Nanos: LPO 38, PCPO 34, ONDP 26.
Environics: PC 36, L 35, N 25.
Leger: PC 34, L 32, N 29.
What can you say to that sort of split prediction?
Update: Interestingly, Kady O’Malley has a prediction –
KO’M: I’m still betting on a Hudak minority, although an impossibly tight one — like, fewer than five seats separating the two parties — although it’s just impossible to predict whether the NDP will end up surprising us all, either by siphoning off sufficient votes from the Liberals to boost the PC seat total, or collapsing on election day and very possibly returning McGuinty to the premier’s office.
I’m also going to come right out and predict that if it is up to Horwath to pick a premier, whether through formal coalition or, more likely, an agreement to support the government on confidence votes, she’ll side with the PCs on the assumption that she’ll be back on the hustings within 18 months, and doesn’t want to be seen as the Liberals’ Me Too.
It’s quite possible.
Tho’ if Horwath did that, she could expect to be tarred and feathered by certain of her supporters.
Update, next day: Add a fourth to the wave –
Angus Reid: PC 34, L 33, N 26.
My initial take? From a series of tweets –
And once again the SCC does violence to the English language. “On future applications, the Minister must exercise that discretion…”
When you do that, you erase the difference between “may” and “shall” in legislation. And at that point, what’s the point?
May I say again how much I hate the direction Canadian courts have taken with admin law?
Yes, they’re following precedent. BAD precedent.
Incidentally, if you have a Charter right to an exemption to the drug laws, why have the drug laws? Why not strike them down?
I mean, they have no place in the criminal law anyway — ’tisn’t harm to others, but to yourself.
So if you’re going to do it, SCC, just go all the way: strike down the laws prohibiting possession and recreational use of narcotics.
My next tweet — “OTOH, given Canadian admin law precedents, w/ five libertarian justices I could make Swiss cheese of the regulatory state! Hey @pmharper…”
Didn’t he oppose a PC/Canadian Alliance merger?
But there is this.
Anyway, I found the dichotomy interesting.
So I guess we know where he stands.
Rick Salutin pines for the days of the old PCs.
Well, here’s the answer: some of them became NDPers and Greenies, like Flora MacDonald or Margaret Atwood; some of them became CPCers, like Hugh Segal or even Bill Davis. Some of them went partyless, like Joe Clark.
And, lo! The blue Conservative Party has won a majority government, with 40% of the vote. Doesn’t that suggest that there is now a broad constituency for those views, and not necessarily so much anymore for the Red Tories of old?
So, the Minister of Foreign Affairs cares about his business cards.
The controversial changes initially provoked resistance from the senior Foreign Affairs bureaucrats who are responsible for implementing policies on government branding.
But in the end, Mr. Baird won a temporary exemption from the rules – and got his way.
A gold-embossed Canadian coat of arms now glistens from his unilingual English business cards, which lack the wordmark “Canada,” a federal branding design that features a small Canadian flag above the last letter. …
The disclaimer noted that Treasury Board over the years has revised standards, dropping some expensive practices: “Among the casualties were the costly and difficult practices of using gold foil or full colour reproductions of the Arms of Canada on ministerial stationery.”
It added: “The wordmark (Canada) is a requirement for ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their offices. … It is worth noting that the prime minister and his office follow these standards.”
That’s the latest big story out of Ottawa that has the press corps abuzz.
I think the PMO feels pretty vindicated in its view of Hill journalists…
Here’s the Star.
With 90 minutes to make their case in a televised forum seen as crucial by all parties, the three leaders tore at each other with carefully crafted politeness — until things got personal.
Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty accused Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak of being a xenophobe for opposing scholarships for foreign students, a tax credit to help new Canadians in skilled professions and $7 billion in green energy investments from South Korea’s Samsung.
Hudak countered by suggesting McGuinty is a liar whose word cannot be trusted after a litany of broken promises over two terms in office.
Caught in the middle — literally, after winning the draw to have the centre podium — was NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who castigated her two male rivals for their behaviour.
And here’s Radwanski at the Globe:
Liberal insiders say all this uncharacteristic assertiveness was needed to convey to voters that their leader has the fire in his belly needed for a third term. But the effect of the sort of McGuinty-on-steroids sprung on unsuspecting viewers is likely that those who already believed in him will believe in him more; those who disliked him will probably find even more reason to do so.
In a campaign that is as much about motivating supporters as it is about winning over converts, that should be enough to at least keep the Liberals competitive, no small feat for a two-term governing party. At the same time, anyone looking for reassurance that Mr. Hudak is ready to take the next step received it, and those parking their votes with the NDP probably now feel a little more secure marking their ballots that way.
In other words, the log jam may be even more set in place than it was coming in – no matter how frantic Mr. McGuinty’s efforts were to break it.
So will the polls move? Or are we headed to hung parliament territory?
Update: Here’s the instant poll.
Toronto, ON – A flash poll conducted on behalf of Global News among debate viewers immediately following the debate has revealed that one in three (33%) think Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty won the debate (down 1 point from the 34% who thought he would win in Ipsos Reid’s pre-debate poll), narrowly edging out NDP Leader Andrea Horwath (29%) who performed well above expectations (up 15 points from the 14% who thought she would win), and who appears to have had the biggest impact on Ontarians through her performance. Just one quarter (25%) say that Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak won the debate, meaning that he likely didn’t do enough to turn around his party’s fortunes in the polls (up 1 point from the pre-debate poll). …
While McGuinty may have narrowly won the debate, it was Andrea Horwath who made the biggest impression on Ontarians as 67% say they have an improved impression of her as a result of the debate, while just 10% say their impressions worsened, representing a net score of +57, effectively making her the real winner of the debate. By comparison, Jack Layton’s net improvement score in the English-language federal debate was +41 points, and +42 in the French-language debate. Three in ten (29%) have an improved impression of Dalton McGuinty, compared to a similar proportion (31%) who have a worsened impression, representing a net score of -2. Four in ten (37%) say that their impressions of Tim Hudak improved, while one in three (34%) say they worsened, a net score of +3.
If Horwath picks up a bunch from the debate, how will that affect the race?
Remember that 11th Circuit decision last month striking down the mandate? That ruling was issued by a standard three-judge panel; today was the deadline for the DOJ to decide whether to seek a rehearing of the case by the entire 11th Circuit. If they sought a rehearing, it would take months to draft the briefs, hold oral arguments, and then deliver a decision, which would all but guarantee that the Supreme Court wouldn’t take up the issue and render its own decision until after the election. If they declined to seek a rehearing, then they could appeal to the Supreme Court soon and have a landmark SCOTUS ruling on the mandate by election day next year.
Their choice: No rehearing. Next stop, the Supreme Court. Gird your loins. …
Good catch by Politico: The deck was stacked against the White House in the rehearing, so why risk absorbing an unnecessary blow by having a full panel of the 11th Circuit rule against them?
So we’ll know before election day whether ObamaCare is constitutional.
I like it just now.
Canada used its United Nations speaking slot Monday to lambaste opponents of Israel as no better than the appeasers who allowed fascism and communism to flourish before the Second World War.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird delivered Canada’s views to the General Assembly in a speech that put meat on the bones of the Harper government’s unflinching support of Israel. …
“Canada will not accept or stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory and its citizens. The Second World War taught us all the tragic price of ‘going along’ just to ‘get along.“’
Baird made no direct mention of the Holocaust in which six million Jews died at the hands of Nazi Germany. But he evoked the era when he quoted Winston Churchill as saying “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” …
“Canada will not go along with a double standard that castigates some UN members for alleged failings while ignoring the notorious abuses of others,” said Baird.
He said the Harper government plans to follow through with its election promise to create an office of religious freedom within the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.
He said Canada will not “go along or look the other way when a minority is denied its human rights or fundamental freedoms.”
Well, this will be interesting.
There’s a site dedicated to that.
I suppose the idea is to pick Horwath’s pocket, votes-wise.
Angus Reid has the first poll of this sort that I’ve seen yet:
Canadians were also presented with a ballot question featuring three NDP figures as leaders. With Doer at the helm, the NDP trails the Conservatives by an 18-point margin (42% to 24%). While the party becomes slightly more competitive in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it drops markedly in Quebec.
With Topp as leader, the Tories would hold a 17-point lead (42% to 25%), but the NDP keeps first place in Quebec with 31 per cent. The NDP’s fortunes would rise with Mulcair, who would take the party to 28 per cent at the national level—a 13-point lead for the Conservatives)—but would command the backing of more than half of voters in Quebec (52%). …
Most Canadian voters are standing by their choices in the May 2011 election, but the survey shows that there might be a realignment depending on who becomes the new leader of the NDP. With Doer, who has stated he has no intention of running, the party gets a bit of a boost in Western Canada, but no tangible bounce nationally. With Topp, the NDP does not maintain the connection with Ontario that was observed in the last federal ballot. Mulcair is clearly a dominant figure in Quebec, syphoning support from former Liberal and Bloc voters, and bringing a level of dominance for a federal party that is seldom seen outside of Alberta.
It is important to note that, under all three scenarios, the NDP would drop to pre-2011 levels in Ontario, where the Liberal Party would take sole possession of second place with the Conservatives clearly ahead.
I expect to see Mulcair supporters shopping this poll around.