Accounting Web has published an interesting "post merger" interview with Eric Anstee the CEO of the ICAEW.
It seems that, judging by the article, the ICAEW have succumbed to "Ivory Tower Syndrome".
I have a number of comments relating to the points the he makes, and have countered extracts of his comments (in italics) with my own thoughts:
"I personally am at a loss to understand why those 19,000 people voted the way that they did and we need to find that out."
If he had bothered to visit this site, at any time over the past year, he might have had a few clues as to why people voted down the merger proposal.
"We will undertake specific survey work using independent surveyors - probably MORI who we used back in June."
More expense for us the membership, yet for what purpose?
"I believe that what you have to do is look at what the vote itself tells you, and that is that nearly two thirds want to go forward and one third don't and therefore two thirds are the majority."
Which part of the word "No" don't the ICAEW understand? A mere 29% of the membership voted in favour, the pro merger lobby lost...PERIOD!
"We responded to all queries that were anti the integration proposal."
Bullshit!
I wrote at least 6 emails, and used the special feedback box on the ICAEW website to send them. I even have a receipt for at least one of them.
Yet I received no response.
"My problem here is that the minority of 19,000 are dictating to the majority, so we will have to look at that constitutional impact."
If you lose, then change the rules!
"However, we would keep ourselves informed as to what the market place wants. We would have to adjust the qualification to meet the market needs."
It seems that I was right, the ICAEW would have abandoned the dual qualification for ICAEW and CIPFA members had the merger vote gone through.
"That is my big disappointment that a lot of what we are doing has not been understood."
The fault for that lies with the ICAEW.
Accept the fact that you lost, and move on.
Sorry, but those who didn't vote lost their right to be counted - the pro-merger group were in the majority. It's called democracy!!
ReplyDeleteI agree that's what counts. However, it doesn't mean the claims that only a minority agreed with a merger is correct. The fact is that a majority agreed, but it wasn't quite large enough to achieve the 2/3 required.
ReplyDeletewhat are you waffling on about the no camp was stuffed.
ReplyDeleteclearly the lions share of those who could be bothered to vote said yes.
You delayed the envitable by two or three years and spent alot of our subs but face it we need the others, cipha and cima - maybe even Acca. The scots will never want to merge
29% is not the majority..PERIOD!
ReplyDeleteThe yes vote is 193% times the no vote..PERIOD
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteYou cannot even calculate accurately. Try again.
The yes vote of 29% is 0.15x1.93 Where is the problem with that.
ReplyDeleteDon't ask me. I'm telling you. Try again, from scracth.
ReplyDeleteOK.
ReplyDelete15% voted no
29% voted yes
You have to multipy 15% by 193% to get 29%.
Therefore the yes vote is 193% times the no vote.
What I have said is a fact.
Do not take what others say out of context. Start from scratch as advised. You could not pass an examination in Civil Service athmetic without considerable training.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, you have well and truly got me and exposed me for the charlatan I am.
ReplyDeleteI am unable to prove that 0.15x1.93=0.29 from first principles.
I am one of the blind faithful who believed that 1+1=2 without questioning the maths behind the equation.
I bow to your superior ICAEW chartered knowledge.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteThere is a freeware version of MSGTAG - in most cases it automatically advises when when an e-mail sent to a sole addressee has been opened (I do not find it a problem but if it is installed it usually has to be active). Good for checking on Mr Anstee - tells exactly how long it took him to open your message.
G F CORNWELL BCALC when typed into your search engine will enable download of a freeware 5000 digit windows calculator for those who like maths. Terrific for finding factors and factorials of largish numbers. For those interested in primes with millions of digits try PROTH and/or PRP and NEWPGEN - even on my 7 year old slow m/c I can calculate and save all the primes < 100,000,000 million in under 4 seconds and with luck I found a pair of twin primes with > 10,000 digits.