here's the letter from the new CE
Dear Friends,
Apologies for cross-postings.
Many thanks to all of you who have been giving views across the e-lists of the
issue of renaming London Cycling Campaign as London Cyclists. It seems that not
everyone has seen the rationale for such a rename, so please allow me to draw
the strands together via this email. (I apologise in advance for its length.)
Our starting point is our ambition. In recent years we have delivered a very
important increase in the number and profile of our public campaigns (on HGVs,
Parking and Theft) as well as continued our long tradition of applying expert
pressure on specific issues policy issues (from the Olympics to motorcycles in
bus lanes). But set against the scale of the challenge that remains this is
clearly not enough. We need bring even greater scale and impact to our
campaigning, That's why at the AGM last year I announced our intention to run a
campaign on the 2012 London Elections that surpasses anything we have done in
recent times in terms of public appeal and `bite'. I also announced that we will
run an online consultation with members as to what high impact, transformative
single issue this campaign should have as its theme.
But in pursuing our ambitions we have to ask ourselves if we are yet big enough,
and delivering sufficient breadth of activism, to make the above campaigns – or
indeed any other campaign – a success. Indeed, as cycling has increased in
popularity, and as other bodies are increasing their own outreach to cyclists,
our membership (and activism) must grow in line. At the moment it isn't, and
hasn't for some time. We need a change in approach.
That is why we are pursuing a rename (but not in isolation – see below). As a
member of a number of years standing myself I am aware of the organisation's
heritage, and certainly nothing is `broken'. But equally can we really argue
that we are reaching out to `everyday' cyclists as well as we might? This name
change hasn't come through focus groups or the use of management consultancies.
It has come from the Board of Trustees and Staff taking the view that we wish to
project a more personal and less institutional image to the public. It is a
positive proposition not because we are failing, but because we think this
rename will help us to do better. We realise that there are many pros and cons
with any new name, but feel that on balance this new name (taken with all the
other measures described in this message) will aid us do better.
I mentioned above that this renaming would not take place in isolation. This is
an absolutely crucial point. I have already touched on our high ambitions
regarding next year's London Elections – because what we actually do counts for
much more than what we call ourselves (especially as we are not exactly a
household name – yet). Please allow me to also mention some other changes that
are afoot.
First the website. Along with the name change we will launch a new website in
April. It will be much more `people-focussed' in style and content, and will
more strongly appeal to the breadth of folk who cycle in London. It will have
mapping to allow members to highlight what is good about cycling and better
campaign against what is bad. It will have forums to better facilitate debate
and decision-making. In short, it will be a more effective platform to engage
with each other, reach out to the general public and promote our campaigns.
Second we are revamping our approach to income generation to enable this
increased campaigning work and make us less dependent on external funding. We
narrowly avoided an extremely damaging drop in income this year and need to
buttress and increase our funding base. (In passing, we envisage that a name
change will be helpful in this area too.)
Finally we are overhauling our policy positions to give them greater coherency
and clarity, and in will better articulate them to decision-makers and the
public. Some of you are already engaging in this process.
So I hope it is transparent that this name change in itself is, in one sense,
not the big issue: it is instead a part (albeit a vital one) of a package of
measures expressly designed to increase our campaigning impact as their ultimate
objective. Even this won't be enough. We will need to adapt and progress even
further over the coming months and years to maintain and enhance our position as
London's premier cycling advocacy organisation.
In conclusion the Board and I very much understand and appreciate that many
members will not be supportive of this rename. On the other hand I am confident
that many members will be. I hope that in time we will be able to gain the
support of everyone. Either way I am sure we all agree that our organisation's
impact, as measured against the scale of the challenge we face is (despite past
successes) not as great as we all strive and yearn for. Everything I have
described in this email (and the measures still to come) - taken as a whole -
are a considered attempt to address this.
Thanks for your kind attention (and I hope to see as many of you as possible
participating in our No More Lethal Lorries Day of Action on Wednesday 30th).
Appparently it's about projecting a more personal and less institutional image. I suppose it's not for me to say, but I'm not overwhelmed by this, and wonder (from some experience) if the Board isn't being given something to think about while the executive goes on its merry way......
