VOTE now! Proposed take over of Virgin Money - Nationwide members should be given a vote

masonic

26left said:

Hoenir said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

Unclear at the moment how many will need to - the society is yet to respond on whether one or a few members can pay the deposit on behalf of the 500, whether it can be debited from an existing account etc.

Have they responded to the action so far in any capacity?

26left

masonic said:

26left said:

Hoenir said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

Unclear at the moment how many will need to - the society is yet to respond on whether one or a few members can pay the deposit on behalf of the 500, whether it can be debited from an existing account etc.

Have they responded to the action so far in any capacity?

They have acknowledged that they have questions to answer re the practicalities of what it takes to bring a SGM.

Section62

Foxhouse said:

26left said:

Hoenir said:

26left said:

WillPS said:

Makes you think, doesn't it?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at?

The petition is now approaching 700
signatories. 

How many will actually part with £50. 

Unclear at the moment how many will need to - the society is yet to respond on whether one or a few members can pay the deposit on behalf of the 500, whether it can be debited from an existing account etc.

The rules state “£50 for each member”, not by each member. 

I am no fan of the Nationwide board, especially for the last 15 years or so. They are paying lip service to true mutuality, in my opinion.

But because we're not happy with Nationwide not following the rules (effectively), we're happy to bend the actual rules to suit our purpose?

If folk aren't prepared to put their hands in their pockets, and put their own money up, then their motivation is at best lukewarm, and at worst entirely open to question.

To quote the OP; "I don't think that's right, or fair".

The "actual rules" say '...deposit a sum of £50* for each member requesting the meeting.'

It isn't "bend"ing the rules if one or more individuals deposits the sum equivalent to £50 for each member submitting a letter.

If the rules said something like "each member must individually deposit a sum of £50" you might have a valid point, but then if the rules did say that then I doubt anyone would be suggesting a lump-sum deposit by one member.

Futhermore, for Nationwide (and those members who profess to be concerned at the impact this might have on Nationwide) it is beneficial if there is one deposit of £25,000 rather than 500 deposits of £50.  The admin involved in collecting (and potentially refunding) one deposit vs doing the same for 500+ payments means that one of thoseoptions has considerable benefits all round... not least that regulations such as money laundering may mean Nationwide has to verify the potential recipient of the refund is someone they can legally return the money to.

WillPS

26left said:

The law and the rules are clearly open to interpretation - if Nationwide management and board have chosen their favourable interpretation, why can’t members? Fairness cuts both ways.

So, in short, because you perceive the society has not played by  the rules (in this case the law - specifically the Building Societies Act), you think you shouldn't have to play completely by their rules? Can you not see that it's perhaps a little naive to expect them to offer any generosity given the society are clearly set on getting this deal done ASAP, and this petition is designed to derail the society in their efforts (rather than build in mandatory ballots in future, which they might perhaps be a touch more amenable to)?

26left

WillPS said:

26left said:

The law and the rules are clearly open to interpretation - if Nationwide management and board have chosen their favourable interpretation, why can’t members? Fairness cuts both ways.

So, in short, because you perceive the society has not played by  the rules (in this case the law - specifically the Building Societies Act), you think you shouldn't have to play completely by their rules? Can you not see that it's perhaps a little naive to expect them to offer any generosity given the society are clearly set on getting this deal done ASAP, and this petition is designed to derail the society in their efforts (rather than build in mandatory ballots in future, which they might perhaps be a touch more amenable to)?

Their advisors favourable interpretation of the law IS different to how others interpret it. Our favourable interpretation of the rules MAY be different to how they interpret them. In both cases the jury is still out. 

masonic

WillPS said:

26left said:

The law and the rules are clearly open to interpretation - if Nationwide management and board have chosen their favourable interpretation, why can’t members? Fairness cuts both ways.

So, in short, because you perceive the society has not played by  the rules (in this case the law - specifically the Building Societies Act), you think you shouldn't have to play completely by their rules? Can you not see that it's perhaps a little naive to expect them to offer any generosity given the society are clearly set on getting this deal done ASAP, and this petition is designed to derail the society in their efforts (rather than build in mandatory ballots in future, which they might perhaps be a touch more amenable to)?

We're speculating about the purpose of taking a £50 per member deposit. While it may be for a show of commitment from each member, it could also be to ensure that the wider society isn't lumbered with the cost of a meeting they deem unnecessary. Under the latter purpose, it doesn't really matter where the money comes from. It sounds like Nationwide have yet to come back with a view on how the money should be received. The rule about receiving signed documents is clearer, and until that part is fulfilled people may wish to retain their money.

WillPS

26left said:

WillPS said:

26left said:

The law and the rules are clearly open to interpretation - if Nationwide management and board have chosen their favourable interpretation, why can’t members? Fairness cuts both ways.

So, in short, because you perceive the society has not played by  the rules (in this case the law - specifically the Building Societies Act), you think you shouldn't have to play completely by their rules? Can you not see that it's perhaps a little naive to expect them to offer any generosity given the society are clearly set on getting this deal done ASAP, and this petition is designed to derail the society in their efforts (rather than build in mandatory ballots in future, which they might perhaps be a touch more amenable to)?

Their advisors favourable interpretation of the law IS different to how others interpret it. Our favourable interpretation of the rules MAY be different to how they interpret them. In both cases the jury is still out. 

In one case "the jury" is relevant. In the other the final authority on it is surely Nationwide.

That's the rub with your fairness equation, I fear.

Exodi

Section62 said:

It is a fairly fundamental principle of democratic processes that everyone gets to vote, regardless of whether they fully understand what they are voting for.

I think after Brexit I'm becoming less convinced, part of me thinks that people probably shouldn't get to vote on things they don't understand!

26left

Exodi said:

Section62 said:

It is a fairly fundamental principle of democratic processes that everyone gets to vote, regardless of whether they fully understand what they are voting for.

I think after Brexit I'm becoming less convinced, part of me thinks that people probably shouldn't get to vote on things they don't understand!

Well that’s one way of looking at it. Another is give members a vote - with a clear, factual accompanying statement for and against - and let those that are suitably motivated vote on it. 

I think the lesson from Brexit shouldn’t be that letting people vote is a bad idea - but instead that people should engage and be given clear information on what they’re voting for/against and why.

Exodi

26left said:

Exodi said:

Section62 said:

It is a fairly fundamental principle of democratic processes that everyone gets to vote, regardless of whether they fully understand what they are voting for.

I think after Brexit I'm becoming less convinced, part of me thinks that people probably shouldn't get to vote on things they don't understand!

Well that’s way of looking at it. Another is on a simple issue, give members a vote, with a clear accompanying statement for and against, and let those that are suitably motivated to vote. 

I think the lesson from Brexit shouldn’t be that letting people vote is a bad idea, but instead that people should engage and understand what they’re voting for/against and why.

Your proposition of providing a "clear accompanying statement for and against" (effectively trying to quickly educate people on the matter) is wrought with issues of bias, again as was seen with Brexit. Who would provide the against points?

Let's suppose you in your OP are right, the Nationwide board is primarily interested in this merger so they can give themselves and their mates a big bonus bonanza once the acquisition is completed, what do you suppose an accompanying statement they would provide alongside the vote might say? Do you thinking it would be a damning view about how it's a terrible idea that is catastrophic for members?

Most people don't care about the boring details. As with Brexit, it ended up being very easy to influence people with emotive points like 'getting control of our borders' or plastering big (but false) numbers on the sides of buses. To this day, very few people know what the single market is. Having clever people wade through strategy and technical legalese all day is one of the main reasons we have a parliament. In my opinion the same principle applies to the board at Nationwide.