Okay, am I the only person who things that the term "monumental collapse" and "freefall" are a bit harsh for a 5% drop in support for a government?
The media always has a tendency to exaggerate, and we are used to a certain amount of exaggeration. But, "monumental collapse" as The Globe and Mail called it today is about as exaggerated as one can get. Perhaps they should call it a monumental shift...as the Liberals are being tied with the upstart BC Conservatives. Centrist and right of centre voters who've long voted for the BC Liberals are now moving toward the Conservatives which could leave the BC Liberals as little more than a 'monument' to what they once were.
These sort of movements do happen, especially in the West of Canada. I must say that I've really been unhappy with the Globe and Mail over the past year or so. Since it looked like the NDP were becoming a real alternative federally, as well as in major provinces like BC, the Globe has routinely ran with lines that diminish the NDP in favour of either the Conservatives or Liberals.
When the news has been very good for the NDP, the Globe minimizes it to point out something positive for the NDP, but then ends the article with a lot of qualifications. If the Liberals even look half alive, the Globe rants and raves about it.
I think this is really unfair. The Globe's bias against the NDP is not so much based on policy differences...let's face it, none of the major parties in Canada differ all that much on essential questions of how to govern (well, the Bloc's separatist policy makes it fairly unique...and it does sorta qualify as a major party, but the rest of their policies are fairly typical) so, what is it about the NDP that the Globe doesn't like?
I think it's not so much that they don't like them, as they are just so statist and status quo(ist) that they are fearful of anyone who hasn't been in government at the federal level or in Ontario. There not much of a national news paper in that regard.
