Election address 2026
Alongside delivering the required nominations, and a £500 deposit, candidates for election to the board have the opportunity to include an election address of up to 500 words. This is as per Rule 31 of Nationwide’s Memorandum and Rules and Section 61 of the Building Societies Act (1986), as amended.
Below the line is the address I have drafted. The first part is in keeping with the style of the “Who are you voting for?” document prepared for the 2025 AGM by Nationwide.
The Quick vote conundrum
If I am successfully nominated, and therefore I appear on the ballot, it is unclear whether Nationwide will use the Quick vote. Since its introduction in 2006, there hasn’t been a member nominated candidate on the ballot to make the election of directors contested.
My election success, and my £500 deposit, may hinge on its use.
[Final version (PDF) delivered to Nationwide 12:20 Monday 30th March 2026. My thanks to all who have provided feedback.]
James Sherwin-Smith
Independent non-executive director
Member Nominated Candidate
Skills and experience
James Sherwin-Smith has worked in financial services for over 20 years and is a director of several UK companies. He previously served as CEO of Growth Street, an FCA-regulated firm that helped UK small businesses access fair and competitive lending.
James later joined Vocalink, the British company that operates much of the UK’s core payments infrastructure, including Bacs, Faster Payments and LINK. Following Mastercard’s acquisition of Vocalink, he was part of the leadership team responsible for expanding the company’s payment systems internationally.
He now advises and invests in early-stage financial technology and payments businesses.
Election address
I am standing for election to give my fellow Members a more meaningful say in how Nationwide is run – and greater transparency into how its decisions affect them.
Like many Members, I value the role that building and mutual societies play in the UK financial system. As they are owned by their customers, they are uniquely placed to act in the interests of the people they serve, without the pressure of external shareholders.
This model only works if Members are informed and actively engaged. Mutual societies depend on participation to ensure Members’ interests are properly reflected in Board decisions. Nationwide has over 16 million Members, yet only 4% take part in the Society’s annual elections, and far fewer attend the AGM.
Millions more Members are now joining Nationwide from non-mutual Virgin Money as part of the largest acquisition in building society history. The integration will take years – and there will be tough decisions ahead.
Mutual boards benefit from Member Nominated Directors that ensure Members’ perspectives are consistently considered in major decisions – from strategy to pricing and Member benefits – and Members are better informed and engaged.
My professional background means I understand how complex Financial Institutions operate. Through my work in payments infrastructure, and as CEO of an FCA-regulated business, I have seen how organisations can balance commercial success and deliver the best outcomes for their customers.
If elected, my clear aim will be to bring an independent, informed Member perspective into the Boardroom and ensure that the voices of all Members are heard where decisions are made, by focusing on three priorities:
- Strengthening how Members’ views are reflected in Board decisions
- Improving transparency, so Members better understand key decisions and how they are affected
- Helping ensure the benefits of mutual ownership – such as pricing, products, service and rewards – are balanced, clearly delivered and fairly shared.
Nationwide has been successful because Members trust it to operate differently from shareholder-owned banks. Protecting and strengthening that trust is essential to its future.
If you would like a Member Nominated Director on the Nationwide Board, please vote:
FOR James Sherwin-Smith.
Focus on making the case more specific and urgent. At the moment it’s credible but quite general – add one or two concrete examples of what “better member voice” would actually mean in practice, and explain clearly why now Nationwide needs a member-nominated director. Most members will default to board-backed candidates, so you need a sharper reason to choose him.
Tighten the language and reduce repetition around “member voice/engagement,” and include one punchy line that answers: what changes if I vote for you? Keep the tone constructive, avoid procedural points like the Quick Vote, and end with a clear, direct call to action.
Thanks Tim – these are excellent points. I’ll review in light of these and others feedback.
Hello,
Good luck with your election address. The Nationwide urgently needs an independent board Member. I have told my MP Peter Kyle, that Nationwide could give them an egg on the face problem, much like the post office if Nationwide doesn’t become more accountable to its members.
Thanks Jim – I appreciate the support, and I share your concerns.
I agree with Tim, it needs a call to action by members and I would both start and finish with it. I also agree about the examples and making the language less technical and repetitive. I don’t know who votes at the moment, but I suspect it is more financially aware people. I hope you can bring in more member’s votes by addressing those with less knowledge in simple terms.
Thanks Peter – I’ve now updated it, hopefully it’s an improvement.
Typo in election address line 1. Members not embers
Fixed – thanks Chris!
I also agree with the above comments, it needs to be a bit more punchy. It would be good to have a member director, but perhaps it is actually important to have one.
Thanks Paul – trying to strike the right balance here in terms of making it stand out while at the same time appealing to all. I’ll think some more on this.
The Quick Vote is a shortcut that undermines proper democratic process, and is being abused in other mutual institutions, most notably the National Trust. Its use to elect board members should be outlawed. I would also want my Member nominated director to speak directly to the excessive remuneration package of the CEO. This is not JP Morgan: it’s a mutual bank/building society, and we should not be paying multiple millions to someone to lead it.
That really needed saying. It could be the point to falvanise voters into supporting James.
Thank you Philip & Sandie. I also view the Quick vote as problematic. I am also concerned – like many members – regarding executive pay. It’s something I’ve written about quite a bit – particularly in the lead up to the AGM last year.
e.g. I was grateful to Kalyeena Makortoff for this write-up published in The Guardian last year, and for giving me the last word re binding votes (a right shareholders of listed companies enjoy): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/20/storm-brews-over-nationwide-chief-executives-pay-package-worth-up-to-7m
I found the logic espoused by Robin Fieth at the Building Societies Association and Peter Hunt at Mutuo on this point difficult to understand.
A change in the law is not needed for the sector to choose to do the right thing, get with the times and hold binding votes on pay.
To suggest members aren’t suitably “equipped” to determine pay, but are able to vote on accepting published accounts, appoint auditors, elect directors etc. is not only illogical, it’s also verging on insulting. Members either govern their societies or nobody does.
I think the building society, mutual and co-operative sectors should reconsider their stance on binding votes on pay, and ultimately agree to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Looks good to me.
Some 50 years back I was told when being interviewed 1st rule was to ensure I would “fit in”, once in the boat could be gently rocked. I don’t know if you are looking for a salary, if not that would make for an excellent selling point to the members. Whilst unsure if it’s worth mentioning at this stage, without opposition there can be no democracy. Nationwide should be democratically run yet there is no recognisable opposition as the Board simply will not allow, asorry state for any mutual never mind one with 16million member owners. The most senior members of the board can’t even bare to be in the same room as the members/owners.
Thanks Robert. I agree that elections should be contested and member’s should have a choice to make at elections. Competition strikes me as a good way to deliver stronger, democratic outcomes.
If Nationwide wants to become a fully fledged bank, then it should declare its intention and watch the members drift away!
If however it wants to remain as a mutual society for the benefit of its members and not shareholders it should have member representation on the board. Perhaps, in the future there will be more than one, to fully represent Natiionwide’s aspiration to be a trusted community-led financial institution.
Thanks Graham. I agree, I think there should be more member nominated directors across mutuals. Between 1993 and 1997, three member supported directors served on the Nationwide board at the same time. Read more here: https://james4nationwide.co.uk/rebels-with-a-cause-standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/
You might be interested to learn that one of the UK’s largest mutuals, Co-op Group, has 4 Member Nominated Directors on its board. One of them is stepping in as interim CEO, as the current CEO is stepping down.
https://www.co-operative.coop/about-us/board-and-directors
https://www.co-operative.coop/media/news-releases/shirine-khoury-haq-to-leave-the-co-op-group-kate-allum-appointed-interim
I have the following suggestions:-
Swap the first two paragraphs around and reword the second one as follows:-
Nationwide is owned by its members. As a member, I am standing for election to give members a meaningful say in how Nationwide is run – and how its decisions affect them.
The paragraphs near the end that start to be reconstructed as follows:-
If elected, my role would be simple: to bring an independent, informed Member perspective into the Boardroom, and ensure that the voices of all Members are heard where decisions are made. In this role, I will focus on three priorities:
1. Strengthening how Member’s views are reflected in Board decisions
2. Improving transparency, so Members better understand key decisions and how they are affected
3. Helping ensure the benefits of mutual ownership – such as pricing, products and Member rewards – are clearly delivered and fairly shared.
Thank you Paul. These are good suggestions – I’ll take another pass.
Third para of address: ‘far fewer’ not ‘much fewer’.
Priority 1: ‘Members’ views’ (plural) not ‘Member’s views’ (singular).
I suggest your USP as an independent scrutiniser acting in members’ interests, plus a specific plea not to fall for the Quick Vote would be prudent.
Thank you Howard – good catches that I have corrected.
I agree that the quick vote needs to be changed as I think it encourages members who do not have a financial background to take the easy option. I would include myself in that comment in the past. I don’t have a financial background but I have tried to educate myself and never use the quick vote any more. I think we need a member on the Board to reflect the views of the membership. The suggestions from PaulB are great. Sorry I can’t be more help than that but you will have my vote when the time comes.
Thank you Izzy. It’s unclear whether the Quick Vote is going to be used or not. I’ve asked the Society to suspend its use if the election is contested in the interests of fairness.
In my view the Quick Vote is a cop out, used to overrule possible dissent by making life ‘easy’ for members. The National Trust’s reason for using it is pretty much that ‘everybody does it’, and for some years there has not been a council member elected who was not on the NT recommended shortlist.
However, the wording you have shown at the top of this page from last year’s Nationwide form implies that the quick vote is used to approve ALL those standing for election or re-election, in which case you are in! Good luck
Hi Barbara – thanks for your comment. The challenge is if I am successfully nominated, will I be deemed a recommended candidate by the board, or not – as well as whether the Quick vote will be used, or not. This post explains more – there are a few different permutations to consider: https://james4nationwide.co.uk/election-address-quick-vote/
Hi James
I wonder whether it might be worth referencing the fact that Nationwide is the biggest building society in the UK even before the Virgin Money merge but that as a building society it appears to be lagging behind in innovation and interest rates (for example the Coventry Building Society) and a fresh face representing the members might bring new perspectives?