Subject: Campaigning Charity Talk

The economic argument was critical to the success of this campaign and mobilised and united a broad coalition to the message.  Is it possible to have a restated  generic""business case" that re-emphasises the critical  current and future role played by Third Sector organisations in this recession  and which individual organisations could customise to their specific needs?

Interesting point from one delegate on actually funding large scale campaigns like the heathrow one.  Other than the backing of wealthy individuals - has anyone successfully gained funding from any other bodies??

The debate was excellent and the issues and expert audience allowed the argument to be well developed. I am interested in how the audience perceived this.

Really fascinating evening talk, thank you!  I was wondering, as a Hillingdon resident I've generally considered the campaign to be rather faceless, probably down to the fact it's based on a loose coalition, is this deliberate?  Do you reckon this has contributed to its success?  Thinking back to other campaigns, I can put a face or image to them (Swampy, Fathers for Justice figures in spandex, Shami Chakrabati) which it's all to tempting to sigh at and try to ignore, but by having a relatively unbranded campaign all the focus is on Heathrow.

i WAS INTERESTED THAT YOU SAID PEOPLE FROM THE COALIUTION FORMED PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH SOME OF THE RESIDENTS UNDER THE FLIGHTPATH. hOW DID THAT WORK OUT? WHAT DID THE RESIDENTS FEEL AS A RESULT OF THIS?

I was interested in the point about how campaigning bodies need legitimacy, ie, support of the 'beneficiaries' of their campaigns. This is really hard in climate change, where the 'beneficiaries' are often /largely people in other countries, eg, low lying island states who stand to come off worst from climate effects, and/or people who've not even been born yet. How do you deal with that? -when it's simply not practical to engage them in the campaign.

Fascinating talk, thanks very much! Coming for an organisation whose main target is not the UK government, I would be interested to hear whether has anyone have perspectives on applying the principles discussed this evening to campaigning to influence the policies and actions of foreign governments, big companies and other actors?

Thanks for the great talk. Very inspiring speaker. Was a good refresher of some main important campaigning points

I wonder what themes and issues do not lend themselves to campatining - in some way they fall below the line as they are not a big enough or  controversial enough?  For example, teahcers and trainers across further education and skills (some 200,000) week in week out make a fantastic difference to over 5 million young and adult learners in England each year.  Yet the public and policy makers and senior politicians on the whole think of schools and universities first and that teachers are in these sectors.  Yet, teachers in further education and skills are dual professionals - they are experts in their vocational or academic subject area as well as being expert in teching methods that are effective.  They bring success for learners, many of whom did not fare well in school.  They are egniens for economic growth and social cohesion.  Who would like to join or give advice on a campaign to raise the status and recognition of these unsung heroes and heroines - the teachers in further education?

I'm so glad I came - I'm in week 3 as project manager at Time to Change, which aims to breakdown stigma and discrimination experienced by people with mental health problems, and facing many of the issues discussed today. 

The presentation was great, and I've gone away from the evening with lots to think about.

I wanted to ask John about how he held the coalition together. It’s an impressive list of organisations that they assembled and some unlikely partnerships. How much did the coalition share tactics and approaches, or was it all fairly autonomous? How did they overcome the tension that must have existed in the coalition at times?

Just to apologise for my typing in my first entry above.  After a detached retina operation, I struggle to see well using a small screen.  I am now at work on a larger screen!  I would hate my poor eyesight and typing to reflect on the calibre of teachers and trainers across further education and skills.  

So - if anyone has thoughts on raising the profile of important groups of workers - the unsung heroes and heroines who keep our nation ticking and dynamic, I really look forward to hearing from you.   Would anyone like to join a coalition?  

To respond to some of the comments.

Stoo's point about the campaign not having any clearly identifiable 'face'.  This has been fairly deliberate.  We wanted to keep the focus on Heathrow and we also felt it puts more pressure on the Government if a range of different voices are heard as it emphasis the breadth of opposition.

Maria asks about how the relationships between the local community and the campaigners was established.  Over a period of years campaigners, and, in particular, many of the young environmentalists, spent some time in the areas which would be demolished if a 3rd runway went ahead, drinking in the local pubs, attending the local public meetings, participating in community events and then staging events, such as face-painting classes for local children, and working on leaflets and events with the local community campaigns.

Caroline makes the point of trying to get the support of the 'beneficiaries' of the campaign.  I forgot to mention last night that one of the NGOs which is part of the coalition is the World Development Movement.  We also put speakers from the likes of Christian Aid centre stage when we did our fringe meetings at the party conferences.  It is not quite direct support of the 'beneficaries' but perhaps a step in that direction.

Tom asked about tensions within the coalition.  There have been some and, paticularly in the early days, when people were setting out positions and getting to know each other.  I think the key thing has been to keep it as a loose coalition; and very much a coalition rather than a new organisation with spokespeople which would have threatened other organisations.  And, recognising and respecting our differences.  Perhaps also the fact we have tried to keep our meetings focussed on practcal campaigning

The podcast from the event is now on the campaigning Charity Talks page.

Campaigning for always seems easier than campaigning against!  When campaigning against, assuming there is a real demand for whatever you are against, it seems the campaign is very negative unless it makes a positive alternative proposal to meet the demand.  Having renounced "nimbyism", do you think there is more the coalition can do to promote alternative solutions to meet the increasing demand for ?air? transport in and out of London?

Hi Bill

Your pic tells me who WAP is! I'll ask John to reply to your query in case he is no longer reading this. But the "big" answer is hi speed rail up the spine of England which experts believe would cut 30% off current take offs and landings because with faster rail, people prefer to go by train than fly to UK destinations

On your general point, my experience within a coalition is that it is easier to remain united on what you dont want than to gain agreement on what you do! (except in the most generalised way)

Ian

Bill, I think you are right that campaigning fir something must be the other side of the coin to campaigning against.  We have tried to develop alternatives to the expansion of Heahrow, principally, as Ian says, high-speed rail and will continue to push this over this year.  We have also been tapping into the work which WWF has done on the potential of video-conferencing to cut down in flying.   But I do agree with Ian that, if we stray too far beyond proposing alternatives to Heathrow expansion, the coalition is unlikely to hold together - for example, I'm sure that the coalition members have different views about the way forward for improving surface level transport around London and the Home Counties.