On the other side of the fence, Stephen Harper might be the man who finally causes me (and my parents) to vote for the NDP. The fear mongering on terrorism,
I'm assuming you're referring to C-51? I admit I'm not a fan of that legislation, but any government in power when something like the PH attacks happened would have done something similar.
the bravado on the international stage
What do you mean? If you're referring to the idea that Harper has ruined Canada's repuation on the international stage, that's been proven completely false on multiple occasions. Canada ranks just as highly in general public opinion across the globe as they ever did.
the absolute shambles that is Environment Canada and I expect most departments now, the muzzling of scientists (and I know that this topic isn't media sensationalism. A lot of my family work for the federal government in a fantastic variety of positions, which is also a pretty good admission that I was raised with a strong liberal bias).
Do you have any source for stating this other than a few first-hand accounts?
Basically, anyone but Harper. My issue with the NDP is that as always, it's a leader without a party, but at this point, I'll probably throw my vote behind whoever I think has the best chance of winning to avoid contributing to a vote split.
It's impossible to argue with this point of view because for the most part it's based on a personal, irrational dislike of SH the person, as opposed to deficient policy.
Under Mister Harper, Canada led the charge in creating a failed state (Libya), and I don't think he should ever be forgiven for that, among other things. What Canada, and the rest of Nato, did to Libya is reprehensible.
News flash: Libya was a failed state long before Harper took power. Obviously there is still an incredible amount of turmoil, but at least there is some hope now of achieving a semblance of democracy.
Is the NDP/Liberal foreign policy any better? Humanitarian aid is convenient for a few reasons: it's not controversial, so it's easy to appear to be doing something without doing anything useful and risking alienating people for doing something you disagree with. However, it's ultimately not effective. The kurds fighting ISIL don't need blankets, they need guns (same goes for the Ukrainian government, for instance). A government with the foreign policy ideas currently held by the NDP (and to a lesser extent the LPC) would be directly contributing to deaths of innocent people by failing to provide meaningful assistance.
The crux of the matter is that any party that's been in government for almost a decade is going to have to make tough decisions and be held accountable for them. It's easy for both the NDP and LPC to criticize Harpers record from an armchair; they have not had to make any of the tough calls. Leading an opposition and leading a government are two dramatically different things, and I have seen no evidence that suggests either the NDP or LPC are prepared to do the latter.