You've offered the best, and most well argued case for the much speculated Roger backflip, on this Labour policy. Well done.
However, I have 2 points, and a question.
Firstly, Roger's Green Alliance in WA extends beyond Green party preferences. It's about the green voting block, their culture. Labour's alliance is ultimately with them, the Green voter. Roger is well aware that he can lose them all back to the Green party in an instant.
Secondly, many of the conditions you mentioned as prerequisites for Roger to be "soft forced" into the backflip, and many more, are already present.
Look at all the positive conditions already present ...
1) WA lithium mining jobs have tanked.
2) WA nickel mining jobs have tanked.
3) WA state Liberals have already declared support for uranium mining.
4) The Minerals Council has declared it's full support, already since 2023.
5) The federal Coalition has already drclared it's support, and released it's plan for nuclear power in Oz.
6) A poll of WA voters, published in Sep 2023 in the West Australian, showed that 49% of voters were in favor of uranium mining, and 35% were neutral on it (didn't care either way)...while only 16% were against it.
7) AUKUS has been signed, the nuclear have been subs ordered.
8) The nuclear subs' high-enriched, spent-fuel waste facility, it's been decided, will be built in WA's own backyard, Rockingham, no less!
So, my simple question to you is this...
Why hasn't Roger already backflipped on this ridiculous, and irrational, Labour policy, heading into the 2025 election?
Expand
(20min delay)