logo
Nationwide's self-righteousness has been exposed as a sham

Nationwide's self-righteousness has been exposed as a sham

Telegraph5 days ago
Who said banking was boring? One glance at Nationwide's website and you might wonder if you were in the company of some crusading NGO on the cusp of saving the planet.
'We are not a bank, built to make money for shareholders. We are … a mutual, owned by and run for the benefit of our members', it proudly states.
'There's no one else quite like us.'
It surely doesn't need pointing out that if you're going to join the sanctimonious crowd and act like a paragon of virtue then you definitely need to walk the walk. Yet Nationwide is rapidly turning into a world-beater in hollow soundbites.
The Nationwide model is a simple one. The concept of democracy is absolutely core to mutual status – when it comes to major strategic moves or matters of genuine consequence, its 16 million members are supposed to have a say. Without that, it instantly loses its USP and becomes just another self-interested organisation out to make a quick profit at all costs.
Unfortunately, Nationwide's members are quickly learning that despite management endlessly shouting about its principled ways, this supposedly ethical approach appears increasingly to be built on flimsy foundations.
The latest example of Nationwide's readiness to ride roughshod over the will of its members comes in the form of what should have been a fairly routine board re-election vote at its annual general meeting. But it is in danger of spiralling into another embarrassing storm for the organisation.
Members – not unfairly – point out that of the 13 board members up for re-election, none of them have been nominated by them. They are also concerned that there aren't enough directors with the experience of running a mutual.
On the face of it, it is hardly a scandal to rival Watergate, but because the situation has been so poorly handled, Nationwide risks coming out of it terribly. It is also fundamental to what the mutual insists it stands for, so while it may seem largely inconsequential, it is another test of its claims to operate ethically.
In keeping with Nationwide's democratic values, members can put forward candidates if they obtain 250 endorsements. But one customer, James Sherwin-Smith, claims his nomination was blocked despite receiving 600 signatories. Nationwide disputes this - the number of valid nominations received fell 'substantially short of the threshold', it says.
But the word 'valid' sticks out like a sore thumb in that sentence. In the interests of full transparency, it needs to explain how many votes were invalidated and why, otherwise this whole farrago smacks of an organisation that continues to obfuscate whenever the threat of real scrutiny presents itself.
With all 13 directors up for re-election and not a single one of them nominated by members, one empathises entirely when Sherwin-Smith says: 'It's unclear to members where the representation for us is. It feels to us that the board is doing what the board wants, not what the members want.'
If a row over the re-election of directors was its only misdemeanour, Nationwide would be entitled to feel hard done by perhaps. Yet such episodes are starting to become the norm rather than the exception to the extent that it is beginning to look like it is not being run for the benefit of members.
This, after all, is a board currently trying to see off an entirely justified backlash over a bumper £7m pay award for chief executive Debbie Crosbie that wouldn't look out of place at some of the big investment banks.
It's certainly not out of kilter with what the bosses of Britain's high street banks get paid. However, as one bank chief privately points out, running a building society that essentially provides mortgages, current accounts and not much else, isn't nearly as complex as running a publicly listed financial institution with an investment banking arm or overseas operations.
So why is Crosbie being paid like she is? It is way more than her building society peers earn. Susan Allen, chief executive at Yorkshire Building Society, receives around £1.6m a year, while Steve Hughes, the boss of Coventry Building Society, took home £1.2m last year.
A big part of the reason is Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money last year. According to senior independent director Tracey Graham, the deal 'significantly increased the size and scope' of the business, bringing 'additional operational complexity and demands of executive roles'.
Yet that somewhat conveniently overlooks the fact that there was serious opposition both from Virgin shareholders who complained they were the subject of a low-ball offer, and Nationwide members after they were denied a vote on the tie-up.
Instead of doing the courageous thing and putting it to a ballot, the two sides hid behind merger rules and archaic legislation they insisted prevented any such move.
Members were essentially being asked to take Crosbie and her team on their word. However, this was a regime whose credibility had suffered a serious knock when a Nationwide TV ad claiming it wasn't closing branches was banned on the grounds it was misleading.
With Nationwide boasting, 'you have a voice we want to hear', members are entitled to ask whether that only applies when it suits those at the top.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK-India trade deal sparks fears over access to cheap medicines for millions
UK-India trade deal sparks fears over access to cheap medicines for millions

ITV News

time8 minutes ago

  • ITV News

UK-India trade deal sparks fears over access to cheap medicines for millions

A newly signed trade agreement between India and the UK has triggered concerns that millions of poor Indians may lose access to affordable life-saving medicines. Civil society groups and health experts say the UK-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA), finalised between two countries, tilts the balance in favour of multinational pharmaceutical corporations and threatens to erode long-standing protections that have allowed India to produce low-cost generic drugs. 'This is not just about trade. It's about whether a person living on ₹200 (£2) a day can afford cancer treatment or survive tuberculosis,' said Jyotsna Singh, co-convenor of the Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatments. At the heart of the controversy are the agreement's intellectual property (IP) provisions, which activists say may restrict the Indian government's ability to issue compulsory licences—legal tools that allow domestic companies to manufacture patented drugs at reduced prices during public health emergencies. India used this provision in 2012 to dramatically cut the price of sorafenib, a cancer drug sold by Bayer under the brand Nexavar. Generic versions slashed the monthly cost by nearly 97%, from ₹2.8 lakh (£2,600) to around ₹8,800 (£80), making it affordable to thousands. 'By discouraging compulsory licensing and promoting voluntary licences, the deal hands over control of access to medicines to the market,' said Prof Biswajit Dhar, a trade expert and former professor at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. 'Voluntary licences often come with strings attached and don't bring the same price reductions.' Weakening India's Patent Safeguards Under the FTA, companies will no longer need to report annually how their patents are being 'worked'—or used—in India. Instead, disclosures can be made every three years, and some information can be kept confidential. Activists say this undermines transparency and makes it harder to prove that a drug isn't available to the public, a key step in applying for a compulsory licence. There are also concerns the deal could open the door to 'evergreening'—a tactic in which companies make minor changes to existing drugs and claim new patents. Indian law currently limits this practice under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, but experts warn the FTA's emphasis on 'harmonisation' of IP standards with Western countries could override such protections. 'This is effectively a backdoor entry for TRIPS-plus provisions,' said K.M. Gopakumar, co-convenor of the Working Group. 'It would push India to grant unnecessary patents, prolonging monopolies and delaying cheaper alternatives.' The Indian pharmaceutical industry supplies more than 60% of global vaccines and a significant share of affordable generics to low- and middle-income countries. Critics say the FTA may limit this capacity and ultimately have consequences well beyond India's borders. Government response The Indian government has promoted the FTA as a landmark deal that will boost exports and attract UK investment in manufacturing, services, and digital trade. Officials insist that India has preserved its ability to protect public health. But rights groups remain unconvinced. 'You cannot negotiate away access to life-saving drugs in the name of free trade,' said Gargeya Telakapalli, a public health campaigner based in Hyderabad. 'The poorest Indians—those with cancer, HIV, diabetes, or TB—are being quietly sacrificed.' Broader implications The deal follows a similar agreement India signed last year with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which also faced criticism for diluting IP safeguards. Observers say the trend may reflect a shift in India's trade policy as it seeks closer ties with Western economies. But for many in India's healthcare and legal communities, the question remains: how much access to medicine is the country willing to give up for a better trade balance? From Westminster to Washington DC - our political experts are across all the latest key talking points. Listen to the latest episode below...

Donald Trump spotted with son Eric at luxury Turnberry resort during five-day Scotland visit
Donald Trump spotted with son Eric at luxury Turnberry resort during five-day Scotland visit

The Sun

time9 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Donald Trump spotted with son Eric at luxury Turnberry resort during five-day Scotland visit

DONALD Trump has been spotted playing golf at his luxury Turnberry resort this morning alongside his son Eric. The US President, 79, arrived aboard Air Force One at around 8.30pm last night for his five-day private visit to Bonnie Scotland. 1 After waving to the crowds, he met the welcoming committee, which included Scottish Secretary Ian Murray. He was then whisked away in his armoured motorcade to his exclusive Turnberry golf resort on the Ayrshire coast. Villagers waved as the convoy passed through nearby Kirkoswald and later arrived at the resort at around 9.30pm. And he has wasted no time in taking to the green after being seen teeing off at the luxury resort this morning. Donning a white USA baseball cap, he has been joined by his son Eric as he enjoys the Turnberry's Ailsa course. Mr Trump was spotted being escorted down to the course on a golf buggy, with a convoy following close behind. Mr Trump is set to spend the weekend at his two golf resorts - Trump Turnberry and Menie in Aberdeenshire. During his stay, he will officially open his second course at Menie, named in honour of his late mother, Mary Anne MacLeod. His visit is expected to last until Tuesday, July 29. The President is also scheduled to meet Scottish First Minister John Swinney and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer during his trip. A massive £5million security operation has been rolled out to ensure his safety, with around 6,000 police officers drafted in from across the UK to support the efforts. His visit is expected to spark mass protests around his golf courses and in major Scottish cities. More to follow... For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Scottish Sun. is your go to destination for the best celebrity news, football news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video. Like us on Facebook at and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheScottishSun.

Woman turned away from Wetherspoons for wearing Union Jack dress ‘absolutely disgusted' over policy
Woman turned away from Wetherspoons for wearing Union Jack dress ‘absolutely disgusted' over policy

The Sun

time9 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Woman turned away from Wetherspoons for wearing Union Jack dress ‘absolutely disgusted' over policy

A WOMAN sporting a Union Jack dress was turned away from a Wetherspoon's pub amid anti-immigration protests. Tanya Ostolski said she had been refused service from The Picture House in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire for her patriotic style on Friday. 2 2 At first the 54-year-old said she was refused entry for carrying a St George's cross flag. However, even after she'd put the flag in her bag, they still refused to let her in which she said was attributed to her Union Jack dress. It has left her concerned that she might be barred in future. She told Nottinghamshire Live: "It's our flag, it's our nation's flag. I wasn't being aggressive or anything, I didn't get lairy or anything. "I put the flag back in my bag, and they said I can't come in because of my dress." Wetherspoon spokesperson Eddie Gershon said: "Pub managers have a duty under the licensing laws, and as a matter of common sense, to judge every situation on its particular circumstances. 'In this case, the pub manager felt that it was important not to increase tensions. 'Therefore, on this occasion the manager asked customers not to enter with flags or any placards.' It came amid an anti-illegal immigration demonstration in the town, as protesters gathered 50 metres away from the pub. Protests began at around 4.30pm and had ended by around 7pm. 'Epping migrant protester' is arrested at home as ring of steel ramps up They were sparked by local Reform MP Lee Anderson who has made an unfounded claim that a man charged with rape in the area is an asylum seeker. The claim regards a man who was arrested after reportedly raping a woman at Sutton Lawn. Anderson made the claims on X, despite being advised against it by Nottinghamshire Police as it could interfere with the justice proceedings. An estimated 300 people attended the protest, with around a dozen counter protesters from Stand Up To Racism present. Anger was directed towards Sir Keir Starmer, with people chanting "stop the boats". At one point in the evening, police guarded the entrance to the Wetherspoon pub after protesters like Tanya complained about being turned away. The popular pub chain's "no-flag policy" has seen it face backlash in the past. During the 2018 World Cup it faced backlash after several of its venues were asked not to display England flags, or any other nation's flag. Instead, all 32 nations were represented on bunting decorating the pubs. This policy was changed for the 2024 Euros, during which the pubs were permitted to display flags.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store