Going global against 4WD

Last week was a milestone in the battle against gas guzzlers - the first ever international conference of anti-4×4 campaigners.

Since the Alliance Against Urban 4×4s started two years ago, groups have been springing up in cities across Europe as the deadly 4WD trend has spread. We have been sharing ideas and artwork by email for a while and on Wednesday arranged a meeting, labelled it grandly ‘a summit’, and caught the early train to Brussels.

There are differences between our campaigns, mainly due to our different cultures (while parking tickets are an issue in most countries, only in the UK do teachers in caps and gowns strike a chord). However, we are all facing the same challenge of the motor industry selling more and more 4×4s to freedom-craving mums and dads as urban family cars.

First to present their ‘story so far’ were the hosts of the summit, Joeri and Jeroen from 4×4Info in Belgium. They are lucky to have the European Commission on their doorstep so can target the people responsible for setting (and we hope enforcing) Europe-wide targets for vehicle emissions.

Joeri recently infiltrated a popular Belgian news show to embarrass Commission President José Manuel Barroso on live television, showing a photo of his gas-guzzling 4×4: the massive VW Touareg (an anagram of ‘outrage’ as a helpful supporter pointed out the other day). The group has also invaded the local motor show and, for car-free day last month, created ‘the day of the living crash test dummies’ to highlight the dangers of 4×4s. They have kindly lent us their excellent costumes and we are now wondering if we should chuck ourselves in front of Chris Martin’s X5 or Jamie Oliver’s Range Rover.

Next up was the Swiss Stopoffroader group, represented by a pair of energetic Young Greens called Matthias and Marc. The main tools of their campaign have been stickers for the rear windscreens of 4×4s with surprisingly humorous slogans including, ‘Ich bin auch ein Panzer,’ ‘Gib Kindern keine Chance’ and ‘Ich saufe fur drei’ (‘I drink for three’ – the others are pretty obvious, even in German).

Thanks to a court decision clearing them of breaking the law, they are getting away with this tactic, which is something for us to think about as we have always steered clear of producing stickers for the UK.

Matthias and Marc also have the advantage of Switzerland’s system of direct democracy. Collecting 100,000 signatures will earn them a national vote on a Volksdirectiv, a ‘people’s law’ keeping cars that exceed emissions and weight limits out of cities. I expect they will succeed - their zeal has already gathered nearly 60,000 signatures in just a few months.

The Finnish 4×4 campaigner Lauri Myllyvirta was unable come to Belgium after being hit by the door of a 4×4 while cycling (the irony was not lost on us all). Instead he sent his apologies and a powerpoint presentation showing how his JunttiAuto campaign has made an impact in Finland even receiving legal threats from Toyota for their adbusting efforts. The campaign has also added a new word to the Finnish language. ‘Juntti’ means a backwards or ignorant man and combined with ‘auto’ sums up the 4×4 craze perfectly.

Sarah Connolly from the American organisation, Rainforest Action Network (RAN) was on an intercontinental mission to tell us about the progress of their Jumpstart Ford campaign, which has been targeting Ford’s SUVs for several years as part of a call for zero-emission cars. They have done a huge amount to expose the madness of a situation where the top-selling Ford SUV has lower fuel efficiency than the original Model T.

Helped by rising fuel prices, the campaign has been so successful it is temporarily on hold, with US car-makers (who rely almost wholly on SUVs for their profits) in turmoil after sales fell through the floor this year. RAN’s ‘Adopt a Dealer’ programme - taken up by groups ranging from students to nuns - has morphed into ‘Console a Dealer’ as car salesmen across America wait for the conclusion of merger talks. As well as passing on their wisdom to groups in Europe, RAN is now trying to work out a nice way to say, “We told you so. Now make us the clean cars we deserve!”

Charmingly calling 4×4s ‘les quatre-quatres’, French representative Stéphen Kerckhove, from green think-tank Agir pour l’Environment, told us how they set up anti4×4.net last year. He said that French citizens tend to expect government to deal with social problems like 4×4s and showed us their sticker and postcard campaign demanding eco-taxes for gas-guzzlers and calling on the mayors of large cities to bring in exclusion zones.

French manufacturers have been notable in steering clear of 4×4s so far, but news that Renault will be launching an SUV in 2008 has made them the target of action this week by Stéphen’s group. This event will also mark the launch of our new website: 4×4network.org, which includes the joint mission statement agreed on Wednesday and links to our campaign websites.

After a lot of discussion, we resolved at the end of the meeting to link up and work for common aims in future. After all, with a globalised motor industry insisting that controls on car emissions should only be introduced on an international scale, it’s about time we globalised our efforts too.

Sian Berry lives in Kentish Town and was previously a principal speaker and campaigns co-ordinator for the Green Party. She was also their London mayoral candidate in 2008. She works as a writer and is a founder of the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Getty
Show Hide image

Celebrate Labour's electoral success - but don't forget the working class

The shutting down of genuine, constructive debate on the left is the great danger we face. 

In the moment when the exit poll was released on 8 June, after seven weeks of slogging up and down the streets of Britain, dealing with scepticism, doubt and sometimes downright hostility, we felt a combination of relief, optimism, even euphoria.
 
This election broke wide open some assumptions that have constrained us on the left for too long; that the young won’t vote, that any one individual or political party is “unelectable”, that perceptions of both individuals, parties and even policies cannot change suddenly and dramatically. It reminded us that courage, ambition and hope are what’s needed and what have been missing from our politics, too often, for too long.
 
We have learnt to tread carefully and wear our values lightly. But in recent weeks we have remembered that our convictions can, as Jonathan Freedland once wrote, “bring hope flickering back to life” and meet the growing appetite for a politics that doesn’t simply rail against what is but aspires to build a world that is better.
 
In this election at least, it seems the final, anticipated fracture of Labour from its working-class base after Brexit did not materialise. Shortly before the snap election was called I wrote that while Brexit appeared to be Labour’s greatest weakness, it could just be our biggest strength, because: “consider what remain voting Tottenham and leave voting Wigan have in common: Labour… We will succeed if we seek the common ground shared by the decent, sensible majority, and more importantly, so will Britain.”
 
But consider this too. The Tories ran a terrible campaign. It was, without any doubt,the most inept, counter-productive campaign I’ve ever seen in British politics. The day their manifesto hit the headlines, even in our toughest neighbourhoods, we could feel change in the air. Arrogance is never rewarded by the British people and Theresa May has paid a price for it. Yet, despite a Tory manifesto that was a full, square attack on older people, the majority of over 65s still came out for the Tories.
 
And despite the growing relevance of freedom, internationalism and tolerance in an era characterised by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the Liberal Democrats managed to become bystanders in the political debate. They stood on a platform that aimed to capture the support of those remain voters for whom Brexit is the major question, but neglected the rest. And they quite spectacularly failed to foresee that those who were intensely angered by May’s conversion to a little England, hard Brexit stance would vote tactically against the Tories. Over those seven weeks, they all but disappeared as a political force.
 
As Bob Dylan once said, "the times, they are a-changin" – and they will change again. The recent past has moved at extraordinary speed. The Brexit Referendum, the rise and retreat of nationalism, the election of Trump and his crushing unpopularity just a few months later, the reversal in fortunes for May and Jeremy Corbyn, the astonishing phenomenon of Emmanuel Macron and pro-European centrism, and the dramatic rise and sudden collapse of Ukip. Politics, as John Harris wrote last week, is now more fluid than ever. So now is the time, for hope yes, and for conviction too, but not for jubilation. We need some serious thinking. 
 
We should be cautious to rush to judgment. It is only two weeks since the exit poll sent shockwaves across the country. There is no comprehensive explanation for the multitude of motivations that delivered this election result and will not be for some time. But there are some early indictors that must make us think. 
 
After seven years of austerity, as John Curtice observes, the Tories made some of their biggest gains in some of the poorest areas of Britain. It is something I felt in all of the eight constituencies I campaigned in during the election. While the Labour vote rose significantly in towns like Wigan, so too did the Tory vote, despite little or no campaigning activity on the ground. As Rob Ford puts it, “Labour, founded as the party of the working class, and focused on redistributing resources from the rich to the poor, gained the most ground in 2017 in seats with the largest concentrations of middle-class professionals and the rich. The Conservatives, long the party of capital and the middle class, made their largest gains in the poorest seats of England and Wales… Britain’s class politics has been turned completely upside down in 2017”.
 
To acknowledge the growing, longstanding scepticism of many working-class men, and women, towards Labour in towns across England is not to take away from the hard work and drive of the activists, advisers and politicians that helped to fuel such a dramatic turnaround for Labour during the short campaign. To have won considerable gains in wealthier suburbs is no small achievement. 
 
But if the future of Labour lies in a coalition between middle-class young professionals and the working class, what is the glue that binds? While there is shared agreement about investment in public services, how are those interests to be squared on areas like national security and immigration? I believe it can and must be done, but – as I said to conference when I was first elected seven years ago - it will demand that we begin with the difficult questions, not the easy ones.  
 
Just a few days before the election, statistics were released that pointed to a collapse in trade union membership. What does the decline of an organised Labour movement mean for who we are and what we can achieve? These are not new questions. They were posed by Eric Hobsbawm in his brilliant lecture, "The Forward March of Labour Halted" in 1979 - a challenge laid down in the year I was born. Now, 37 years on, we are no further down the road to answering it. 
 
The most dramatic finding from this election was the support Corbyn’s Labour party appears to have won from middle-class, young professionals. They said he couldn’t do it and quite stunningly it seems they were wrong. But a ComRes poll last week caught my eye – by a large margin those 30-44 year olds would favour a new centre-ground political party over the current political settlement. In an election where we returned strongly to two-party politics, it appears they moved to us. But what would a dynamic and renewed Liberal Democrat Party, or a British En Marche do to our support base?
 
After a hellish two years we have learnt in Labour, I hope, that unity matters. The public and private anger directed towards each other, whether the Labour leadership, the parliamentary Labour party or elected councillors, is desperately damaging and its (relative) absence in the campaign was important.
 
But unity is not the same as uniformity, and while two weeks ago I felt there was a real danger of historic fracture, now I believe the shutting down of genuine, constructive debate on the left is the great danger we face, and must avoid. No one person, faction or party has ever had the monopoly on wisdom. The breadth of the Labour movement was and remains our greatest strength. 
 
Consider the Labour manifesto, which drew on every tradition across our movement and demanded that every part of the party had to compromise. Those broad traditions still matter and are still relevant because they hear and are attuned to different parts of Britain. Our country is changing and politics must catch up. The future will be negotiated, not imposed.
 
As we witness the age of "strong man" politics across the world, here in Britain our political culture has become angrier and more illiberal than at any time I can remember. The Brexit debate was characterised by rage, misinformation and a macho political culture that demanded that we abandon nuance and complexity, an understanding of one another and tolerance of different points of view.
 
But this is not where the future of Britain lies: it lies in pluralism. It lies in a politics that is nimbler, more fleet of foot, less constrained; a return to the great tradition of debate, evidence, experience and argument as a way to build broad coalitions and convince people; not shouting one another down, nor believing any of us are always right; an arena in which we listen as much as we speak; a political culture in which we are capable of forming alliances within and across party lines to achieve real, lasting change.
 
And ultimately that’s the prize: not just seek power but, to paraphrase a philosopher whose work inspired millions, in the end “the point is to change it”. We could sit tight in Labour and hope to see the current government fall apart. We might even inherit power, we could temporarily reverse some of the worst of the last seven years, but what then? If we have learnt anything from 13 years of Labour government it should be this: that to build lasting change is the hardest political task of all, and it requires now that we do not turn to the political culture, the tools or even the ideas of the past, but that we think hard about where the future of our movement and our country really lies. Now is not the time to sit back and celebrate. Now is the time to think.

 

Lisa Nandy is the MP for Wigan. She was formerly Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

0800 7318496