Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
I'm sure I sound like a broken record but until I see what Ignatieff plans to do with Alberta's economy, I cannot conceive of voting for him. My biggest worry is that there will be a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition along the lines of the previous one, which included as part of the coalition document a plan to implement a 1990 standard for a cap-and-trade GHG plan.
|
One of the areas in which there is not much difference between Ignatieff and Harper is on the Oilsands. I personally, though I wasn't in favour of the bungled "green shift" do think that something has to be done to generate market conditions that accelerate the market's push toward alternative energy--though I agree that in the end the solution to this problem will be market-based, not government-based.
In that sense, Ignatieff sounds pretty good to me. He's in favour of oilsands development, but wants to develop strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions in consultation with the oil industry. That is, he recognizes the challenges we face and
knows who we need to talk to about it. It might not reassure those who are working in the industry, but let's not make the mistake of comparing him to Dion, who just about drove the party to hell in a handbasket and came close to dragging the country along with it. Ignatieff is not (as far as I can tell) cut from the same cloth.
But in the end, it comes down to that same philosophical disagreement. You say that you are voting for Stephen Harper over Michael Ignatieff. I say that you are voting for Rob Anders in spite of his obvious shortcomings. As you say, Anders has spent 11 years as an MP without so much as a feather in his cap. Could a trained monkey do the job as well? My sense is yes--probably. And for me, that's not good enough. An effective MP must also
represent my riding to the caucus and
take an active part in policy development. Otherwise my democracy is meaningless, and I might as well vote for the Green party, for all it matters.