

For example, the CC knew that there was an exercise looking at a new name. They were told the new name once all the decisions had been taken and the new stationery was on order. The board then told people on the forums that because they weren't active forum members they had no right to ask questions about the decision making process.

From what I recall (and I may very well be mistaken), a similar exercise took place with the manifesto - it was on the web and published before the CC had sight of what it contained in any detail. There are references to the manifesto in the CC minutes for May, nothing in July, then a mention of the manifesto having been published containing details of the proposed FLC in September, but nothing else.

[tractor]

...

I think you are overstating the importance of the CC to a certain extent.

For example, the CC knew that there was an exercise looking at a new name. They were told the new name once all the decisions had been taken and the new stationery was on order. The board then told people on the forums that because they weren't active forum members they had no right to ask questions about the decision making process.

From what I recall (and I may very well be mistaken), a similar exercise took place with the manifesto - it was on the web and published before the CC had sight of what it contained in any detail. There are references to the manifesto in the CC minutes for May, nothing in July, then a mention of the manifesto having been published containing details of the proposed FLC in September, but nothing else.

I agree to a certain extent but there are many issues that the board and the cc are in (almost) complete agreement about and I didn't want to suggest that the cc have no influence whatsoever because clearly they do.

However, my description of the process is mainly accurate and the last people to be considered are the people who stump up the money (yes I understand the board and cc are members but they are less than 50 of the 20,000 odd so let's not split hairs). Your point with the manifesto is a good one. Another is the governance review. I asked a question and instead of getting an answer, I was called a keyboard warrior lol. Is it any wonder that members don't want to engage? So when Malvolio claims they want members to engage more, it makes me chuckle esp having seen the way they responded to you.

They key point though is that the cc is supposed to be representative of the members views. I do not believe that it is. Almost anything a member brings up is argued against by the cc. (this being the 3 or 4 very active members)

[malvolio]

I agree to a certain extent but there are many issues that the board and the cc are in (almost) complete agreement about and I didn't want to suggest that the cc have no influence whatsoever because clearly they do.

However, my description of the process is mainly accurate and the last people to be considered are the people who stump up the money (yes I understand the board and cc are members but they are less than 50 of the 20,000 odd so let's not split hairs). Your point with the manifesto is a good one. Another is the governance review. I asked a question and instead of getting an answer, I was called a keyboard warrior lol. Is it any wonder that members don't want to engage? So when Malvolio claims they want members to engage more, it makes me chuckle esp having seen the way they responded to you.

They key point though is that the cc is supposed to be representative of the members views. I do not believe that it is. Almost anything a member brings up is argued against by the cc. (this being the 3 or 4 very active members)

Point of order. I always try to respond to the question asked; you may not like the answer but hey, that's life. Others of my co-frères take the more robust option of attacking the questioner.

And just to be clear, engagement means offering alternatives or explaining properly why X is a bad thing and quantifying how it's affecting you. Very rarely do we get that, 99% of the comments are along the lines of "Well that's a load of horse feathers" without adding the rather more useful "Why don't you do this instead".

And FWIW I've been shouting about the Opt Out abuse for ages now. I'm as pissed about it as anyone. But unless BIS take notice and agree to do something, rather than their current mealy mouthed answer of it's a condition of doing business, we ain't going anywhere with it. The opt out is not the problem, the agencies that abuse it are. And they need to be smacked by BIS, not IPSE.

[TykeMerc]

Except that IPSe canvases a lot more people than its forum users and commissions genuine, in-depth academic research on the key issues to inform its decision making. That's rather more reliable than depending on the views of a self-appointed minority who happen to like forums.

Canvases how exactly? I've been a contractor since before the PCG was formed and I've never been asked my views by the PCG, I'm not aware of any other contractor that's been canvased either.
Frankly that looks like a brushoff (or just utter bollocks) like all your responses to this thread.

As Tractor pointed out maybe you should get some surgical assistance with the removal of the massive over abundance of arrogance you have, at this point the image you're creating of the organisation you support so wholeheartedly is far from positive.