Does anyone think that Manchester is doing enough on Climate Change? By “Manchester” I don't mean the Council, local business, the “Greater Manchester” quangos of Manchester Enterprises etc. I mean- for want of a much better phrase- the “activist community.” The AC is people who attend meetings of Friends of the Earth, Green Party, Greenpeace, Manchester Climate Action, Campaign against Climate Change, Manchester Climate Forum and the like. Different people have different levels of involvement and links, but there is an identifiable group of “usual suspects.”

I could be wrong but my impression is that there's very little sustained communication between these groups, very little co-ordinated action, sharing of skills, ideas, experiences. When individual groups have a good idea, they don't (can't) spread it, and don't get supported by others- principally because those others don't even know about it.

So how might things look in September 2009?

Status Quo

We have bimbled along in much the same way for the last 2 years. The scene continues the same, with groups each doing their own thing, and communication taking place on an ad-hoc level, via personal contacts and occasional subscriptions to one another's email lists. (I'd say that there's a real risk of things actually getting worse through attrition, burn-out and despair.)

Dire Straits

One individual or a group has attempted to set up a “central committee” that claims to speak on behalf of all interested individuals/groups. It was set up with high hopes and fanfare by the organisers, but was viewed with suspicion/apathy by other individuals/groups who felt that it was too reformist/revolutionary or dominated by people they didn't like or trust. Nonetheless, they attended one or two meetings, wanting to make it work. But the discussions were rancorous and numbers soon dropped. It lacked legitimacy and was hi-jacked by sectional interests. But now people are 'once-bitten, twice-shy' and it is HARDER to co-ordinate activity in the longer term because whenever the word “co-ordination” is said the word “domination” is heard..

Electrifying Light Orchestra (with no specific conductor)

Groups have come together on several occasions to discuss how they might best share experience and information about their various campaigns. There have been regular meetings (under the banner of EN4M?) which have been well- publicised, well-attended, well-facilitated and energising because they have allowed people to see their efforts in a broader context. They have also offered new people a list of specific tasks they could get involved in doing by specific times. There has been a real effort to welcome these new people, and to find out what they can already do and are already doing. The space has been defended from various forms of 'space invaders', and attempts to speak for the whole of the movement are not left unchallenged. As a result, separate groups have more self-confidence, more resources and a better understanding of what is going on and who is doing what and why.

It's hard for people to imagine this, because the recent attempts at co-ordinated action on political issues in Manchester (and beyond) have all followed the Dire Straits/umbrella group model, and they've all ended unhappily... Unless people see a relatively worked out and practicable proposal for ELO, they'll just assume that co-ordination is a euphemism for domination and control and vote with their feet...

So, what is to be done?

Meetings

• Seriously consider the proposal (see below) of having more than one group meet on the same night, at the same venue, and then combining for info-sharing later. Even if only two groups commit to doing it, that's a start.

• At meetings of each group, have an agenda point “What other groups are doing, what help they've said they want and what our group might be able to offer”

• Treat each other's meetings respectfully, and always ask if it is possible to flyer/distro posters at each other's events (there should be a huge presumption in favour of this, of course, but it's polite not to assume)

• Quarterly meetings for info-share and socialising?
  
  

Communications

• Use email lists- make a concerted effort for each group, after its monthly meeting, to send out a brief precis of

• a) what it is planning and how people can get involved (email, phone, website)

• b) what practical help is needed for specific projects

• Link to each other's websites.

• Advertise events on Networking Newsletter, Indymedia and Manchester Climate Fortnightly

Work together on a common project that all can agree on

• It might be engaging with the Council/AGMA plans

• It might be something to do with aviation (!)

• It might be something to do with (fill in the blank)

• Letter writing campaigns to Manchester Evening News

• Another Carnival?

Proposal for consideration

That whatever groups who want to agree to trial holding their monthly meetings on the same evening at the same venue for a few (3-5) months, and then review.

Plus	Minus	Interesting
Easier and quicker exchange of information about what is happening on climate campaigning	Logistical difficulties (venue)	Synergies might emerge between the groups
Central point/date for newcomers- they more easily get a sense of who is doing what	Some people do attend more than one group and wouldn't be able to do so in this proposal	More people might turn up, if they know there is a chance they'll be catching up with people they don't see often
Feels better to end in a room of 20 to 25 people instead of 5/10	Risk of creating a “central committee” that tries to tell others what to do	Newcomers might be more enthused by
Fewer nights booked up, so that other/public meetings can be more easily organised without clash	Slight decrease in time available for some groups, (but it might impose a good discipline to crack through an agenda)
People will get to know people in other groups more easily	Decreased “identity” for each group?
Join the publicity together, makes it easier to explain where to go for next meeting.	Potential for some (inc outsiders) to dominate the final session having not been at any of the meetings.

Proposed logistics.

7.00pm to 715pm start, depending on what each group wants.

8.30pm/8.40 all groups gather and there is a structured exchange of information

9.10ish at the latest- off to nearby pub for any further mingling/discussion

The final session would need to be well facilitated, and there would need to be a commitment from each of the groups involved to give it 3 or 4 months before dropping out.

The potential venues

	Plus	Minus
Friends Meeting House	Has enough rooms Is well known	Costs money
Greenfish	Has enough rooms Free!	A little out of the way/not very well known
Pub (e.g. Upstairs at Ape and Apple)	Alcohol	Alcohol Only one space (but it is big...)
University	Free	Out of the way for some. Feels odd for non-students