Dave Chaplin's anti IR35 campaign

[JohntheBike]

The summary of responses to Off-Payroll private sector consultation has begun..

[northernladuk]

I'm pretty sure he's fighting the off payroll rules about to hit the private sector and not IR35 itself.

[Scruff]

Making more awareness than the "New IPSE" are doing...

[JohntheBike]

I'm pretty sure he's fighting the off payroll rules about to hit the private sector and not IR35 itself.

I couldn't be bothered to post a fully descriptive title for his campaign. But your reply is only to be expected. He, like me, has always been opposed to IR35, and if you take the time to read the whole article, you can see that some of what he is suggesting is designed to neutralise IR35 and is not directed solely at the new rules.

[jamesbrown]

I'm pretty sure he's fighting the off payroll rules about to hit the private sector and not IR35 itself.

TBF, I think it’s the latter with Dave C, although priorities etc.

[JohntheBike]

Making more awareness than the "New IPSE" are doing...

agreed. I honestly think that IPSE is a lost cause as far as IR35 is concerned. It's quite obvious that they are trying to re brand themselves as an organisations that can offer peripheral benefits to contractors. Being cynical, I could guess that there are those there than might believe that if the off payroll rules are eventually rolled out to the private sector, that they will lose substantial numbers of members and thus must change direction to survive. I'll maintain my membership until such time that I retire, as there are some financial benefits for doing so. However, I can't see IPSE having any effect on IR35.

[malvolio]

agreed. I honestly think that IPSE is a lost cause as far as IR35 is concerned. It's quite obvious that they are trying to re brand themselves as an organisations that can offer peripheral benefits to contractors. Being cynical, I could guess that there are those there than might believe that if the off payroll rules are eventually rolled out to the private sector, that they will lose substantial numbers of members and thus must change direction to survive. I'll maintain my membership until such time that I retire, as there are some financial benefits for doing so. However, I can't see IPSE having any effect on IR35.

If you actually listen to what you were told over the last few years, nobody is going to get anywhere by attacking IR35, the government simply isn't interested in it any more.

The focus has to be on the boundary between caught and not caught, which is pretty well understood - until, of course, you apply CEST or impose some idiot requirement on people ho aren't trained or interested in that boundary and will make decisions based on their own idea of what is best for them and to hell with the actual law (which is why contractors are inside IR35 and still paying ErNICs for example).

The fault is with HMG, and the Treasury, not the various organisations (not just IPSE) who are attacking them over it.

[JohntheBike]

If you actually listen to what you were told over the last few years, nobody is going to get anywhere by attacking IR35, the government simply isn't interested in it any more.

The focus has to be on the boundary between caught and not caught, which is pretty well understood - until, of course, you apply CEST or impose some idiot requirement on people ho aren't trained or interested in that boundary and will make decisions based on their own idea of what is best for them and to hell with the actual law (which is why contractors are inside IR35 and still paying ErNICs for example).

The fault is with HMG, and the Treasury, not the various organisations (not just IPSE) who are attacking them over it.

"If you actually listen to what you were told over the last few years, nobody is going to get anywhere by attacking IR35"

It can be "attacked" and effectively neutralised by lobbying for changes which will effectively achieve this, e.g. by lobbying, as Dave Chaplin is doing, for those caught by IR35 to receive full employment benefits. Other organisations are luke warm in their support for this position, but history has shown that dialogue has achieved very little and only court cases are likely to have any affect. We've seen this to a small extent with the Winchester and Elbourn cases and it's taken the many interested organisations a long time to realise this.

Linking the issues to the Matthew Taylor report is another way of doing this. However, it seems to me, based on the information which is published by interested organisations, that Dave Chaplin is in the forefront of "attacking" IR35, when other campaigns seem to be languishing in the doldrums. Yes, CEST is a new development to be considered, but every means possible should be employed to attack the whole gambit of issues that IR35 presents.

I'm of the belief that HMRC, and HMG is influenced by them, has long term plans to control the populace more closely. It's widely believed that they would prefer everyone as far as possible to be under PAYE. The CIS scheme is one example, the removal of the law allowing individuals to have the right to be paid in cash and the moves to a cashless society are a few examples. Remember what Martin Niemöller said. Those who are not interested in IR35 now, might find their positions challenged in years to come.

[malvolio]

TL; DR

There's no point in discussing if you aren't listening. "Changes" have been proposed for at least ten years, supported by rigorous and independent research into the damaging effects of IR35 in general. The fact remains, IR35 is a dead cause and is not going away. These latest changes are a nonsense, but they are going to happen. All anyone can do is ensure they are outside IR35 so they won't be affected. That is where the work is going now, educating both contractors (well, those that are listening), agencies and clients.

The solution is perfectly simple: even Chaplin agrees with me that deliverables-based contracts are the golden bullet.

[northernladuk]

Mal is absolutely spot on in both his posts. By using such a broad brush i.e attacking IR35 then you lack any credibility going forward. No organisation uses words like this and they didn't when the Public sector changes went in. They focus on a specific area be it off payroll rules, CEST, benefits whatever and attempts to influence an outcome that is in the contractors favour. It doesn't just attack IR35. That's pointless. Why attack something that isn't going to change. It's the overarching topic yes but it's here to stay.

The only people that spoke about attacking IR35 back in the public sector farce were noobs that suddenly found their 'jobs' were going to be just that. Everyone else focussed on the implementation of the rules, not IR35 as a whole.

If you spent a bit more time on your titles and wording to make it look like you were doing something to address the implementation of the new rules you might be worth listening to. Lording it over everyone thinking you are making a difference to IR35 as a whole is just pointless and gives the impression you just don't have a clue what you are doing.