Friday, February 24, 2006

Counter Points

Martin Waller, of The Times, has written a short and pithy piece about the name change and merger issues in today's edition.

Visit Counter Points, and scroll down to read it.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

CIPFA and CIMA Secret Discussions

I understand that, contrary to the media spin being pumped out by the ICAEW that merger plans are for the moment not being pursued in the immediate future (taken to be up to the end of 2007), Eric Anstee has already had meetings with both CIPFA and CIMA over the last few weeks with a view to restarting merger negotiations.

Any further information on these meetings would be much appreciated.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Name Change Aborted

In a remarkable volte-face, it seems that the ICAEW has abandoned plans to change its name to the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

A spokesman for the English institute is quoted in The Herald as saying that the proposal had been scrapped "after consultation with members."

This is odd considering the fact that Eric Anstee had announced that, despite the merger vote fiasco, he was going to go ahead with the change of name anyway.

I wonder if this particular U turn has more to do with the opposition from ICAS, other professional bodies and politicians, rather than the views of the members of the ICAEW?

Whatever the reason, it is yet another humiliating defeat for the current leadership of the ICAEW.

Friday, February 17, 2006

The Price of Failure

Eric Anstee, CEO of the ICAEW, gave an interview to Accountacy Age in which he "explained" the reason for the failed merger attempt with CIPFA last year.

He cited the findings of the recent MORI poll conducted by the ICAEW, and paid for by the membership, noting that 33% of the members who voted no did so because they knew that the value of their qualification would be diminished.

This finding is hardly surprising, given the fact that this was one of the arguments put forward against the merger time and time again.

I fail to understand why the ICAEW felt it necessary to pay for a poll to tell them what was already well known.

Anstee's conclusion is that the "message" that the ICAEW was trying to deliver to the members was not "getting across".

This being the case I would like to ask, who was responsible for delivering the message?

Answer: The leadership of the ICAEW.

Indeed I would note that they even hired Media Strategy, a controversial PR company that had left its own professional body, to get that "message across". This was of course at great expense to the membership of the ICAEW.

The merger vote cost the membership of the ICAEW £1.4M.

The leadership now claim that it failed because the message was not "getting across", despite the fact that they put a lot of effort and money into getting their "message across", it is still in denial.

Responsibility for this costly failure clearly lies with the leadership of the ICAEW.

The ICAEW does not need another vote, but a radical overhaul and change of the leadership; ie those who failed should go.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Here We Go Again!

It seems, that if reports in Accountancy Age are to be believed, Eric Anstee is preparing to make yet another merger attempt with CIPFA before the end of 2007.

It also seems, from the quote in the Accountancy Age article, that he wants to "service all the members".

One very literal interpretation of the word "service" is "f**k", I wonder if he is trying to tell us something?

Views anyone?

Friday, February 10, 2006


Isn't it about time that the results of the ICAEW MORI poll into the failed merger attempt were released?

After all, we the members paid for it.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Challenge Of Council

If the report in today's Taking Stock is anything to go by, some members of ICAEW council appear to have better things to do with their time than to pay attention during council meetings.

TS reports that one council member was seen the playing with a Sudoku puzzle during a meeting.

The fact that a member of council evidently finds the meeting irrelevant, illustrates the point that I have been making for some time; namely that the current structure and size of council is inappropriate for the 21st century.