About confidence

As a few of you already know, a reasonably serious non-confidence motion was brought forward _and passed_ in our parliament yesterday. Unsurprisingly, given the high-handed arrogance with which they have governed, the liberal party declined to accept the ruling.

What's interesting to me -- what with all the problems I've had with media spin on this -- is the coverage. Conveniently enough, another blogger (who is more conservative than I -- note the grade given the Nat'l post, which would have gotten a B in my world) has rounded up and graded most national news outlets on the subject. Check those out [here](http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000244.html).

This jives well with what I've been saying about spin on the nature of the upcoming confidence votes. There's little doubt in my mind that, when the early election is forced, the Liberal party will manage to spin it as being forced by the Conservatives, as opposed to having been brought about by a combination of increasing evidence of corruption and deliberate alterations to the budget into one that neither the PC party nor the Bloc can legitimately accept. Since, given that budget, the Liberals can only be assured of the NDP + Liberal vote, which is three short of a _tie_ in the house of commons, they _know_ they cannot win that budget vote. There never was a way for them to do so. Therefore, they just forced the PC party to _appear_ to be the instigators of the election. I guarantee that a paraphrase of "Harper knew that Canadians didn't want an election this soon" (Right after they trot out the "Hidden Agenda" tripe they used to such good effect last election, despite all and any evidence to the contrary. Or more accurately, _lack of evidence_.) will appear on the campaign trail, and it'll be true -- but neither did Harper. And I wish that people reading the news would have a chance to realize that. But I invite you all to read more closely. It's worth paying attention to the biases in order to find the truth.

Comments !