So...anybody ask for any of this?

[eek]

That doc is copyright Labour Finance and Industry Group...

The IPSE manifesto references that Labour Finance document.

While the labour document references ii Kitching, D. (2014), The Growth of Freelance Working in the UK: 1992-2013. Kingston University, paper presented at the PCG First Global Research Workshop on Freelancers and IPros, June 2014, London.

These things are interrelated as Labour is pulling ideas from IPSE and IPSE are referencing the Labour document.... So working out who created what is going to be impossible.

[GlenW]

The drive behind this (as I see it) is to widen the membership to a more broader population. IPSE intends to be the voice of all independent workers and not just mainly IT contractors who worry about IR35, S660 opting in/out. They want to include all self employed people as well i.e. 4.5 million. That's a lot of membership fees

You're obviously a lot less cynical than I am. I'm pretty sure that, give it a year or two and, someone from the higher echelons of IPSE will be seen to benefit from this either financially or politically.

[mudskipper]

Given that the article has nothing to do with ipse, the timing is interesting...

[Pondlife]

You're obviously a lot less cynical than I am. I'm pretty sure that, give it a year or two and, someone from the higher echelons of IPSE will be seen to benefit from this either financially or politically.

Being the voice of 4.5million voters does have political benefit.

[GlenW]

Given that the article apparently has nothing to do with ipse, the timing is interesting...

FTFY

[eek]

Given that the article has nothing to do with ipse, the timing is interesting...

No its rapidly approaching the autumn statement so people are trying to claim glory ....

:

[Pondlife]

Given that the article has nothing to do with ipse, the timing is interesting...

True. As mentioned I'm happy to wait for an official response at the end of the week. However, if someone else pertaining to represent IPSE is spreading their own version then IPSE might do well to issue an official article sooner rather than later. When I read the article on CUK I figured it was IPSE approved. No doubt others did as well.

[eek]

Being the voice of 4.5million voters does have political benefit.

especially when you are parroting something that the politicians really want but believed (from chatting to freelancers) that a lot of freelancers hate the concept being suggested....

[Goatfell]

To register, the freelancer would have to nominate themselves as the FLC’s sole operator (the single shareholder, so not a spouse) and agree to a fixed but fair salary-dividend split.

I see this as the thin edge of the wedge, once there is a clear division between "proper businesses" and "one man bands" (as the introduction of the term PSC shows) then any future government could alter the strictures of an FLC at will without impinging on Ltd Companies.

In return, registered FLCs could be excluded from some of the more extreme issues of IR35, such as the need to supply a substitute and the need to have multiple clients on the go.

(my emphasis) So even as an FLC you would still be subject to the vagaries and inconsistences in the HMRC's application of IR35.

Seriously, where's the upside for a contractor?

[TheFaQQer]

Given that the article has nothing to do with ipse, the timing is interesting...

The cynic in me says that if you release a really, really bad idea that everyone hates, if you turn round and produce a bad idea people say "oh, it's not that bad, think what we could have had!" and it's seen as a success story.