“This organisation isn’t afraid to hand highly eccentric people the microphone, to put street dancers on stage or to ask the audience if they endorse their chair.”

Alas the thing about putting street dancers on stage is reminiscent of protest marches in the 1980s where CNDers thought they could convince the people of the rightness of their cause by wearing makeup and silly costumes. These people might be loud and flamboyant but the average voter probably thinks they’re a twat. Get some normal Labour voters in there instead.

As a random question, who selects London Citizens – do people chose to attend (self-selection, which tends to lead to in-groups in the long term, but can be particularly useful in the short term) or are they invited for specific reasons? Also, who funds the organisation.

It sounds like an ideal movement if the correct answers to these questions are forthcoming, but it also has the potential to be one of those organisations that makes claim for democratic legitimacy when in fact it is inherently biased towards one or more viewpoints through the selection process. And we have lots of those institutions – but at least we elect them. An open forum is a brilliant idea, so long as it is an open forum (i.e. is my anarchic behaviour really as acceptable as the next persons?).

Still, I think the three lessons are true.

London Citizens is primarily a faith based group, not “London Citizens has got representatives from mosques, unions, churches, race-based organisations and schools” as you put it. http://www.londoncitizens.org.uk/pages/members.html

Not that this is important regarding their message, but it should be at least acknowledged a bit more than they do themselves.

Hi all,

Rowenna – I’m glad you enjoyed our assembly, it took quite some organising.

Watchman – there were 2000 community leaders in attending. These are people we know to be working hard via community organisations for the common good and who recognise that only by coming together can they be powerful enough to hold elected officials and big business to account. There are issues around self selection (as of post modernist necessity) – but as an organiser I will happily meet any organised group of people interested in working with other communities and the only criteria for membership is having a constitution and paying dues.

This brings me onto the second question – we are funded about 60% in grants from funds and trusts – City Parochial for example just gave us 700,000 pounds to fight the living wage campaign as their number one anti poverty strategy. 40% of our funds come from dues paid by our member institutions, 600 – 1800 depending on the size of the organisation, an investment in change and recognition that only by pooling our resources which means people, effort and money will we be able to work effectively for social justice.

Laurie – you’re right, about 60% of our members are currently faith based. Though with the number of schools and refugee groups joining the alliance at the moment this balance is rapidly shifting. That said, if you were there last night you will have seen by far the most diverse group in the capital engaged as a collective with politics.

Richard – adding theatre to action is important, if an action succeeds (we get what we want), but everyone leaves feeling bad then its a bad action – we depend on turnout for our power. That said we don’t do theatre for its own sake or get too carried away with it.

G

I would be interested to know what motivates asylum seekers to come to the UK in particular. Is it the English language? Is it because they aren’t treated as well in other European countries?

Sorry, wrong thread!

George,

Does that 60% include religious schools?

Laurie

Yes, though I don’t think we have many.

G

Rowenna, nice article. One nitpick, though – why wouldn’t you include London Citizens in “the left”? Their platform is essentially progressive, after all. Often when people write “the left” in this way they seem to mean leftist political parties, or worse simply Labour.

I should think most groups, party-political or otherwise, left, right or wacky, have something to learn from London Citizens.

What’s striking is that London Citizens have managed to persuade politicians and public officials of all stripes to sign up to several of their campaigns over the years with tangible results. Compare that to some of the more traditional left groups – yes, they have a lot to learn!

It’s also interesting that some lefties always want to raise the 60% or so of the LC member organisations who are religious. Wasn’t the Labour party inspired by methodist and other religious movements? Didn’t the Quakers play a prominent role in peace movements? Churches, mosques etc. are one of a few natural organising grounds amongst the deprived and dispossessed of London.

Tom, as I said, the faith issue isn’t important regarding their message. I quite like their message.

What I am concerned about is honesty. London Citizens is actually comprised of around 70% faith organisations according to some brief calculations made by looking at their website. Plenty of groups would feel excluded by this (you can come up with the obvious candidates themselves).

race-based organisations?????

So…these are a good thing now? Thought BNP-type organisations were beyond the pale.

Oh of course…silly me…

Gay groups maybe, free thought groups? I note an absence of them, which is what I was getting at. By all means include race based groups if you so desire.

Hi Laurie,

The membership list on our website is a little out of date but will soon be up to speed – our assemblies are busy times and thats when most newcomers get welcomed into the alliance so our composition tends to change a bit.

One of the founding members of Milton Keynes Citizens is the Q Alliance, the MK LGBT association.