|
Tuesday, 20 June 2006 03:49 |
Written by Graham Young
|
|
These are the notes used for on-air analysis on Wednesday 14th June. The sample is much larger now (2,058 as of a minute ago), and some of the percentages have changed slightly. A fuller report will be compiled after close of business this Wednesday 21st June.
- Newspoll (pdf 84 kb) says that 51% of Australians are opposed to nuclear power generation in Australia and 38% approve, while Morgan Gallup says that 49% approve while only 37% disapprove. Why the difference? All in the question. Morgan frames it as greenhouse abatement.
- Newspoll has their own glitch – they ask about support for uranium mining, but only give three choices – status quo, much more, or none at all. On this basis 22% are totally opposed, 44% go for three mines and 22% want no restrictions.
- What is John Howard doing? Is there a chance that he could win the debate?
- Our polling combined with the Morgan and Newspoll figures suggest not.
- 476 responses analysed up until 4:53 this evening. Many more coming in. Heavy Greens bias – 31%; and male – 60%.
- Will send the results to the Government’s inquiry.
- Our sample disapproves of the inquiry, but taking skew into account suggests that the community is in on balance in favour, but not as strongly as Morgan suggests.
- Many have made up their mind that they don’t want nuclear at all, others see it as a tactic by the government to take attention away from other issues, and some see it as biased because of personnel and the fact that it is not looking at all alternative fuel sources.
- Those who approve cite need to investigate properly, many have made up their minds and see it as a way forward for nuclear, others see it as a way of taking partisanship out of the issue. At the same time there is also cynicism about Howard’s motives.
- Interesting dissonances when it comes to whether we should export uranium, and whether nuclear power is a good idea for Australia, or for other countries.
- 49% disapprove of other countries using nuclear, but this rises to 59% when they are asked about Australia using it.
- 44% disapprove of mining more uranium, but this is less than the 49% who disapprove of overseas countries using it, and the 59% who disapprove of Australia. Means that some of those who disapprove don’t have a problem with increased production!
Quotes:
- “Despite the probability that the PM needed to get a story on the agenda to justify his trip to USA (I heartily approve of our PMs playing a role on the world stage), a properly constituted enquiry would be most appropriate because the implicit issues are most important and should be in the public arena. This inquiry is constituted in a similar vein to the Repubic referendum and the Cole Inquiry!†Male, Undecided, normally Liberal, 61+
- “If it is an enquiry to gather facts and review the science, well & good. If it is for another purpose, probably no harm done but the debate is not progressed.†Male, Liberal previously Labor, 41-50
- “Overall an examination of nuclear power is needed and timely, however I am not sure that the personelle and terms of reference will meet the requirements of such an inquiry.†Female, Labor moving to undecided, 18-30
- “Both sides need to air their arguments clearly and precisely - not shout scary slogans†Male, Liberal going Labor, 51-60.
- “Not safe, waste is a problem†Female, Undecided, 51-60
- “I believe there are other options available that do not cause the problem of waste storage that the nuclear industry does.†Female, Undecided from Liberal, 61+
- “It is a distraction from rising interest rates and the work place reforms†Male, Liberal going to Labor, 51-60
- “I do not think the enquiry is broad enough - it should include comparing the feasability of solar, wind and other energy sources in comparison with nuclear. I am also worried about the bias of the PM's team†Female, Greens going undecided, 51-60.
Word counts:
Waste 64
Danger 24
Dirty 9
Bias 21
Clean 27
Good 20
Greenhouse 19
Safe 58
|
|
|
Comments
come on people don't be fooled...............
i want what ever future world, to be cleaner not more toxic.
People associate nuclear with weapons because sometimes they are nuclear weapons.
The Howard Liberal Government has proven to be completely untrustworthy, this discussion is clarifying that. Now that Murdoch has begun to withdraw support for the lying scumbag, will Australians get permission to think about alternatives? Let's see.
I agree. We must ensure our local members are more afraid of their electorate than their party whips!! Perhaps if all seats become swinging seats, our elected 'representative s' may represent us, rather than the commercial lobbyists.
Spin seems to overwhelm all, except our cynicism.
Caitlin Street
November 5 2006
By stealth, our insidious Prime Minister has eroded our democracy to the point where he seemingly is able to divide, confuse, and possibly convince the majority his furrowed, concerned brow is one of integrity.
The government’s build up to nuclear power along with no promise from Labor they wouldn't do the same if pushed, even agreeing with the Libs on the export of more uranium, is leading us to a further weakening of our right to say no to this dangerous nuclear world.
The next step will be making nuclear weapons and we all know what that leads to!
If we're to believe we live in a true democracy, why is it we can't have a nuclear referendum!
Brian Johnson
Gymea
(1). Political bias is behind the majority of comments, not rational sientific evaluation.
(2). Constant reference to "dangerious" results have most people against what is an everyday operation in most European countries.
also 99% of neuclear power stations have been operating for years without any problems. These are ran by extremely dedicated engineers, and professionals, who know their work, not hotheads with an axe to grind.
What will generate the power required when the sun goes down, and when the wind is not blowing strongly enough to turn the generators at the speed required to produce power? (answer: only coal, gas or neuclear powered stations eh!!)
RSS feed for comments to this post