ABSTRACT
The contrasting character of the Oxleas Wood and Twyford Down campaigns reflected the alternative approaches of those seeking to destroy Roads for Prosperity and the inherent tensions between them. On the one hand, Oxleas Wood had a linear quality to it, with a wide membership and the benefit of the experience already gained by groups such as Alarm UK. On the other hand, there was a stark discontinuity about Twyford Down, with the direct action protesters fighting on when they had been abandoned by all the more orthodox and established groups. These differences had two chief effects. First, there developed an ongoing and persistent debate amongst the environmental groups about the relative merits of direct action and more orthodox lobbying techniques. There were those who had doubts about the extent to which direct action could be controlled, and whether its dynamics might ultimately be a distraction from achieving the objective of destroying Roads for Prosperity. Second, amongst the coordinators of the direct action, such as Road Alert!, there was considerable suspicion about the motives and commitment of the
environmental establishment. There was deep-seated ill-feeling about how it was considered they had been deserted in their hour of need at Twyford Down by groups such as FoE, and this wound would not be easily healed. Throughout the intense dramas of the national campaign in the mid1990s, therefore, there was a need to ensure that the two wings of the environmental advocacy coalition could be held together, and that at least a significant degree of methodical coordination could be applied to the multi-arena campaign.
