Counter bias article #1

So, in my prior post I talked about bias and techniques for addressing biases. I wanted to take a stab at doing it "live".

I read this article. While I don't consider myself Liberal, I do tend to broadly view myself as anti-Conservative. And, so reading this article counts toward my attempts to also read views which may differ from my own.

So here goes:

Right off the start the article starts by saying that there can be no plan without a vaccine. I can understand the point. And I can agree with it. However, I do feel that the statement is misleading. I don't feel it is possible to have a plan which includes vaccines in any form that could satisfy this party. No vaccine is approved yet and you can't plan approval. 

After that it goes on to talk about how the Deputy PM states that they have pre-purchased enough for 10 doses per Canadian. This is also political theatre. There is no guarantee that the companies we negotiated deals with will ever produce a successful vaccine which also gets certified. Much more likely, we'll get pre-purchases of 2-3 vaccines in waves. And either that will be enough or we will simply buy more doses of those if others are not yet ready.

Then we get this:

"We don't know the first date vaccines will be received. Almost, most of our allies do, in fact the U.K. and the U.S. will start receiving them in the next few days. Canadians are going to be asking questions and they deserve answers,"

However, this is mostly a lie. The vaccines aren't approved in either place either. So, they don't in fact know when they will actually start distributing. And while the approvals are expected to go through, it would still be factually inaccurate to say that people will be receiving them in days. It is really still more like weeks. And that is really still just going to be a select group of people. In short, it won't solve the US or UK pandemics either.

I am trying to be understanding. Yes, these countries are ahead of us. But bias or not, this seems to be petty whining, and mostly useless.

Then we get this:

O'Toole also said the government's efforts to provide economic support to both companies and individuals could have been more effective if implemented sooner. 

I agree. I also agree that if the accusation that we gambled everything on the CanSino vaccine initially that this is an area where improvements could  have been made.

Next we get this:

"The truth is the Liberals' economic response has been erratic and confused. Millions more Canadians were put on the CERB than necessary when their jobs could have been maintained if the Liberals had implemented a wage subsidy earlier," he said.

This feels like a mishmash of statements. Most experts have agreed with the CERB approach. That getting ineligible people claiming it and then clawing it back later was a smarter move than making it inaccessible to those who needed it. But, the first sentence about the response being "erratic and confused" seems more generalized and probably underlies some better points. It would have been nice to see concrete examples rather than one highly politicized blob of text.

Then we get this from the Bloc

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said there should be much more detail about the government's plan to provide economic stimulus, especially when the government is so deeply in debt. 

The Bloc, like the Conservatives feel like they are being contrary for the sake of being contrary lately. And I know I'm biased against that. However, according to the news I watched tonight, supposedly this fiscal update was SO detailed it was closer in scope to a full on budget. And, even a proper budget bill often leaves placeholders. Combined with the Conservative stance that there can be no plan without a vaccine it is hard to take this seriously.

In short, I can't agree with both statements.

After that was a note about lack of fiscal restraint and that austerity measures are likely coming. The PBO's earlier comments this year would disagree with that. I can certainly agree that some austerity measures may need to be implemented depending on the severity of the spending. But, rates are at historic lows and it does enable this sort of spending.

I can understand where opposition parties are coming from though. There is a lot to fear about the future without more details. We may not be over the cliff, but we know we are racing toward one. 

His notes about declining support on the other hand are again hard to swallow. A lot of these aid programs were implemented specifically to address the pandemic and if, as time goes on the economy recovers it would be prudent both from a spending standpoint and from an inflation standpoint to rein in the spending.

I agree with the NDP notes. The government should be putting some priority behind extracting taxes from internet entities operating in Canada. That would certainly help at least a little with the spending situation.

And then the Green party criticizes the environmental plans. Honestly, I just don't know enough about the proposals and what is out there already. I think the environmental crisis is bigger than COVID-19 but, we do need to balance things out to ensure we have an economy strong enough to execute on those plans.

There you have it. Did anything change my mind? No. But, a few things did happen of note. Firstly, I have a slightly more informed stance on what the opposition parties are saying and thinking. Next, I have softened my tone a bit on the budget. I agree we need a vaccine before coming up with a formalized plan, and I agree that the government doesn't have a completed plan as a direct result.

I also noted my bias in a few places. And I don't think it plays a significant part in my conclusions. But, I know it is there. And, while I didn't write it all down, I also did try to understand the points being made from the PoV of the parties making them, which has de-escalated my emotional involvement.