So...anybody ask for any of this?

[tractor]

...

Provided you still think IPSE has nothing else to do than fight IR35 that is...

Perhaps but the original question was "Did anyone ask for any of this?"

The answer it would appear, is no.

[malvolio]

Perhaps but the original question was "Did anyone ask for any of this?"

The answer it would appear, is no.

Disagree. The general consensus is that we want to be recognised as being a third way of working, neither employer not employee, regardless of how we operate and would rather like not to be encumbered with all the employee-related nonsense we have t deal with; you know, IR35, S660, 24 months rules, AWR, Agency Regs.... This is one way to achieve it.

The NIC/PAYE merger is a common thread and has been for ages. It will never happen, thought I, until Osborne suddenly starts showing everyone where their taxes go to, so perhaps that wind is changing.

We have Ministers for almost everything, so why not one specifically for us non-employees...?

And so on.

This is a way to open the debate with ideas and approaches that are open to discussion rather than simple protests (and where else have I said that lately). No doubt some will be ignored, some are probably sacrificial lambs, but to say they are neither wanted nor desirable is plain wrong.

[TheFaQQer]

We have Ministers for almost everything, so why not one specifically for us non-employees...?

If the answer to the question is more politicians, then you are asking the wrong question. Someone's in line for a pay rise if they introduce it. Trebles all round.

[Doggy Styles]

Many within IPSE view IR35 as an irrelevance that can be ignored now anyway.

The IR35 fight is over.

Have HMRC stopped investigating contractors under IR35?

[TheFaQQer]

Have HMRC stopped investigating contractors under IR35?

No. In fact, they have increased the number of investigations taking place.

[Doggy Styles]

No. In fact, they have increased the number of investigations taking place.

So why is it an irrelevance?

[TheFaQQer]

So why is it an irrelevance?

I don't believe it is.

[tractor]

...

Disagree. The general consensus is that we want to be recognised as being a third way of working, neither employer not employee, regardless of how we operate and would rather like not to be encumbered with all the employee-related nonsense we have t deal with; you know, IR35, S660, 24 months rules, AWR, Agency Regs.... This is one way to achieve it.

The NIC/PAYE merger is a common thread and has been for ages. It will never happen, thought I, until Osborne suddenly starts showing everyone where their taxes go to, so perhaps that wind is changing.

We have Ministers for almost everything, so why not one specifically for us non-employees...?

And so on.

This is a way to open the debate with ideas and approaches that are open to discussion rather than simple protests (and where else have I said that lately). No doubt some will be ignored, some are probably sacrificial lambs, but to say they are neither wanted nor desirable is plain wrong.

The question was asked here, and I don't think anyone has said Me! I asked for it!

Where is the evidence for your 'consensus'? I bet it's a consensus of about 8 people including you. I am not encumbered with any of the things you mention. Yes, I have to make some contingencies but who doesn't in business? How do you know this third way is one way to achieve it? How can you guarantee it will be optional? You haven't even thought it through enough to be able to assure people of anything yet it's in the manifesto and you are discussing it with government, opposition and governmental departments before talking it over with the very people it will affect.

As for the Opt Out and Conduct Regs, you know exactly where I stand on that and it's no secret that I don't think PCG/IPSE does enough for us on that front where wayward agencies are concerned. From the discussions that I have had, it would suit IPSE not to have to deal with it for members but it would remove the protections that the government have inadvertently given us. I am happy with those protections thank you.

Make no mistake, whether you are an IPSE member or not, if this idea gains traction and becomes mandatory it will affect non members alike.

I have no objection to a Minister for Small Businesses as long as it doesn't turn out to be Vince Cable.

But all these things are not ways to open a discussion, they are in the manifesto. People are joining or staying because you have announced that is what you are going to campaign for even though you have no idea how it will affect us!

[TykeMerc]

So why is it an irrelevance?

Clearly to IPSE it is, but they've now stepped away from the whole reason the PCG was formed to start off with.

I do wonder if IPSE management will pay any attention to this type of thread, it's very clear that they've alienated part of their current and potential membership (which they may well not care about) and they've raised a LOT of red flags with a part of the audience they claim to represent. I'd like to think they will think about it, but going by Mal's response I doubt that.

[darmstadt]

There is already a minister who'd portfolio includes small business:

https://www.gov.uk/government/minist...and-enterprise

Matthew Hancock appointed as small business minister in Cabinet reshuffle

Along with the 12 small business ambassadors:

Cameron appoints 12 MPs as 'small business ambassadors'