IPSE renewal

[jamesbrown]

On here I try to explain IPSE to those who don't really understand what it is trying to do or who are stuck in some ten year old version of the old organisation.

Over there I challenge people who say "this is wrong" without explaining why or even, better still, suggesting something better.

Mostly, on both sites (and others) I only try to answer questions. Not my fault if some questions are actually pretty stupid.

A reasonable approach, in principle. However, it's asymmetric in that the dismissive tone often comes from those that are party to more information and are unwilling/unable to share it. It's difficult to form an opinion on what might be better when there's so little transparency about what is known. Obviously, there are reasons for lack of transparency in some cases. But the dismissive tone comes out first, rather than a legitimate explanation, and it tends to give an impression (possibly unfounded) that some combination of the background (technical) work or PR is incompetent. In other words, reading the IPSE forum (and let's face it, who does? ), most of the responses are quite clumsy and amateurish in their handling of sensitivities.

[TheFaQQer]

Hmm. I'd never pass the questions being posed in the forums by V8gaz and the like

If you are going to stand as a candidate, you generally have an opinion about something, and it's not unreasonable to answer questions about that.

If more "norms" asked election questions, though, then maybe others wouldn't feel obliged to grill the candidates as much

So far, I've enjoyed the questions being asked and answered. If people aren't going to get engaged during the election time, though, then I do wonder what they will be like if elected, and I do wonder why they bother to stand if they aren't going to actually say anything other than their (up to) 300 word statement.

I would urge everyone who is a member to vote in the election (opens 10am tomorrow), but I would also encourage voters to look beyond the candidate statements and consider member engagement.

[TheFaQQer]

If you want to join then join, if you don't, then that's fine too.

Because when IPSE does something that is good for you (for example, fighting and winning Jones v Garnett), you get the benefit of that whether you are a member or not.

[tractor]

.....

If you are going to stand as a candidate, you generally have an opinion about something, and it's not unreasonable to answer questions about that.

If more "norms" asked election questions, though, then maybe others wouldn't feel obliged to grill the candidates as much

So far, I've enjoyed the questions being asked and answered. If people aren't going to get engaged during the election time, though, then I do wonder what they will be like if elected, and I do wonder why they bother to stand if they aren't going to actually say anything other than their (up to) 300 word statement.

I would urge everyone who is a member to vote in the election (opens 10am tomorrow), but I would also encourage voters to look beyond the candidate statements and consider member engagement.

WTFS +10

[Batcher]

If you are going to stand as a candidate, you generally have an opinion about something, and it's not unreasonable to answer questions about that.

If more "norms" asked election questions, though, then maybe others wouldn't feel obliged to grill the candidates as much

So far, I've enjoyed the questions being asked and answered. If people aren't going to get engaged during the election time, though, then I do wonder what they will be like if elected, and I do wonder why they bother to stand if they aren't going to actually say anything other than their (up to) 300 word statement.

I would urge everyone who is a member to vote in the election (opens 10am tomorrow), but I would also encourage voters to look beyond the candidate statements and consider member engagement.

It's a pity you can only vote positively. i.e. It would be good if you could give some candidates a -1

[TheFaQQer]

It's a pity you can only vote positively. i.e. It would be good if you could give some candidates a -1

Assuming I'm still a positive, that's a great idea

[northernladuk]

If you are going to stand as a candidate, you generally have an opinion about something, and it's not unreasonable to answer questions about that.

If more "norms" asked election questions, though, then maybe others wouldn't feel obliged to grill the candidates as much

So far, I've enjoyed the questions being asked and answered. If people aren't going to get engaged during the election time, though, then I do wonder what they will be like if elected, and I do wonder why they bother to stand if they aren't going to actually say anything other than their (up to) 300 word statement.

I would urge everyone who is a member to vote in the election (opens 10am tomorrow), but I would also encourage voters to look beyond the candidate statements and consider member engagement.

Yep but policies like throwing HMRC a couple of NCOTBAC morsels so they'll leave the rest of us that try alone isn't going to be very popular is it #sacrificallambgate

[TheFaQQer]

Yep but policies like throwing HMRC a couple of NCOTBAC morsels so they'll leave the rest of us that try alone isn't going to be very popular is it #sacrificallambgate

I don't know - try it and see next year

There'll be a few vacancies then.

[malvolio]

Looking at the actual amounts covered it's not worth the hassle, really useful things such as free IR35 reviews don't seem to be included

Actually they are set at what most sensible people would consider to be the maximum acceptable risk level. They are also rather more than anyone else is offering. So that argument doesn't really stand up, does it?

Also IPSE have always said you have enough support and information as a member to make a sensible assessment of your exposure to IR35. Many, me included, also consider IR35 to be an irritant anyway and worry more about payment terms and the like than reviews (worth noting the IPSE reviews cover a lot more than IR35, incidentally). Free reviews have never featured as a requested service and, if you think about it fully, would be very difficult for IPSE to deliver, what with the legal ramifications of offering contract advice and no doubt other members complaining their membership fees were going to pay for reviews for other people; lots of IPSE members genuinely don't go anywhere near IR35 territory.

But that's just my view. You no doubt have your own. Let's call it a draw.

[d000hg]

Why wouldn't you? Well over a grand's worth of effective and practical cover and benefits for around £250, I see it as a no brainer. YMMV of course.

If you don't renew they won't cover you for investigations into your previous contracts even though you thought you'd paid at the time to have them covered.

So it's not £250 a year while you're a contractor. It's £250 a year until you are unequivocally outside HMRC's reaches... i.e. indefinitely.