On tonight’s news was a story on a protest against the PM – apparently eggs were thrown at the PM’s car.
Something I don’t understand is why people throw eggs at the PM’s car rather than engaging with the issues with argument.
On a related note, maybe it’s just me, but when trade unions protest against the new IR laws, it is unsatisfactory for them to say “they’re unfair, it’ll be terrible for working people” without backing up their claims with analysis and/or research.
Similarly, public policies should be backed up with analysis and/or research. Too often, especially in letters from government ministers supposedly explaining the reasons for a policy, is there limited or insufficient reason for the implementation of the policy. It is particularly annoying when you ask specifically for the rationale behind a policy and no rationale is provided, other than the bland “After the London bombings, the security environment is changed, and as agreed at the COAG meeting, all state and commonwealth governments are making these changes….” (eg on newish terrorism laws) – here I paraphrased what was contained in a letter from a government leader.
What – actual careful, sustained reasoning and analysis leading to policies? Perhaps it’s just too hard.