1st Microsoft, now Google, page-172

The latest argument by some people on here, seems to be:

A) That Roger will lift the ban AFTER the election. The theory is that he needs to win an election first, to be able to assert himself within the party.

OR

B) That an economic downturn, causes Roger to lift tye ban, in order to support the WA mining sector.

------------

Maybe, they're right. I'm not so sure. There are 5 questions that these 2 theories don't address:

1) If lifting the ban is such a great political move for WA Labour, then why not do it now, BEFORE the election??

2) If Roger wins the election, with the ban policy still in place, and with anti-uranium mining rhetoric, then why would he lift it, AFTER the election? After all, winning with the ban in place...wouldn't that just be a further mandate by the voters to keep the ban in place?

3) Federal Labour are extremely anti-nuclear, and that means anything that is remotely close to the "nuclear" subject is politically untouchable. Does that include uranium mining? Not sure. Maybe. Bottom line, it's not positive, that's for sure.

4) If Roger wins, he will owe his Green party allies (for their preference vote), as well as his own party's leftwing voting block. Why would he stab this winning partnership in the back?? He would need these voters for the next election, and they are an extreme anti-uranium mining voting block. Why stab them in the back?

5) In 2007, during the last uranium boom, there was an economic downturn. All commodities crashed, including the uranium price, and investment in the sector stopped. So, why would Roger lift the ban in the event of an economic downturm, if he sees the uranium price crash along with all other commodities?

I don't know...the biggest issue for me is that RH deliberately blew it in Jan 2022, by choosing not to pursue the WA mining permit that was offered by premier Mark McGowan. Who knows what happens now.