18.12.07 Why did the fuel protests run out of steam?

110 comments votes

The fuel protests organised by pressure group Transaction 2007 this weekend failed to gather the support they needed to make the protests a success. The group had hoped that supporters would gather at fuel refineries and depots across the country on Saturday morning (15.12.07) in order to force rising fuel costs back onto the political agenda. However, the turnout was poor � only one pensioner turned up to protest at Purfleet in Essex. The most successful site was Fawley in Southampton, which attracted 25 protesters.

But the poor turnout appeared to take Transaction 2007 by surprise. After releasing their initial statement on Sunday evening (09.12.07) the number of members on their web forum more than doubled. Throughout the week there was a steady stream of media coverage from the BBC, The Guardian and various local newspapers and radio stations. Polls on our website showed that 18,815 people supported the protests, and 310 people said they were going to join in at their local refinery. But these votes did not turn into material support, and the protests were called off at around 10.30am.

So why did the protests run out of steam? It seems there were a combination of factors, which on their own may not have had the same effect, but together, effectively stopped the protests in their tracks. First, the whole event lacked clear structure and support. Up until the day before the only way to find out that was going on was to join Transaction's forum, and search through to find information on your local refinery. Even then, the group gave very little indication of what would-be protesters would be doing when they got to their nearest site � there were disparities between the action some members wanted to take, and what constitutes a legal protest. It also wasn't clear what the protest hoped to achieve, which was exacerbated by the fact that Transaction refused to talk to the media until the day before.

Secondly, the timing of the protests may have contributed towards the mediocre response from the public. Transaction decided to hold it at the weekend to enable lorry drivers to attend, who might be working during the week. But, so close to Christmas, it's possible that any motorists who might ordinarily have joined them decided to go Christmas shopping instead. The frosty weather can't have helped either � nobody likes standing around in the cold.

Thirdly, the decision to target fuel refineries and depots may have been unwise. Although rising oil prices have contributed to the current pump prices, the tax on fuel is equally, if not more, to blame. We pay roughly two thirds in tax on fuel, which can be broken down to duty and VAT (for more information on this have a look at our fuel tax page). Duty is a fixed tax, but VAT is a percentage, so as petrol prices rise due to rising oil prices, so does the amount of VAT we pay. Many of the comments on our blog have suggested that it is the government who need lobbying, not the petrol industry.

Finally, although the evidence points to widespread discontent over current UK petrol prices, it seems that discontent is outweighed by apathy. Our blog comments repeatedly said that protesting and petitioning are unlikely to result in lower oil prices or a tax cut. And the number of active protesters on Saturday spoke volumes � many people might think petrol prices are too high, a percentage of those are angry enough to voice their opinion on the web, but ultimately the number of people who think that exercising their democratic right to protest is worthwhile, is not substantial. This may be representative of political apathy in the UK in general, or it could simply be the conditions weren't right for the protest at the minute. Either way, Transaction 2007 will have to think hard to find a way to stay within the law and still manage to engage the public and the media in the same way as the more memorable protests of 2000.

Why do you think the protests failed? Would you support protest action in the future? Let us know your thoughts.

Your Comments

Click here to add your comments

Showing: 1 to 75 of 112

1 2 ... »

It's hardly surprising these protests came to nothing.

Firstly I think the success of the 2000 fuel protests was partly due to the panic buying that ensued. This in its own right caused the fuel shortages, and it was to the insane degree where people were storing fuel in containers, being rationed and emergency services being given priority.

Would the media be allowed to report freely on such matters and stir up a fuss in the first place? I suspect they would be cautious, if only to save getting egg on their face as it were. This coupled with the fact that I only heard about the protest through PetrolBusters, and lets face it, PetrolBusters is not the UK's number one source of news. How were people supposed to find out?

The there was Transaction's reasons for the protest, the tax, not the cost of oil. So why protest outside a refinery? The government is responsible for the tax, not the refinery. Why not protest outside 10 Downing Street, where everyone would be together instead of being divided across numerous oil refineries up and down the country. (And does anyone remember Buncefield? Would you want to be stood hanging about such places?)

When I think back to 2000, the most memorable thing for me was the fuel shortage, not the slow protests on the motorways, or the blockades at the refineries. Who wants to be in a similar position just before and during Christmas? People need to get to shops, visit friends, families etc

Then we have to consider the measurements the government put in place in the aftermath of 2000, things like the potential of losing your driving licence. How many truck drivers would be thrilled at the idea of losing their livelihood's?

And finally, there is the fact that we are seven years on, we're seven years more dependable on our cars.

Posted by Simon Smillie, 18th December 2007 8:24pm