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

masonic

Beddie said:

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

It has the "quick vote" option at the top of the page, which many will tick. That should not be allowed as an option, people should have to pick their own choices, even if it's to abstain or just not vote at all.

Not vote at all is always the largest cohort. It is achieved by ignoring communications and not visiting the voting page.

WillPS

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

Don't blindly vote as someone tells you to do, ever.
Consider each vote carefully and make your own mind up.

I note there are changes to the rules attached to this vote. Each voter should consider them fully.

I'm happy to confirm I have voted (for the first time, motivated by this very thread).

gravel_2

I've had a NW account since I was a young child. Despite being relatively switched on financially I have not once voted in a building society AGM. I am absolutely certain the majority of customers do not know or care about the building society status or the quirks of being a member of one. This latest exercise is futile.

boingy

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

Which is better?
Voting "For" all the items because NW wants you to or voting "Against" everything because a random stranger on the Internet wants you to?

hoc

WillPS said:

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

Don't blindly vote as someone tells you to do, ever.
Consider each vote carefully and make your own mind up.

I note there are changes to the rules attached to this vote. Each voter should consider them fully.

I'm happy to confirm I have voted (for the first time, motivated by this very thread).

boingy said:

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

Which is better?
Voting "For" all the items because NW wants you to or voting "Against" everything because a random stranger on the Internet wants you to?

Nobody has told me lol. My vote my choice. This year it is a protest vote. Nationwide did not give us the chance to vote on the Virgin takeover and those not happy which is the purpose of this thread can join me if they wish. I thought to bring this to their attention.

friolento

hoc said:

WillPS said:

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

Don't blindly vote as someone tells you to do, ever.
Consider each vote carefully and make your own mind up.

I note there are changes to the rules attached to this vote. Each voter should consider them fully.

I'm happy to confirm I have voted (for the first time, motivated by this very thread).

boingy said:

hoc said:

Nationwide have sent voting links for their upcoming Annual General Meeting on 17 July. Vote 'Against' to all items on the AGM. If enough people vote negatively in the AGM not only would the message get across but it may force some action.

Which is better?
Voting "For" all the items because NW wants you to or voting "Against" everything because a random stranger on the Internet wants you to?

Nobody has told me lol. My vote my choice. This year it is a protest vote. Nationwide did not give us the chance to vote on the Virgin takeover and those not happy which is the purpose of this thread can join me if they wish. I thought to bring this to their attention.

Nobody has told you how to vote but you have told everyone here to vote “Against”, seemingly on the grounds that you are voting that way.

I for one make up my own mind on how to vote, and I am sure so will most others.

masonic

Just out of interest, are there good examples where a protest vote has achieved the instigator's goals?

Last year there was a bit of a protest vote around the (un)fairer share payment. The hardest hit resolution was approval of the Directors' Remuneration Report, with the following breakdown:

    For: 503,024 (95.07%)
    Against: 26,079 (4.93%)
    Votes withheld*: 8,081
    (Total members: over 16 million)

Even though over 26,079 voted against, it still enjoyed over 95% approval. The nature of the system makes it near impossible for any group to influence the result.

Malthusian

masonic said:

Just out of interest, are there good examples where a protest vote has achieved the instigator's goals?

Brex [The rest of this post has been removed and the poster given a super-vermillion four-billion-year forum ban for poisoning this thread with political debate - MSE Forum Team]

WillPS

I'm not at all convinced that even a successful vote would have any chance of scuppering the deal at this point. The cost of backing out at this stage would be enormous, and that really would be money wasted.

Not that it'll happen, obviously. 

I note "the campaign" website even stops short of suggesting that it might impact the deal, stating "as members cannot vote on the proposed acquisition, no one, apart from perhaps regulators, can currently challenge the deal and hold Nationwide to account".

Game over, lads.

Malthusian

masonic said:

Just out of interest, are there good examples where a protest vote has achieved the instigator's goals?

In all seriousness, I nominate the 2000 Peruvian presidential election. Alberto Fujimori won the election with 74% of the vote against Alejandro Toledo's 26%, but the election was widely regarded as fraudulent and 30% of ballots were spoiled in protest. Although he won, it was a Pyrrhic victory as the country was engulfed in weeks of protests, his support collapsed and he resigned months later. Toledo narrowly won the election that followed; Fujimori did not stand and his Change 90 party was obliterated.

The protest vote movement helped to prevent Fujimori from presenting himself as the legitimate winner, and eventually succeeded in its aim of turfing him out and electing Toledo.

This shows that if the election procedure does not allow popular opinion to make itself heard, which is arguably the case with Nationwide's "tap here to vote yes and get a free biscuit, to vote no head towards the locked door with the sign saying Beware of the Leopard" quick vote system, the vox populi can find another way.

You do actually have to make a protest vote though. Voting "no" in a rigged election and losing is not a protest vote, it's just a vote. There seemed to be a decent strategy in place to circumvent the Quick Vote system, which was calling for a Special General Meeting, but it foundered over a lack of people willing to put up £50 a head. If the antivirginists had been running the anti-Fujimori campaign they would have all protested by staying at home on the grounds they didn't want to pay the bus fare to the polling booth.