Reply to: IPSE Magazine

[Tasslehoff]

Well, FWIW I dont read the mag and rarely go on the site.

BUT, its a no brainer in my opinion for the IR35 legal cover.

It was a toss up between this and QDOS (which is also very good, as are QDOS in general) but this one slightly met my needs better.

My opinion exactly.

[malvolio]

Well we can't see into the future so we will have to wait and see if they can represent everyone under one organisation. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun and saying it can't be done.

As they grow they might have a dedicated team for IT contractors and another for self-employed plumbers dealing with the issues that face those different types of business owners.

Indeed. It would be stupid not to differentiate if the membership gets big enough and diverse enough to need it.

However what people are wilfully ignoring is that the same problems affect all non-employees; IR35 is, to HMG, a trivial side issue these days, it's about having a voice, being able to influence policy and cutting down the mountain of irrelevant red tape and regulation that stops us all being productive. That's what IPSE is spending its time and money on right now as far as I can see and it's not going to change.

And as the man says, if you want the proper skinny, and definitive answers, get to the IPSE boards and ask questions.

[Batcher]

I don't think it's about elitism of not letting plumbers join. It's a concern of some members that if the organisation is now claiming to represent 2.5 million plumbers, builders, other lower-SOC jobs, which account for more than 50% of the audience that they claim to represent, then what are they doing for those original members who fall outside of that market.

"as long as they represent me and provide good value for money" - the question that people are asking is whether the organisation will continue to be representative. I find it difficult to balance the lines of "we won't forget our roots, and remain mainly IT and engineering contractors" and "we represent 4.5 million self-employed workers, the majority of which are not in the industries / jobs that we have always represented"

Well we can't see into the future so we will have to wait and see if they can represent everyone under one organisation. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun and saying it can't be done.

As they grow they might have a dedicated team for IT contractors and another for self-employed plumbers dealing with the issues that face those different types of business owners.

[TheFaQQer]

One of the reasons I enjoy being a contractor is the lack of office politics.

Why you are all getting anal about this is beyond me.

If you feel IPSE is good value for money and represents your interests then join up (and if you enjoy the politics join the CC). Discuss all the stuff on the fora over there until your heart's content.

If you don't feel it represents your interests then leave.

I don't have any interest in the politics so I will leave that to others. As long as they represent me and provide good value for money then I will remain a member. I certainly wouldn't leave just because they let a load of self-employed plumbers join up.

It's like a snobby golf club in here sometimes.

I don't think it's about elitism of not letting plumbers join. It's a concern of some members that if the organisation is now claiming to represent 2.5 million plumbers, builders, other lower-SOC jobs, which account for more than 50% of the audience that they claim to represent, then what are they doing for those original members who fall outside of that market.

"as long as they represent me and provide good value for money" - the question that people are asking is whether the organisation will continue to be representative. I find it difficult to balance the lines of "we won't forget our roots, and remain mainly IT and engineering contractors" and "we represent 4.5 million self-employed workers, the majority of which are not in the industries / jobs that we have always represented"

[Batcher]

One of the reasons I enjoy being a contractor is the lack of office politics.

Why you are all getting anal about this is beyond me.

If you feel IPSE is good value for money and represents your interests then join up (and if you enjoy the politics join the CC). Discuss all the stuff on the fora over there until your heart's content.

If you don't feel it represents your interests then leave.

I don't have any interest in the politics so I will leave that to others. As long as they represent me and provide good value for money then I will remain a member. I certainly wouldn't leave just because they let a load of self-employed plumbers join up.

It's like a snobby golf club in here sometimes.

[Taita]

When he realises that he isn't going to get a lot of benefit from spending a couple of hundred quid on IR35 insurances. The product isn't aimed at him, but even if he does, that's more cash in the kitty to protect and support contractors, and a bigger number to wave in front of HMG.

Although this clearly is not a quote from IPSE, it does serve to underline the lack of clarity of the IPSE message.

Tax measures intended to net 'here today gone tomorrow' self-employed workers are quite unlikely to be welcomed by (or suited to) professionals operating firmly rooted, already formally regulated limited companies.

Blurring the distinctions and being vague about who IPSE represent may grow the numbers quickly and greatly but who wants to be paying tax and NI in advance (or have it retained by the purchaser of services) just because they are potentially a flight risk?

IPSE should remember how long it took most MPs to collectively (some still haven't got it) understand the concept of contractor or freelancer as discussed here!

[v8gaz]

Anyway - as I said earlier, at what stage will a self-employed plumber be stopped from joining up?

When he realises that he isn't going to get a lot of benefit from spending a couple of hundred quid on IR35 insurances. The product isn't aimed at him, but even if he does, that's more cash in the kitty to protect and support contractors, and a bigger number to wave in front of HMG.

[TheFaQQer]

Let's put this another way. IPSE's CEO, Chris Bryce, appeared at the Lords' inquiry into IR35 recently. Introduced as coming from the Professional Contractors Group, their noble lords immediately welcomed him as representing the building trades.

Yes, there are 4.5 million non-employees out there. Roughly half are what we would call knowledge-based economy workers, as opposed to the other skilled trades, shop owners and the like. We would expect the former group to be potential IPSE members and not the second. However, if IPSE can say its membership covers over 2 million workers, it can realistically be said to be representing the views of non-employed workers, with rather more justification than it can with 22,000 members. Nobody that matters will worry about who the 2 million actually are.

At least he managed to rectify that perception with the opening line of "We are a representative body for professional contractors, freelancers and independent professionals within the UK".

Ask the man in the street to pick an industry where people are self-employed, and I'd bet that engineer and IT consultant are significantly lower on the list than builder, plumber, electrician etc. I can't really see how playing up the self-employed aspect will stop the Lords thinking we are builders, to be honest.

Anyway - as I said earlier, at what stage will a self-employed plumber be stopped from joining up?

[RasputinDude]

Mal, I totally get where you are coming from with that description. And it is a very valid point indeed. I know a couple of people who have been in the CC - so I understand the effort that they put in - and I don't want to denigrate IPSE at all. However - and it is a big however - if IPSE is still representing me personally then I can't see it and the message needs to change.

NewLabour were great at the argument of "you don't understand what we are trying to - you haven't got the right message" - I would hate to see IPSE following that MO. Change the bloody message then - and make sure that your core understands rather than just assuming that they'll either get it or just shut up and pay up.

As this is now being played out in public, I think that it is only right for me to repeat Chris Bryce's post on the internal PCG forum:

I can categorically and unequivocally assure you that IPSE is not leaving IT contractors or engineers behind in any way. Our core membership is, and always will be, absolutely at the heart of what we do.

What we are doing is trying to broaden our membership base and part of this involves some change of emphasis and messaging some of the time. Naturally some people might feel that that in itself is IPSE "abandoning" them, but realistically it's easy to feel that way when you're not seeing messages exclusive to your sector.

You, and all the other IT and engineering contractors will continue to receive from IPSE what we've always done as PCG in terms of information, benefits, and, crucially, the efforts IPSE makes to ensure that your businesses are treated fairly by HMG.

[jamesbrown]

Let's put this another way. IPSE's CEO, Chris Bryce, appeared at the Lords' inquiry into IR35 recently. Introduced as coming from the Professional Contractors Group, their noble lords immediately welcomed him as representing the building trades.

Yes, there are 4.5 million non-employees out there. Roughly half are what we would call knowledge-based economy workers, as opposed to the other skilled trades, shop owners and the like. We would expect the former group to be potential IPSE members and not the second. However, if IPSE can say its membership covers over 2 million workers, it can realistically be said to be representing the views of non-employed workers, with rather more justification than it can with 22,000 members. Nobody that matters will worry about who the 2 million actually are.

OK, that's a fair point. Not sure how I missed that little gem in the TV coverage, but anyway, I watched the coverage in full... your average punter probably would associate a contractor with someone from the building trade. Also, I'm pretty ambivalent about the branding; whatever achieves the desired effect. This is more a question about the consistency and relevance of the message when "IT contractors and engineers" are supposedly at the core of the strategy and yet only represent a tiny fraction of the target audience (whether that's 2 million or 4.5 million). Anyway, I think this dead horse is truly flogged.

[malvolio]

Let's put this another way. IPSE's CEO, Chris Bryce, appeared at the Lords' inquiry into IR35 recently. Introduced as coming from the Professional Contractors Group, their noble lords immediately welcomed him as representing the building trades.

Yes, there are 4.5 million non-employees out there. Roughly half are what we would call knowledge-based economy workers, as opposed to the other skilled trades, shop owners and the like. We would expect the former group to be potential IPSE members and not the second. However, if IPSE can say its membership covers over 2 million workers, it can realistically be said to be representing the views of non-employed workers, with rather more justification than it can with 22,000 members. Nobody that matters will worry about who the 2 million actually are.

[jamesbrown]

"Larger and less Relevant"? FFS, we're dealing with politicians. Size is more than important.

It's only important if the message is worth something to contractors. You seem to be implying that contractors and the self-employed are perfectly aligned in what they want. Because if they aren't, and IPSE is driven by its members, it seems pretty obvious to me that the narrower audience of "IT contractors and engineers" will be drowned out.

[TheFaQQer]

But that's not what they're trying to do. Do keep up.

As I asked earlier - aren't builders etc. part of the 4.5 million that IPSE claims to represent?

[tractor]

...

But that's not what they're trying to do. Do keep up.

You have to understand that you cannot keep blaming the audience for not getting 'the message'

At some point you have to consider whether the message is phrased correctly. I have to admit aside from the strength in numbers part, I don't get it either.

[malvolio]

There are very clear distinctions between freelance aspiring (and real) 'professionals' i.e. 'knowledge' workers and self-employed 'tradesmen' despite the common use of limited companies.

Can one body adequately and without undue compromise represent the two groups which currently are regarded quite differently by Treasury/HMRC?

But that's not what they're trying to do. Do keep up.