Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of a variety of key issues, and what you make of the Lib Dems’ and Government’s performance to date. Almost 600 party members have responded, and we’ll be publishing the full results of our survey in the next few days.
First up we asked about Chris Huhne’s announcement that he is now backing nuclear power in order to ensure the stability of Britain’s energy supplies.
Do you believe Chris Huhne is right to say that nuclear power, alongside oil and gas and renewable sources, should be part of the UK’s energy mix?
-
41% – Yes, nuclear should be part of the mix as long as there is no public subsidy
27% – Yes, nuclear should be part of the mix even if some public subsidy proves necessary
25% – No, nuclear power should play no part in the UK’s energy mix
4% – Other
4% – Don’t know / No opinion
In total then 68% of our sample of Lib Dem members back an acceptance of nuclear energy as part of the UK’s energy mix, with only one-quarter rejecting nuclear power (as per party policy at the last election). Comments from those in the pro-nuclear camp suggested some relief at the party’s U-turn:
I have been slightly at odds with official policy on this matter for some time. This is a recent volte face for me, but I think the need for eliminating as much CO2 emissions as possible outweighs the negative effects of nuclear energy at this time.
I am against the use of nuclear power, but I recognise that in order to reduce carbon emmissions in the short to medium term it may be necessary to open a small number of new nuclear power stations in order to cut oil and gas use and a increase renewable energy.
I have always argued for a balanced and comprehensive energy policy, which could include nuclear energy. I believe that when conference voted against nuclear some year ago that this was a “single issue” decision based on false ideological considerations. We need to get real on this.
You can access all the results of past Lib Dem Voice surveys of party members here.
16 Comments
You could of course present these results in a very differeny way, e.g. only 27% support public subsidy of nuclear power. I suspect you would get a much higher figure for public subsidy of renewals.
The idea of nuclear power without subsidy is difficult. We cannot have nuclear waste left disposal left to private companies, so government will ALWAYS subsidise nuclear power, at least in waste disposal.
Lumping together very separate responses in order to construct some kind of chunky majority to support an argument is always a risky approach as it invites the same approach in opposition. 68% may believe nuclear power has some role in the UK’s energy strategy but 66% believe nuclear power isn’t worth public funding.
I remember various people attempting to do the same to justify the formation of the coalition with the conservatives, claiming a massive 71% had rejected Labour, thus they had no right to be in power. Unfortunately by the same logic you could say an equally massive 77% had rejected the Lib Dems, giving them an even smaller right to be in power.
I wonder whether the answer would have been different if instead of asking about public subsidy you had asked for example ‘ Should nuclear power be funded on same basis as other sources of non CO2 emitting electricity’ ?
There is no reason why that cost cannot be recovered from the power companies. The government can simply bill them for the service, and not provide it for free.
Out of interest, were any surveys done on this in pre-election years, back when Huhne told us that nuclear was “a tried, tested and failed technology”?
It would be nice to compare how Lib Dems felt before they were expected to support nuclear.
How about we don’t subsidise any power production and instead put taxes or charges on environmentally-unfriendly power? Subsidies on any form of power are regressive because they move money from the poor (from general taxation) to people who are wasteful.
@Chris Jenkinson: Spot on! I wish we would stop being so enthusiastic about subisidising offshore windpower in particular, since it is so expensive. A high enough carbon tax would be effective on its own without asking politicians to guess which technology is “the future”. Subsidising basic research into new means of generating electricity is good, but not subsidising the businesses running any form of power plant.
@Mike (the Labour one): It would be nice to compare how Lib Dems felt before they were expected to support nuclear.
I for one have always supported nuclear power, even when Lib Dems were “expected” by Conference and party leadership to oppose it! Our sister party in Sweden has always been a strong supporter of nuclear, for good reasons. I think many previously sceptical people have been won over to accepting nuclear power as a necessary contribution to getting the CO2 out of electricity – especially now that it is clear that more electricity production is needed if we are (for example) going to reduce emissions from transport (by switching to trains and electric cars) and heating (heat pumps).
P.S. I believe Liberal Youth was pro-nuclear for a while, although they changed to being anti-nuclear in 2009 if I remember correctly.
I voted “Yes, nuclear should be part of the mix as long as there is no public subsidy” in the certain knowledge that private nuclear plants are utterly uneconomic without insurance underwritten by the state – the biggest public subsidy of all. Leaving aside arguments about radioactive waste, terrorist threats and whether nuclear really is ‘green’, a legal private business either stands on its own 2 feet, or it ain’t a viable business – banks included.
@green man
when you say :”a legal private business either stands on its own 2 feet, or it ain’t a viable business – banks included.”
does that include wind turbines and solar power neither of which could stand on their feet without subsidy
I’m in favour of Nuclear power, but it’s inevitably going to require a greater level of state co-operation than other forms of power. There will need to be far higher security, far more stringent oversight of the beginning to end of the process by health and safety and environmental protection, and so on. However, I can’t see a sustainable future without it, and considering the enormous sums being spent subsidising other renewable solutions which cannot replace fossil fuels the expenditure is something I’d rather us make than not.
@Chris Jenkinson: Perhaps some form of deferred taxation might work? Say the tax rate goes up by 10%, but a company is not required to pay the additional for 5 years. If they haven’t reduced emissions by a set amount by that time, the back taxes come due with immediate effect. That would allow them to spend the money on R&D themselves to get to the required standards, incentivizing an improvement in services rather than them simply passing on the additional costs to the consumer.
Well a bad poll with badly formulated questions that just reflects opinions of a statement by one person of course gets bad answers.
A more interesting poll would reflect energy policies not one mans personal opinions.
If you kame a poll covering subsidies/non-subsidies and enrgies and timetables I bet the outcome would be differentI am sure you won´t get much support for a ‘Yes – I support nuclear energy ad infinitum’
@Thomas, an interesting idea, but to be honest most power production facilities are covered under the EU ETS. The limit needs to be tightened up because it is far too generous at the moment, which will drive up prices. We just need some more concerted effort by the government to ensure that people aren’t suffering from higher prices (maybe getting rid of the fuel tax nonsense – I have no idea how the level it is set at is logical) and covering that under EU ETS instead.
@Mike (the Labour one)
The Lib Dems have been becoming less and less opposed to nuclear power in the past few years as the need to reduce emissions and reduce dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels has become ever more apparent.
We got a vote on this last year at conference (as an amendment to a motion so it did not get huge media coverage) and it was lost roughly 60:40 – a lot closer than the previous conference debate on the issue. Various internal polls had suggested a broadly 50:50 split amongst membership. In the debate last year, the pro nuclear amendment (which I proposed) was supported by several MPs and PPCs and (most emphatically) by Chris Davies MEP. All who spoke in favour saw at as the lesser of two evils – ie, we would sooner not have nuclear but the evidence appears strongly that to reduce emissions we have no realistic alternative.
Almost all of us on the pro nuclear side of the argument remain wholly committed to increasing renewable energy’s share of the mix as fast as is practical.
I disagreed with the party’s policy on nuclear to begin with. As such, as U-turns go, this is one with which I am eminently comfortable.