So...anybody ask for any of this?

[TykeMerc]

For clarity, the membership weren't consulted directly either.

The membership were consulted because the CC (last election turnout 3%) is representative of the membership; the board is elected by the CC; policy is determined by the board.

There may have been some forum threads discussing this before the manifesto launch which I've not read, though.

Again this indicates the mandate they claim is meaningless and is only a by product of the membership roll. If that was a pure membership that may have some validity, but it isn't, as we know the membership carries a valuable and relatively inexpensive insurance product built in. Many members (possibly even a majority we can never know) wouldn't be members at all if the insurance was stripped out.

With IPSE wanting any debate to be held behind closed doors (for some mythical reasons) it makes their lack of credible mandate look even less valid and one has to wonder what their true motives are.

[tractor]

...

If you read it properly, you would know it's more about not revealing a lot of very expensive research and strategic planning: telling the opposition your game plan is not exactly a smart idea. You will also have read that all comments are being considered as part of the finalisation of the whole thing.

So let's not pander to the conspiracy theorists any more than we have to, shall we?

And if you were honest about it you would agree with Faqqer.

How can anyone reveal anything here or over there when even the CC let alone the membership don't know much about anything?

As for all comment being considered, exactly how long do we have to make our views known? And for the avoidance of doubt, I would have asked that question there if this post had been there instead of here.

[jamesbrown]

ROFLMAO...

Sorry, but the question still stands: what would you propose as an alternative *yeah, I know, do nothing - well tat's worked out well so far, hasn't it) and on what material evidence would you be basing it? And how, exactly, would you put it to HMG?

And just so we're clear, an FLC is not a PSC, nor is it meant to be, not is one meant to replace the other. Just try looking outside the bunker for once and you might just understand why it may be a viable solution for a lot of people.

Viable solution to what? Alternative to what? What is the problem, as you perceive it? Would you use an FLC and, if so, why?

[jamesbrown]

Just try looking outside the bunker for once

To quote Bart Simpson, the ironing is delicious.

[Platypus]

If you read it properly, you would know it's more about not revealing a lot of very expensive research and strategic planning: telling the opposition your game plan is not exactly a smart idea. You will also have read that all comments are being considered as part of the finalisation of the whole thing.

So let's not pander to the conspiracy theorists any more than we have to, shall we?

Oh Mal, what crap. Apart from your trademark condescension, if "the opposition" want to know your "game plan" I assume they can just join and look for themselves?

And then you make a comment about pandering to conspiracy theorists? Oh the ironing.

This thread reminds me why I left the PCG many years ago

[eek]

And just so we're clear, an FLC is not a PSC, nor is it meant to be, not is one meant to replace the other. Just try looking outside the bunker for once and you might just understand why it may be a viable solution for a lot of people.

I'm still at an utter loss as to what it offers and why its more viable than a limited company... I won't use PSC because that is another tulip invention by HMRC that has no legal value...

[mudskipper]

I've posted a linkedin update to encourage ipse members to log onto the ipse forums and make any views or questions known.

[original PM]

The more I look at this and the (lack of) answers coming from Mal I cannot help but think what is the point.

It just seems like a vehicle to get some of the senior board members of PCG/IPSE (whatever) a chance to go and rub shoulders with politicians and make themselves feel important.

The actual impact on the contractor on the street will just be an irrelevant by product of the schmoozing.

[Coalman]

I've posted a linkedin update to encourage ipse members to log onto the ipse forums and make any views or questions known.

Thanks for the prompt MS - as were not connected on LinkedIn, where in the IPSE forums is the debat?

Anyone save me the tedium of rummaging through the wasteland that is the IPSE forums?

[eek]

The more I look at this and the (lack of) answers coming from Mal I cannot help but think what is the point.

It just seems like a vehicle to get some of the senior board members of PCG/IPSE (whatever) a chance to go and rub shoulders with politicians and make themselves feel important.

The actual impact on the contractor on the street will just be an irrelevant by product of the schmoozing.

Sadly my concern is that it won't be irrelevant. They seem to have grasped an idea (the FTC) favoured by HMRC (via the Labour party) and are running with it as if its a good thing. There is a chance (albeit a very very small one) that it will end up being a good idea but it will allow HMRC to separate out limited companies from PSC and tax them differently. Its then just a small leap for agencies to start favouring FTC's rather than Limited companies and we will all be worse off..

Granted none of the above may happen (and hell may freeze over) but why on earth do those people wanting to schmooze not think through the consequences of what is being suggested...