Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael
(Post 7396560)
True, if people who are going to vote for the conservatives and liberals want to chime in as well that would be great. My question comes from personal curiosity towards the NDP, especially seeing how Jack Layton is experiencing a surge in popularity following the debate.
|
I'm not an NDP supporter but I will tell you that when you look at the hard numbers, the NDP being irresponsible with $ idea is largely right wing rhetoric that's well... done it's job very well.
For example here in BC, while the BCNDP ran our province, they dealt with the collapse of the Asian markets but still increased our GDP by 3.3% and change. The Liberals? 2.8%. The NDP increased the deficit provincially by 19 billion. The Liberals, a government who made a law saying they would never run a deficit budget, rang the tab up by 28 billion. Under the NDP the unemployment rate was in the neighborhood of 6%, under the liberals it's still hovering around 8%.
Most of you would feel that it is "common knowledge" that the NDP (federal or provincial) is fiscally less responsible and a worse choice for our province, but I don't know... when I look at the #s that doesn't seem to be the case.
The same holds true on a federal front. I think the Conservatives have done a very good job as branding themselves as the "Fiscally responsible choice" but when you look at the raw data, that's doesn't materialize, and in fact, I would (and have) argue(d) that the financial stability of our country is the legacy of stable, long term Liberal leadership.
As far as Layton himself, you know what? He's growing on me a great deal. He is a charismatic and engaging leader (which is one up on everyone else) who isn't afraid to speak up about issues that need to be addressed. He's also the only national party leader who's own party is internally stable, which goes a long way to showing his leadership skills. And I don't think he would bankrupt the country any more or less than any of the other parties will.
I DO have concerns about his lack of skills dealing with International politics, not so much with Asia, as he has strong ties and experience there, but with the US and the Middle East. I feel that both Harper and Ignatiff have a better understanding of these issues, and I would argue Ignatiff's single largest benefit is he has a full appreciation of our position internationally (which is sinking, rapidly), and an awareness of the mistakes being made by our partners down south (rather then blindly following them as Harper seems to want to do).
To me, I'm more concerned about what's going on on the home front, but I do think some international savy is important, because building new ties and trade partnerships that don't center on the US is vital to our success as a country in this next decade.
Personally? I think Layton would be one fantastic opposition leader, better at being one then a PM (and I still think that's what he's shooting for in this election). Unfortunately I think people would hate him, because he would be loud and vocal, but most people don't really seem to understand that that is the job an opposition leader is elected to do.
If he gains some seats in this election, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that by the next one we could all be so sick of the Liberals and Tories, tell them both to fuck off and elect an NDP government... they'd just have to find a way to gain some traction in Quebec.
As for Liberal party leadership, in all honesty, everyone is a place holder until Justin Trudaeu takes the reigns of the party (which he's stated he's not ready to do as of yet). And besides Layton, really he's one of the few people in Canadian politics that I think could (and does) actively engage the youth vote. I think things will change for the Liberal party in about 6-8 years and I doubt we'll see a Liberal lead government (barring wacky coalitions) until then.
