If Harper needs replacing so does Layton

Steven Harper's been criticzed for not being able to take advantage of the Sponsorhip scandal in the polls well Layton's just as guilty the NDP are stuck at 17%.
If right-leaning Liberal voters are too scared to vote Tory then you'd think this would be an opportunity for the NDP to grab some of the left-leaning Liberals but it hasn't happened.

You'd think the NDP could pick up some numbers on this but I guess not.
I'm not sure of Layton but even the darkest Red Liberal must be getting sick of Paul Martin.

It would be premature for the NDP to ditch Layton.

That the NDP hasn't gotten a bigger bounce in the polls over the sponsorship scandal is a disappointment but the party is still miles ahead of where it was just three or four years ago. In the last election the NDP came within a few thousand votes of winning thirty or more seats in the House, votes which for the most part went Green. If the BC election is anything to go by, the Greens may already have peaked - when voters realise that a vote for the Greens is to all intents and purposes a wasted vote, they'll likely start looking at the NDP as a more viable alternative.

Plus, Layton has already demonstrated an ability to make a positive difference in the House - right now the party is still firmly behind him.

The party needs changes does anyone seriously think a NDP majority would be a good thing?

I think it would be worth a try...

Well, that's what the people on Ontario thought. Unfortunately, Bob Rae made a mess of this province.

Thanks to Mr. Mulroney, Canada was headed into a horrible economic downturn right after Rae was elected. Rae tried some moderate changes, which created a $10B defecit in his first budget. Conservatives blew a gasket. Wouldn't it make sense to wait for the economy and thus revenues to improve before spending this much money? The NDP tried to please the conservative folks in the later budgets by cutting spending down to something reasonable, which insulted his core voters. He ended up pleasing nobody.

The NDP in a majority seem to be like a fish out of water. I think they serve the nation better as the balance of power in a minority government. They don't get to make the rules, but they get to push their good ideas to someone who can implement them in a reasonable manner.

As for dumping Layton - you can't get anywhere dumping your leader every two years. You need to build on reputation. Things don't happen automatically. And the people seem to trust him. In an Environics poll they asked which political leader would be most likely to return a lost wallet, Jack didn't just lead, but he lead by EIGHT POINTS. I say give Jack more time. NDP picked up a LOT of votes last election, just weren't able to turn that into seats. If the NDP pick up the same number of votes next time, it will HAVE to translate into more seats. If the NDP lose voters next election, then it's time to look again at the leadership, but not until.

I agree emphatically with the last paragraph in your post, DevilsAdvocate. I'll also agree that there have been some bad NDP governments, such Bob Rae's and Glen Clark's. Every party has had some failures to go along with the successes. The NDP is no exception to that.

There have also been some good NDP governments, however. Gary Doer, Roy Romanow, Tommy Douglas (in another thread I mentioned Lorne Calvert as a good one and was taken to task for it - I guess Calvert is more debatable - maybe he is somewhere in the middle).

I think that Layton could provide Canadians with a government in the same vein as the good ones like Romanow, Doer, etc., but will agree that the NDP can serve Canadians well even if they remain in opposition....

How come everybody always points to the Rae government? The NDP have turned Saskatchewan into a have province...it was nearly bankrupt when they took over from the Conservatives. The NDP have done an excellent job here in Manitoba as well...including tax cuts.

As for Jack...he's done a good job. He's gotten the NDP more seats and popularity has risen (that 17% number is low, the high is 24%. the truth is someplace in the middle). Something very significant he has done, and was doing even before he had a seat of his own, is get the party some press. That's been a problem in the past.

Devil's Advocate mentioned the NDP vote not turning into seats. A lot of the close seats were actually battles between the NDP and Conservatives, but the anti-Harper vote the Liberals induced by pointing out how scary Harper is caused a lot of people to vote Liberal in those ridings. It split the non-Conservative vote. Without that, the NDP likely would have managed 25-30 seats. It would have taken away 5 or 10 seats from the Conservatives too.