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

Section62

spider42 said:

Foxhouse said:
I bet you that at least some involved are hoping for a demutualisation payday; these people haven't gone away.

I don't see how the takeover of Virgin has got anything to do with demutualisation of Nationwide. If anything, surely a transaction which makes Nationwide more like a bank is going to increase the likelihood of a future demutualisation, rather than reducing it? So carpetbaggers would surely be supporting the Virgin deal?

Logic doesn't work on some people.  Others there is no point trying to discuss the issues with them because they are so convinced they are right, don't comprehend their own knowledge gaps, and seem to believe they have some kind of supernatural ability to sense other people's motivations via comments made on an internet forum.

I think Nationwide is too big already.  The bigger it gets the more remote it becomes from the membership who own it.  Without some of the checks and balances a PLC is subject to, the second largest retail 'bank' group could also pose a wider societal threat.  The bigger Nationwide gets, the more attractive it becomes as a potential takeover target.

Nationwide sets itself up as the standard bearer for mutuality, whilst doing some very un-mutual things.  I see a very real risk of them doing harm to the survival of the mutual sector in the UK unless there is some kind of reform.  But apparently that makes me one of the 'greedy' or 'selfish' ones.

Qyburn

The petition claims to have 205 votes just now. But as far as I can see there's no enforcement to ensure only votes from Nationwide members are accepted, or even that the "voters" actually exist. 

masonic

Qyburn said:

The petition claims to have 205 votes just now. But as far as I can see there's no enforcement to ensure only votes from Nationwide members are accepted, or even that the "voters" actually exist. 

The stated aim of the petition is to see if there are enough people willing to sign it for the creator to go to the trouble of organising the required paperwork. The next step would be to collect a physical signature and £50 deposit from each person to take to Nationwide in order to call a special meeting. Possibly in response to comments made in the press like in this article. The petition really needs to smash the 500 target for the reasons you suggest. Not only do those signing the petition need to be members, they will also need to print and sign a letter, and may need to contribute to the deposit (though there is mention of some benefactors willing to put up money for those who cannot).

But given the comment from a MSE community admin yesterday that newspapers have been contacting them about a previous thread featuring this petition being removed, the petition may also be a tool for publicity.

cloud_dog

cloud_dog said:

My question to @26left et al, would be...

Would you agree that the board and the advisers engaged in this process have access to more detailed and more up to date information than yourself?

Well that was disappointing, and in all honesty probably confirms my thoughts.

Section62

Qyburn said:

The petition claims to have 205 votes just now. But as far as I can see there's no enforcement to ensure only votes from Nationwide members are accepted, or even that the "voters" actually exist. 

I assume Nationwide would scrutinise the list to ensure the names are all qualified two-year members, before calling a meeting.

This presumably is why they need full name, address and an account number.

Although the risk of full name, address and an account number appearing in a document in the public domain is likely to put many people off adding their name to those calling for a Rule 14 meeting.

cloud_dog

PosterBoy77 said:

cloud_dog said:

My question to @26left et al, would be...

Would you agree that the board and the advisers engaged in this process have access to more detailed and more up to date information than yourself?

They might well do. But that in no way confirms if the decisions made are in the best interests of the organisation or simply in the best interests of management and their financial reward.

That wasn't (going to be) my line of questioning.

But as the poster believes they are as well informed of all the business benefits and financial aspects attributed to the transaction, and future benefits for NW going forward the conversation is moot, although I would suggest it reflects badly on some of the points they have raised.

Qyburn

Section62 said: 

This presumably is why they need full name, address and an account number.

Does the petition ask for account number after you click "Sign this petition"?

masonic

Qyburn said:

Section62 said: 

This presumably is why they need full name, address and an account number.

Does the petition ask for account number after you click "Sign this petition"?

The petition is merely an 'expression of interest'. Those who sign will receive further communication from the petition starter in order to gather the information and money required to apply to Nationwide for a special meeting. The only information collected in a change.org petition is a name and email address.

boingy

Whilst there may be a handful of carpetbaggers still intent of making noises at every opportunity I think it's more likely that a few disgruntled folks who missed out on the "fairer share" thing are wanting to cause a bit of disruption. It won't make any difference at all, even if they do manage to force a vote.

Section62

Foxhouse said:

I worked for Nationwide when the carpetbagging frenzy was at its worst. The greed, hostility, intimidation and outright harrassment our staff faced was utterly demoralising and on too frequent occasions, threatening.

I bet you that at least some involved are hoping for a demutualisation payday; these people haven't gone away.

These folk getting their proverbials in a twist about this deal - it's a shame they don't use their energy tackling some of the more serious problems in the world today. But then that's not in their self(ish) interest.

So yes, count me a cynic about the motivation of some of the folk behind this 'petition'.

That's awful, but hopefully today Nationwide's policy on harassment would mean those members would quickly lose their membership, so such actions would be very counterproductive.

The question is, does what happened in the past justify calling people who want to express an opinion on Nationwide's decisions and strategic direction things like "carpetbaggers", "moaners", "greedy" and "selfish"?  I don't think so.  Two wrongs and all that.

Nationwide not providing a genuine opportunity for members to have a say will probably have the effect of increasing the feeling of unease and disquiet among those members who see Nationwide (and other mutuals) as more than just a bank.  Folks resorting to namecalling as a means of trying to silence member voices are not doing Nationwide the favour they presumably think they are doing, and from my own experiences within Nationwide, that sort of approach is totally alien to the way the majority of Nationwide staff feel and act.