Roger lacks balls? Hmm...I don't think do. I reckon, the issue is conviction. This was made clear when Roger chose to battle the left of his own party, to backflip on Labour's gas export ban...but not the uranium ban.
I think, your point is that he needs an election mandate, to give him the "balls" to fight the left of his own party, to allow him to reverse the uranium ban? Right?
But, my point is that he is going into the election with the ban in place, having made it clear that Labour will not reverse the policy. Therefore, the election mandate he receives from the WA voter when he wins the election, will by default, include a uranium mining ban, no?. Isn't that problematic?
That's why I made the point about his reversal of the WA gas export ban. He had this fight prior to the election, going into the election with this change of policy, for the voter to judge him on it. So, an election win would be a public vindication for him, and an election mandate for the change he made. For uranium, he has done the opposite.
Do you see my point?
TOE Price at posting:
21.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)