‘Historic moment’ as Green Party win first seat on Manchester City council since 2008

Fun fact – the editor of this website was in Manchester Town Hall for the election count in May 2008 wen the Greens lost their Hulme seat by 50 votes (or may have heard gripping accounts and conflated them. A decade is a long time in politics.) Here below is a press release from the Green Party…

The Green Party has secured its first seat on Manchester City Council in 13 years, after unseating a long-standing Labour incumbent in the local elections on 6 May.

Councillor Rob Nunney was duly elected in the Wythenshawe ward of Woodhouse Park with 1,355 votes, taking the seat from Councillor Brian O’Neil, who has been a councillor in the ward for the last 17 years and received 1,180 votes.

Councillor Nunney and Green Party members have been campaigning in Woodhouse Park for the last three years and hoped to win a seat at the local elections in 2020, but missed out due to the Covid-19 pandemic which postponed all elections.

Winning the ward with 48% of the vote, Rob will now work to put in place his pledges to improve the Woodhouse Park area. 

Councillor Rob Nunney, newly elected member for Woodhouse Park ward in Manchester, said: “This is a historic moment locally for the Green Party as our first seat on the council since 2008, and I’m proud to be representing the residents of Woodhouse Park. I’m grateful to everyone who put their faith in me at the ballot box, and I promise to work hard for them to put pride back into Wythenshawe.

“It is clear that Woodhouse Park residents are tired of the status quo and are ready for a change. I hope not only to listen to their concerns and make sure that local voices are heard on the council, but to provide a fresh Green voice for all of Manchester.”

Rob Nunney will serve the residents of Woodhouse Park on a three-year term until 2024. He joins a small group of councillors who make up the opposition at Manchester City Council.

Manchester Green Party recently launched their local manifesto Our Vision for Manchesterwhich outlines the pledges Cllr Nunney will be pushing for in the council chamber, including ensuring Manchester meets its carbon-neutral target, creating affordable public transport, and protecting green spaces.

Chris Ogden and Stacey Wright, Co-Chairs of Manchester Green Party, said: “Rob has worked incredibly hard for the residents of Woodhouse Park for several years and we are delighted that his hard work has been rewarded. We have no doubt that Rob will be a fantastic servant for the ward.

“We are absolutely ecstatic to take our first seat once more on Manchester City Council, which is the first step to the Green Party’s growth in Manchester.”

Cllr Nunney will join other Green councillors across Greater Manchester’s 10 boroughs including one in Stockport, with further results still awaiting announcement.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Purdah breach? “Nothing to see here” says City Solicitor. But the Tweets have mysteriously vanished.

The City Solicitor of Manchester City Council has, as predicted, said that the City Council tweeting out some [blatant and misleading] eco-tosh was NOT a breach of rules about Councils responsibilities during an election process.

So far so predictable.

What’s more suggestive/amusing is that the offending tweets have…. disappeared from the Council’s twitter feed.

On Saturday MCFly wrote a Freedom of Information Act request about the tweets and any advice the Communications team took/was given about tweeting in the run up to local elections. MCFly also wrote to the City Solicitor, who has the legal responsibility to ensure the rules are abided by. You can read both here.

And we said it would all be brushed aside.

And it was.

The full reply was this –

Dear Dr Hudson,

Thank you for your email in respect of potential breaches of Purdah.

I note your concerns that the tweets in your view exaggerated the success achieved to date, whilst trying to ensure our communications are clear and properly reflect the activity undertaken by the authority I am sorry you considered these to be inaccurate.

You have asked a number of questions:                                                     

  1. The tweets were generated to inform what work has been undertaken in respect of climate change as this is a key priority for the authority. They were generated by the communications team as part of their earth day content marking a significant occasion in encouraging positive action, and checked by a communications business partner planned work program.
  2. I note your request for an apology this seems neither appropriate or proportionate to me.
    1. We currently have some guidance which I will be revisiting as I do after any election to try and ensure the guidance around Purdah rules are met. All communications staff have been reminded of the pre-election guidance.

Your Freedom of Information request will be dealt with by the relevant team in the usual way.

That’s how things WORK in Manchester.

But the deletion of the Tweets? Well, a cynic might call that a tactic admission of guilt…

I’ve written back the following –

Dear Ms Ledden
thank you for your speedy reply.
I would like to know the following. 
1. Do you  agree that it is “extremely important that the Council’s communications are crystal clear, accurate and cannot be perceived as an endorsement of any particular party.”

(I am sure you will say yes).

2. Is there any other body to which I can appeal this matter (the Electoral Commission? An ombudsman?) or are you in fact, again, as you have been on a previous complaint about the conduct of the leader of the Council, the judge, jury and (non)executioner?

3. If the Earth Day Tweets were not problematic, why have they been deleted? Who took that decision?

If you need the last question as a FOIA before you will answer it, please do let me know and I will oblige as speedily as you have deeply considered and responded to this complaint.
Many thanks

Dr Marc Hudson

Posted in Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

Flagrant breach of purdah by #Manchester City Council – FOIA and complaint submitted #EarthDay #Climate

tl;dr– Manchester City Council officials have been extremely careless in pumping out propaganda during what is supposed to be a “neutral” time ahead of Thursday 6th May local elections. I’ve submitted a FOIA (will get evasions and replies that don’t amount to answers) and a complaint (which will get brushed off). A history lesson closes things out.

There are elections on Thursday 6th May. In several of the 32 wards there is a serious chance that Labour (which currently holds 91 of the 96 council seats) will lose to opponents who are pushing hard on local environmental issues, mostly around air quality. In the city centre, Ancoats & Beswick, Deansgate and Piccadilly are all “in play” for the Liberal Democrats. The Council’s appalling handling of Great Ancoats St, the Central Retail Park, air quality generally and the hopelessness of its climate emergency “action” are – the Lib Dems hope – going to help them get seats. Further south, there are other issues. In the southernmost ward, Woodhouse Park, the Green Party hopes to unseat a long-standing Labour incumbent.

There are elections on Thursday 6th May. There are rules about how councillors who are up for re-election are supposed to behave. They are not supposed to use Council equipment/resources (including their email accounts). There are supposed to be no big announcements of new policy/spending by Executive Members. And there are rules about how Council officers are supposed to behave. Collectively, these are known as purdah (silence).

Well, on Thursday 22nd April a series of highly inaccurate Tweets were sent out from the official Twitter account of Manchester City Council.

That in itself is no surprise. The Council’s Twitter feed is a relentless firehose of disingenuous propaganda. You get used to it.

There are elections on Thursday 6th May. We are in purdah. Nobody seems to have told the Comms team.

So, I’ve written a Freedom of Information Act request, and I’ve also made a complaint to the City Solicitor. Both will go nowhere, but the standard you walk past is the standard you accept…


Dear Sir/Madam
Not that it affects this FOIA, or any FOIA, but for the sake of clarity, I am not a member now and have never been a member, of any political party.  Not Green, not Labour, not Liberal Democrat, not any Trot groupuscule. Nada, zilch.
I have just seen some tweets sent from the Manchester City Council Twitter account on April 22nd (aka “Earth Day”).  These were highly inaccurate and incomplete mischaracterisations of what the Council has done/not done in the last two years.  That’s what we have come to expect.
HOWEVER, we are in purdah now, ahead of the May 6th elections, and the Council has no business pumping out this sort of propaganda.

Specifically with regard to the tweets

1. Whose bright idea was it to run these tweets during purdah?
2. Who drafted/wrote them? Was it purely comms team staff? I am interested in whether other staff in other directorates, and especially people from City Policy and/or the Climate Change “Agency”  involved.
3. What legal advice, if any, was sought from the City Solicitor about the legality and propriety of running the tweets was sought?  Please provide copies of all the correspondence, if any such correspondence exists.

More generally

4. What training do Comms staff and anyone else responsible for constructing and okaying tweets receive about what is and is not allowable during purdah?  How long does it last? Is it a pure “try to stay awake at the back while I rattle through this deck of excruciating powerpoint slides” or is it actually interactive/real-life?  Please provide copies of that training/the materials
5.  How is this training recorded? How often is this training conducted/refreshed? When did the people who created and also okayed the April 22nd tweets
6. What communication, if any, was sent by the City Solicitor/her staff from January 1st 2021 to the Comms staff around the purdah period for the May 6 elections? Please provide all copies of this, if it exists.

Finally, who do I make a formal complaint to about this?  Those tweets should never have been sent as they stood. It WAS possible to mark Earth Day, but in far less contentious ways, that didn’t breach purdah.
Given that it can take 20 days to get a reply, I am going to write to the City Solicitor separately about this. But I still expect you to tell me.
Actually, while we are at it.
7.  For each of the past three years (calendar, municipal, financial, whatever floats your boat/is easiest), a) how many complaints have been made to the Council about its communications?  b) how many were upheld?c) what changes were put in place so that upheld complaints were acted upon.

Please consider this a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Dr Marc Hudson

The complaint

Dear Ms Ledden,

I hope this communication finds you well and enjoying the wonderful weather.
I am addressing this complaint to you in your role as City Solicitor. If you are not the person to whom I should be addressing this complaint, pleasea) forward it to the right personb) cc me in (as in, you have my permission to share my contact details, in case there is any GDPR issue)

My complaint involves what I consider to be a serious breach of the rules surrounding Council officers making public statements during the so-called “purdah” period before local elections.

On Thursday 22nd April a thread of 9 tweets was sent out from the City Council’s official Twitter account.  April 22nd is of course “Earth Day.”
These tweets were NOT an accurate reflection of what has actually been achieved by the Council in the almost two years since the declaration of a Climate Emergency, though they purported to be so.

Given that in several of the 32 wards of the city, environmental/air quality/traffic and yes, climate issues, there are closely-fought contests between the incumbent Labour Party and challengers (Liberal Democrat and Green Party), it is, I am sure you will agree, extremely important that the Council’s communications are crystal clear, accurate and cannot be perceived as an endorsement of any particular party.

It was possible to celebrate/commemorate Earth Day while keeping within both the letter and spirit of purdah, but that is not, in fact, what has happened.

I am happy to detail the inaccuracies and absences in the tweets, and to provide examples of what would have been acceptable tweets if you request.

I am seeking
a) an explanation of how these Tweets came to be generated, and clarity on how they were considered to be purdah-compliant, by who, wen
b) an apology to the people of Manchester for breaching purdah. This would include but not be limited toa prominently displayed statement on the Council’s websitea Pinned Tweet on the Council’s Twitter feed, for a period of a week, with a link to the apologya press release sent out to all the journalists and organisations who are on the Council’s press release that explains the breach of purdah and the apologyThe reading out, by either a senior officer or Executive member, of the statement, during the proceedings of a full council meeting
c) a commitment to and detailed explanation of new systems/training “etc” that would make future breaches of purdah less likely.
d) a donation by the Council to an appropriate and genuinely independent grassroots group (Youth Strike Manchester might be a good start) and to an international charity that does climate justice work (I have a few ideas about that)

I include below a copy of the Freedom of Information Act request that I have sent today (Saturday 24th April) to informationcompliance@manchester.ac.uk for your convenience.

The History Lesson

Back in 2014, there was a new Executive Member for the Environment. I organised an open letter from a whole bunch of different individuals and organisations to the Council, the so-called “Nine Actions”.

Here’s the video I made, with the help of a lot of good people.

One of the nine was that the Executive Member would start a blog that detailed what she was doing around climate change (we didn’t call it a climate emergency back then, thought it bloody well was).

She said she would.

There was a delay

She privately assured me that she would.

And then she said she wouldn’t. It wasn’t “the hill she was going to die on.”

We were told that the officers had told her it couldn’t happen because the environment was “political” and there might be complaints by other parties (there wouldn’t have been).

We submitted a FOIA to get the correspondence between her and officers.

We were ignored. We finally went to the Information Commissioner.

Then, and only then, we got the correspondence.

It was, the most disingenuous horseshit you can imagine. Read it here and weep.

But here we are, six plus years later.

Somehow, a blog, like the Leader of the Council already has, would have been too political in ordinary times.

But sending out hugely misleading “green” pap during purdah? That’s just fine.

And we are supposed to take these Squealers and Napoleons seriously?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Letter: #Climate talk is cheap. Actions matter

Letter in today’s Manchester Evening news

TALK is cheap.I read your article “‘Decisive decade’ in climate change fight,” M.E.N, 23 April) with a sense of deja vu. Almost thirty years ago Manchester City Council hosted a “Global Forum” in the aftermath of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.  Wonderful speeches were made, and the Council launched a “Local Agenda 21” process of citizen engagement. That was shut down by the Council when the citizens decided that a tax on air travel was a good idea.

Has anything changed?  Well, there have been more declarations, including the unanimous climate emergency one in July 2019.  But talk is really really cheap.

The same edition has an article “‘Mobility Hub’ is multi-storey car park, say critics,” which quotes a campaigner who makes the basic point that “Whilst this mobility hub has 150 spaces for bicycles, the city is still lacking the infrastructure to make walking and cycling safe.”

Promises of “trust me” are not enough. We’ve had 30 years of that. What we need are better processes, closer scrutiny and monthly focused attention.

All 149 candidates for local election are being asked if they support three simple low cost proposals put forward by the group Climate Emergency Manchester.

So far only one of the 34 Labour candidates has deigned to reply.  That person, ironically, is the city’s lead member on walking and cycling.  Why ironically? Despite the £9m Great Ancoats St debacle, she said she did not support the proposals.

Dr Marc Hudson

editor of Manchester Climate Monthly

Posted in Letters to the MEN | Leave a comment

Great Ancoats St, Executive powers, consultation: A FOIA

This below was sent to informationcompliance@manchester.gov.uk this morning. Watch this space.

Dear Sir/Madam, 
I am interested (some might say “obsessed”) around council decision-making processes on the European boulevard also known as Great Ancoats St. (GAS).

As you may recall, in July 2019 the members of the Neighbourhoods and Environment Scrutiny Committee (now minimally rebranded as something else, but that’s another story), discussed the consultation process around the Great Ancoats St resurfacing, sorry “transformation.”

Letter about the need for more scrutiny
This letter published in the MEN (27/8/20) was not sent in the FOIA. I am not a monster.

The members of the committee, all elected, put a recommendation that the proposed work, due to start imminently, be paused while a consultation worthy of the name was held.  That was their recommendation to “the Executive.”

Now, we in the public gallery got a real political education shortly after when one of us (I won’t be coy, it was I) wrote to a Council officer (sadly now retired) who was as helpful as I hope you will be. He told us that “Executive” has multiply meanings, and that in this case could simply mean Executive Member.

And the Executive *Member* decided to simply ignore the recommendation. In September 2019 the Committee unanimously expressed its dismay. The work went ahead and was a complete clus… well, there are rules about swearing in FOIAs, so let’s move on.

So, my questions are these.

1.  Does a scrutiny committee have the power to specify ITS understanding of “Executive” when making recommendations?  If it made a recommendation that “we recommend that the Executive – by which we mean the 8 elected members and the SMT – look at this again” would this have had any legal standing/constrained the, ah let’s call them, prerogatives, of the individual politician who chose to say “L’Executive? C’est moi” on this occasion?

2. If a scrutiny committee does NOT have this power, is it not the case that any given Executive Member can simply disregard recommendations that any scrutiny committee makes, rendering the whole um, “process” a… what might the phrase be… clus… I mean pantomime?  Oh yes it is? Oh no it isn’t? Please inform.

3.  Specifically around the Great Ancoats St debac… decision, I would like to copies of any and all correspondence, for the period 1st July 2019 to 1st November 2019 between the Executive Member for “Environment,” Transport and Planning and the City Solicitor and her office around the legal position of the first consultation, the need/desirability for a do-over.

4. Given that this decision was of great interest to the Council’s member for walking and cycling, I would like copies of any and all correspondence, for the period 1st July 2019 to 1st November 2019 between the member for walking and cycling (I heard a rumour that it is Mandie Shilton-Godwin) and the Executive Member for ETP and between her and the City Solicitor/her officers.I am particularly interested in whether there was any correspondence, initiated by any of above parties, about the GAS, before or after the July NESC meeting.  Given that this decision, to not have cycle lanes, should have been of very great interest to the member for walking and cycling, I expect there is a vast amount of correspondence between the parties.  Fingers crossed I am not disappointed, and that my overweening process obsession can find momentary satiation.


Marc Hud….

Sorry, almost forgot!  Please consider this a Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Dr Marc Hudson

[address supplied]

Posted in Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

Letter: the Climate “Agency” farce continues

The Manchester Evening News kindly published my latest letter.

FOR a year and a half Manchester City Council has been trying to appoint a director to its so-called Climate Change “Agency.” It advertised in late 2019, extensively and nationally.  It didn’t appoint anyone (or announce that it hadn’t). 

It tried again in late 2020, extending the deadline at least once. The interview panel included the deputy CEO of the Council, and the Executive Member for the Environment. The job was offered to someone, but the successful applicant withdrew.  

The Council is now trying a third time, but offering no additional money, with a disingenuous advert and a very tight deadline.Presumably this is because they don’t want their ongoing failure to appoint anyone to be an election issue, and because they want someone – anyone, probably, at this stage, “nearest warm body will do” – in post to spout nonsense during July’s two year anniversary of the climate emergency declaration, and to spout even more nonsense at November’s international climate conference in Glasgow.

If Manchester is – as various Councillors keep insisting – the UK’s leading city on climate, how come nobody competent and serious wants the job? Could it be that competent and serious people can see that the Council has spent ten years spinning and taking claiming credit for carbon cuts caused by austerity. Could it be they don’t want to tank their credibility and self-respect by joining a sinking ship?

Dr Marc Hudson

editor of Manchester Climate Monthly

Posted in Letters to the MEN, Manchester City Council | 1 Comment

Third time lucky? Unlikely! The farce of the Manchester Climate Change “Agency” staggers on…

The Manchester Climate Change “Agency” has a useless website (check out its events page) with the address manchesterclimate.com

It should, of course, be manchesterclimate.con

It was set up, as a Community Interest Company in 2015, after the so-called “Manchester Climate Change Stakeholder Steering Group” had failed to steer anything anywhere, had failed to hold elections and then denied these had ever been promised, had unilaterally abolished its annual climate “conference”, had refused to hold meetings in public (not even elected councillors could attend!), held meetings with two present and eight apologies, had been unable to even publish minutes of its meeting, or fill the “energy portfolio” vacancy… we could go on.

The beauty of a Community Interest Company is two-fold. One, it is immune from Freedom of Information Act requests. Two, it can be as shady as it likes about governance. And the “Agency” likes it very very shady when it comes to governance, success metrics etc.

It is (almost) entirely funded by Manchester City Council (it has received bits and pieces of other funding, here and there). It is an arms length stab vest, where the Council can deflect questions, which then cannot be answered (no FOIAs).

So far, so predictable. That’s how this shit works, as you figure out within a few months of observing the Manchester mafia at work (promotion purely by loyalty and sycophancy – talent can fuck right off because talented people tend to be too independently-minded, and also want to see results rather than boosterism).

Academics invent words that mean industrial disease, but also post-politics, depoliticisation. Ranciere this, Badiou that. So it goes.

But there’s trouble in Paradise. The boosterism is bumping up against inconvenient reality. In 2018, almost ten years after the late and unlamented Steering Group was supposed to create a “low carbon culture” and reduce the city’s emissions by 41%, a new wheeze was invented. The new target would be “zero carbon by 2038, and look, here’s a shiny carbon budget to go along with it. We asked some tame scientists to lend us their cred and the credulous needy saps did!

Last July the “Agency” tried to bury the bad news as deep as they could. In the first two years of the budget, the city had burnt through 26% of its budget for the entire twenty-first century.


The Council advertised for a Director (at last) for its Climate Change “Agency.”

Failed to appoint, failed to tell anyone, until a Really Fucking Irritating (RFI) activist asked.

Later in 2020 they readvertised. Extended the deadline at least once.

In early 2021, RFI (i.e. me) asked again. ” Someone’s been offered the gig. Announcement soon” came the reply.

Ooops. The person turned it down (details unclear). We only know this because RFI asked.

And here we go again: like a dog returning to its vomit, eating it, vomiting it and eating it AGAIN…

They’ve readvertised it AGAIN.

No more money than before.

Previous applicants need not apply.

Despite having failed twice before to recruit, the job advert is open for… 4 weeks.

Why the haste in readvertising without re-jigging? Why the short deadline?

RFI (again, me) would hazard three guesses.

a) they don’t want the lack of a Director (after almost 18 months) on the table as an election issue in key wards – Ancoats and Beswick Deansgate, Piccadilly etc. The margins might be very very tight there.

b) they would really like someone in place, or at least appointed, by the time the two year anniversary of the Climate Emergency Declaration rolls around, since there is bullshit to be spun, and ugly truths to be deflected, minimised (would anyone bet against a third of the carbon budget for the 21st century having been blown in three years?)

c) worst case scenarios, they’d like someone’s feet under the desk well in advance of the COP26 fiasco, which is clearly on their PR radar (their self-regard, self-delusion never fails to impress. Sorry, depress.

But srsly, what idiot would take this job, when there is clearly

a) no appetite for change

b) the Council’s actual credibility (distinct from various Councillors’ imaginings) is in the toilet with that sector of the population that gives an actual active damn about the issues

c) there are serious ructions at the top (Strategic Lead for Growth and Development gone in less than a year, an Exec Member not continuing in her role, a denial-nobody-believes about the CEO?).

Will they appoint the nearest warm body and hope for the best? Will they extend the deadline, and extend it again, as they did in the past? Will they give up on the idea of a Director altogether?

Who knows. But all the indications are they won’t find the talent they are looking for/need, and that they will prevaricate, spin and evade while there is any breathe in their feeble bodies.

Manchester is saddled with a climate bureaucracy that has had ten long long years to show what it can actually achieve.

It has done that.

That bureaucracy has – barring some glossing booklets of dubious-to-nil aesthetic merit, and keeping itself in mutually-generated applause – achieved nothing.

While the species has burnt carbon, the Council has burnt credibility and goodwill.

We’ve been playing, at a global level, a game of chicken between our predilection for extractivism/using the atmosphere as a sewer and real-world consequences.

In Manchester, the chickens (yes, it’s a mixed image, so sue me) the chickens, well, they’re coming home to roost.

Posted in Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

Letter in the MEN: #Climate as a social justice issue. What is to be done?

THE article about Greta Thunberg (“I’ve always been a shy, invisible girl at the back that no one listens to,” M.EN. 16 April) was very welcome.  The teenager, who has been advised by Professor Kevin Anderson of University of Manchester, said “when we think of the climate crisis [we think of] polar bears and so on. But to actually see that it has human implications is very important.”This is key.  Heatwaves and flooding are triggers for increased domestic violence and mental health problems. Old people are especially vulnerable to increased heat. 

Meanwhile, jobs are going to be destroyed as some industries shrink (as per your report – the same day – about the Airport). Young people who are paying attention know their adulthoods will be blighted by escalating and unstopping environmental crises How will we cope? By preparing, while tackling barriers of class, race and gender. By working and thinking together.

Manchester City Council’s six scrutiny committees could – if pressed and encouraged – perform a vital role in convening groups to study and think about what the Council and its partners could do to help residents of the city take action. All that is required is real courage, vision and leadership, and a willingness to stop treating climate change as one more issue to be spun and blustered through.

Dr Marc Hudson

editor of Manchester Climate Monthly

Posted in Letters to the MEN | 1 Comment

Letter: Asphalt bumble by Council, as usual

POTHOLES are a serious problem for drivers and even more so for cyclists. The letter by Observer (Viewpoints, 15 April) points to a promise-delivery gap on this. In late March the annual survey by the Asphalt Industry Alliance revealed that only 23% of local authorities who replied had a quantified target to reduce the carbon footprint resulting from the procurement of road surfacing materials.

I wrote to Manchester City Council if it was among that 23 per cent. It isn’t. After nudging them for a reply I was told “At present, MCC Highways have not set a quantified target to reduce our carbon footprint from procuring road materials.” This was followed by some soothing comments about scenarios and learning, before the “This is only the beginning, and we are on a journey to make further improvements and contribute towards MCC’s corporate ambition of being carbon neutral by 2038.”

“Only the beginning”?  No, it’s 21 months after the declaration of a climate emergency where everything was going to change. If only the Executive Member for Environment would  communicate better with the Executive Member for Transport.  Oh, wait, they are the same person.

Marc Hudson

editor of Manchester Climate Monthly

Posted in Letters to the MEN, Manchester City Council | Leave a comment

Event: ‘Decarbonising Consumption in #Manchester’s Covid-19 Recovery’ Tues 20th April

Cities like Manchester, with an import-based economy, outsource a large amount of their carbon emissions to areas where goods and services are produced. It is estimated that the consumption-based footprint for Manchester is at least 1.5 times larger than its production-based footprint. As we plot our way out of the pandemic there is an opportunity to put carbon reduction at the centre of our recovery efforts.

Dr Jana Wendler and Dr Joe Blakey at the University of Manchester have published their research findings ‘Decarbonising Consumption in Manchester’s Covid-19 Recovery’ which highlights key mechanisms for making consumption-based carbon reduction a key part of Manchester’s recovery strategy.

Hope for the Future have been working alongside the research team to organise an event to highlight the opportunities presented by the research. The research team, students, residents and councillors to have an action orientated discussion around a sustainable economic recovery plan post-covid. Local MP, Jeff Smith will also be attending and Manchester’s other MPs have also been invited.

We want to see as many people as possible at this event, to show that there is a mandate for climate action when plotting our path from COVID-19. This event is free to attend and open to all. 

Please register your place at the link below and for more information on speakers:

We’d be very grateful if you could share the event with any individuals or network that may be interested in attending. 

Posted in University of Manchester, Upcoming Events | Leave a comment