1 Explaining the Fuel Protests

We describe and analyse the fuel protests in the UK in September and November 2000. We draw on theories of social movements to explain the success of the first of these protests and the failure of the second. We show how the loose, network forms of organisation contributed to the success in September, and the attempts to impose more formal organisations helped to cause the failure in November. We also show how the success of the protests depended on the articulation of the aims of the protestors with dominant social forces in British politics, in particular the oil companies, the police, and the mass media. Just how do you organise a picket, apparently with small numbers and overwhelmingly peaceful, and get the cooperation of the industry you target (like the powerful oil industry) and the cooperation of the police, along with apparent widespread public support? Having done this, you virtually bring the nation to a standstill in a matter of days; you do not get arrested or beaten by riot police; and get to be number one news for days. You also get to dictate what goes in and out of your target industry and, while not actually physically stopping any trucks, you declare that your peaceful picket will prevent all but emergency service deliveries. E-mail from an animal rights activist commenting on the fuel protests posted on closed e-mail list, 14 September 2000 In September 2000, a network of British farmers and road hauliers launched a dramatic campaign of direct action to protest at fuel duty. Their campaign followed a similar one by farmers, hauliers and fishermen in France, which had produced some concessions from the French government. The British protesters blockaded petrol refineries, starting with Stanlow in Cheshire, and within days created a fuel crisis that paralysed distribution and brought the country to a virtual halt. The media, politicians and the general public were astonished by the effectiveness of the fuel protest. Why did this protest have so much impact? In addressing this question we will draw upon current approaches in the study of social movements. These suggest some common patterns in how protests usually develop. Despite the surprise effect of the fuel protests they followed a typical pattern, and the theories that explain how protests usually develop work well for this case. Social movement theory has provided a useful lexicon of concepts including networks, resources, repertoires, frames, activist trajectories and political opportunities for understanding the emergence of movements and the dynamics of protest events. Our intention is not so much to expand the body of theory, but to use it as a method of analysis. However, social movement theory has tended to arise out of analyses of either working class or ‘new’ social movements, typically leftprogressive in orientation, with which social movement theorists themselves have tended to 1 We are very grateful for the incisive and helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers for the BJPIR. Some of the research for this was funded as part of a grant from the ESRC’s Democracy and Participation Programme.