Should we promote Pay Day loan companies?

[Richard Frost]

Surely the Larger shareholder must have used the site more though I agree that maybe they visit less and don't need to use the forum

That is not what I said. What I did say was

They could have been members for a lesser length of time.

[kevinchess1]

Yes they could
But why is that relevant?
Do you think New members should have less input than Older members?

[cccashbacklover]

[quote="Torus
I don't really see the point of having a vote if it is just going to be ignored once the result is known. quote]


It is all about Forum activity, something both Richard and K.C are apparent experts at generating

[kevinchess1]

I don't really see the point of having a vote if it is just going to be ignored once the result is known.

I think their more for guidance as i posted the last vote wasn't acted on

As I have this facility disabled. I do not care a fig what rubbish people put in their signatures. Nor do I have an opinion on it, as I do not see them..

Then how do you know it rubbish? and if you don't have an opinoin Why used the inflamotory term 'Rubbish?'

[Richard Frost]

Yes they could
But why is that relevant?
Do you think New members should have less input than Older members?

It is relevant because the probability is they will have less shares than longer term members. For what its worth I think they should have equal access. Which is why I do not think shares should be used to justify changing the outcome of a vote. I work on the principle of one person one vote. Obviously I am not getting my point across or you are choosing to deliberately misconstrue it.

As I have this facility disabled. I do not care a fig what rubbish people put in their signatures. Nor do I have an opinion on it, as I do not see them..

Then how do you know it rubbish? and if you don't have an opinoin Why used the inflamotory term 'Rubbish?'

Well I should have thought that it was obvious that I did see them up until the moment I chose to disable the facility. I am quite happy to use the term rubbish apart from a couple perhaps. From what I remember its an apt description. (Although I grant you they may no longer be) Which is why I chose to disable them. As I no longer see them I no longer have an opinion. As it was deemed necessary to have a vote on the merits or otherwise of signatures there must be some who think they are rubbish/to long or unnecessary.

I would have been happy for Richard to have made a business decision on this and decided whether to go for it or not but as he chose to put it to a vote. I am equally happy to put my view across.

[blythburgh]

I am not sure I am happy that those with the most shares have a bigger say than those with fewer. But that is the way with all companies with shareholders. But I would prefer imutual to be run on truly democratic lines. (I know that Kev is not in favour of true democracy as he would prefer to keep the present electoral system for political elections although that often means that the winner is only chosen by a minority of the electorate.)

Maybe the answer is to let the Pay Day Loan companies offer cashback on the site but not promote them by putting them in the newsletter, not having a new post in the forum pushing it. They will be there but not promoted and it will up to the customer to check to see if the company is offering cashback.

And for those who miss my signature I will add it here:

Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

[kevinchess1]

I can assure you i am in favour of 'True democracy' I'm just not convinced that PR is the best way forward you don't end up with the best candidate just the 'Least disliked'
Anyway we had a vote on this and a 'Larger percentage' agreed
I suspect whatever way you do it you will get debate
Millions of people don't even vote i think we need to address that issue first
Bye the bye I think your idea for not promoting Pay day loan companies is a good one
Finally Imutual is run on a '1 member 1 vote' there isn't anything apart from the AGM where the bigger shareholders, the ones who used the Imutual the most, get the bigger say, apart from tie breaking

[blythburgh]

I can assure you i am in favour of 'True democracy' I'm just not convinced that PR is the best way forward you don't end up with the best candidate just the 'Least disliked'
Anyway we had a vote on this and a 'Larger percentage' agreed
I suspect whatever way you do it you will get debate
Millions of people don't even vote i think we need to address that issue first

It all depends on which sort of PR you chose of course. But I agree that we need to get the millions who do not vote more involved. I live in a constituency which swings between the Conservatives and Labour. Our local paper's letter area usually has letters on two and sometimes three subjects:

Cycling and cyclists: because one person insists on writing weekly on the benefits of cycling and how most people should do it. Then you get someone arguing against his letter so a reply is needed.

A third crossing: this pops up every so often and the recent decision to have a cycle/pedestrian only bridge, costing a mere £5,000,000 and a local businessman's idea of a barrage has meant a lot of letters recently.

Politics: This covers so many areas of interest to the local population but is usually from Labour/Conservative/UKIP saying as to why their party has the right idea and slagging off the other parties. UKIP members who write to the paper put excellent arguments forward to support something (you do not have to agree to see that the argument us well put) and then they ruin the letter by attacking the other parties. I am talking about letters that could be written by someone with no real interest in politics and then comes the political rant. Is there a better way to turn everyone off voting than letters like this? I despair when nothing can be discussed without those who support one party or the other writing derogatory stuff about the other parties. If they have disagreements then surely putting their points of view is sufficient unless they are replying to a letter from a stated member of another party?

[kevinchess1]

I should have been clearer when I started this poll that I was using it to gauge opinion and help me make a decision, rather than it being a 1 person 1 vote binding decision. Sorry about that

As such, I do think it's valid for me to look beyond the simple number of votes cast, including who's voted and what their track record is with imutual. In addition to the votes, some useful comments have been made and it's clear that there are more than two possible solutions. On balance, I feel it's worth exploring a "middle way" initially

And, as I say, the poll title was perhaps not ideal. We have promoted these companies for 3 years, many members have benefited from the cashback and (as far as I can recall) we've never had a single post or complaint suggesting that we remove them. Despite that, I wanted to sound people out on whether it might be wise to drop them given the current climate.

[roger]

I haven't voted on this, partly due to lack of clarity as to exactly what "promote" implies. I'm unenthusiastic about payday loans for all the reasons mentioned by others but, equally, I don't believe in the "nanny state" mentality which decides how to "protect" people from the consequences of their own actions. And I accept that, in some circumstances, a payday loan may be the least unattractive of a number of unattractive options - better than resorting to loan sharks, for example - open to someone. For those reasons, I'm against both (a) banning them and (b) actively recommending them, and would favour a compromise formula.