Thursday, July 07, 2005


According to Accountancy (page 6 July 2005) the ICAEW seems to be being a tad disingenuous when it says that it is in "continuous dialogue" with ICAS, over the controversial proposed name of the new merged body.

Des Hudson, CEO of ICAS, is quoted as saying:

"we reiterate that we are anxious to sit down and enter into proper negotiations in a good spirit to try and find a solution. And we're ready to do that any time, any place".

In other words, despite what they claim, the ICAEW are not talking to ICAS.



  1. Ken:
    Do you think this is the first time ICAEW is caught lying. LOL
    Quite obviously they have not talked to ICAS because they are just a small body that is making alot of noise.
    ICAEW is hoping for a vote like the "sub increase" to get the merger through. They dragged the vote to years after the annoucement hoping that the people will forget and opposition will die down because of lost interest!!!!

  2. Let us hope that we get much higher turnout for the merger vote, than the shameful 11% that bothered to turnout for the subs vote


  3. Ken and all,

    No particular reason to use this thread rather than any other, other than to say that, though I fundamentally disagree with you, I at least respect that you care enough to voice an opinion and support a high turnout in the votes. So do I.

    What concerns me more is that the entire debate on the merger is rather reminicent of playground schoolboys who like their gang and look down on all others. To be sure, my fellow CPFA's do it to with 'boo' words like 'snobs', 'backwoodsmen' and 'sweetshop accountants'. I have no truck with it. I have worked with ICEAW accountants and respect them fully. Interestingly, those individuals worked closely with, and had the greatest respect themselves, for CIPFA trainees and students.

    You never quite come out and say it but implicit in many of your criticisms of the merger are criticisms of the CIPFA membership. I'm not sure if this is connected with your long and unhappy relationship with Croydon Council - not a flagship for the public services I'll grant you, though there is no shortage of poorly managed commerce in this country.

    Having worked with hundreds of CIPFA members and students, in the big 4, smaller firms, the national audit bodies, health, charities and, yes, Local Government, all I can say is that there is real talent and commitment there and that the CIPFA qualification helped to shape an mature that talent. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the awareness of strategic and policy contexts among CPFAs is often perceptively greater than that of many CAs.

    The skillsets differ certainly. You see them as incompatible, I see them as complementary. I believe that having 6 CCAB bodies is unsustainably confused for the public and the government, who could bypass us all in the long run if our trenchant tribalism is seen as rendering us irrelevant. A doctor is a doctor and yet we accept that not every doctor has identical skills and specialisms. Is that really not a model that could be made to work in accountancy?

    In short I respect ICAEW and I would welcome them as fellow professionals if the vote is 'YES'. That does not indicate a weakness in CIPFA, or any lack of pride in being a CPFA. Perhaps it is just a recognition of the core value of all public service, that more can be often be achieved by people working together than apart.

    Hope to see you on the other side.


  4. I know very little about CIPFA, though I did look at CIMA in some detail.

    It seemed to me that CIMA students only need to pass one subject per sitting and, on average, each of their candidates sat only 1.8 papers at the winter 2004 examinations. For future exams, 20 minutes reading time has now been added to many, perhaps all, of their papers. Also, there is no overall time limit in which all their examinations have to be completed.

    When, quite some moons ago, I sat the ICAEW exams there were either 6 or 7 subjects to be taken at each sitting, no choice of questions and no referrals.

    Would anyone "really-in-the-know" please comment and also advise any correction(s).

  5. Ken and all,

    (1) Does "chartered" = learned?

    (2) Does a learned body = having a library and a librarian?

    (3) Does CIMA'a Press Office know the address and opening hours of their library and/or the name and contact number for their librarian?

    (4) Who, with reasons, has good words to say about CIMA and the merger?

  6. Jasper

    (1) No, it doesn't.
    (2) No, not necessarily.

  7. Hi Anon 7.56 PM,

    Are you CIMA?

    In what circumstances does your "not necessarily" not apply?