Stewart Wells to run in CWB elections

[silverback]

So if they only run one pro choice guy against him what will happen?

[parsley]

"So if they only run one pro choice guy against him what will happen?"

Well Silver, if that pro choicer campaigned with some fresh thoughts, pledging honor and work to free the 38,000 from high buybacks instead of grunting comfortably with the status quo exemptions and per diems; pledging to give the 38,000 parity with the present gaggle enjoying $0.00 buybacks, don't you think the 38,000 would reconsider the power and direction of their vote? They would gain what others enjoy. GAIN! After all, re-read the postee above who is droolingly green over "pennies" for organic buybucks, which is typical of the politics of envy in road gear.

We need Pea Party organizers.

Maybe the 38,000 would embrace some fresh blood in "Pea Party" candidates following actual principles. lol

You busy for the next five years, silver? You'd win handily. Pars

[wd9]

Very interesting parsley, buy back for the seed growers.

[parsley]

You're wrong.

I did NOT advocate:

"work to include the seedgrowers to pay the same high buybacks as do the 38,000"

You see, I don't believe in dragging fellow seed grower farmers into the buyback abyss.

That is why I said, very clearly, so that everyone could understand, this solution:

"work to free the 38,000 from high buybacks"

I guess you missed it. Pars

[wd9]

Never said you did advocate it. Nope.

[parsley]

Apologies. I did read it several times and concluded you would have phrased it as '$0.00 buyback for seed growers' if it was simply an exclamatory observation. I concluded wrongly. Pars

[hobbyfrmr]

Parsley has a very strong point. There are 38,000 farmers who are not allowed their right to freedom of marketing. At this time, one of the only ways to send this message is politically through CWB elections. DO IT. Pointing at the organic bird is silly small town small thinking. I am organic, and this time of year the local failures start squawking about thistles and organic farmers. Fortunately, I do not have thistles (this year) due to management. The "big" farmers in the area (30,000 acres) grew a fair amount of lentils this year which is first time in 25 years around here. I have been told its a crop insurance risk/reward thing. Of course, lentils can get a little ugly in Aug/Sept. So, now when the the smart guys start shaking me down, I bet them $1000.00 that they have more thistles in their feild than I do. They shut the F*ck up, and start to nail lentil farmer to the cross. Point being, its a free country, I know lentil guy is doing his absolute best to get the best crop he can, and so am I. Fighting ourselves for the same cause is exactly what government, big grain companies, and society loves. It has been going on for decades, we learn nothing about the finer details of big business (exception to Parsley) and the grain and food stay cheap. Its pretty awesome from a consumer point of view. Apologies for such a long story.

[vvalk]

2 points. 19% of farmers in Sask produce 91% of the grain. So in the election 9% of the production the CWB sells control 81% of the vote. It would be interesting to see in the CWB survey how the 91% of production think of the monopoly vs the 9%. The vote is essetially rigged from the start.

Parsley. Is it not a conflict of interest for an organic farmer or seed grower to sit as a director and make decisions where they get special priviledges? Remember if you can buy back your grain for next to nothing then you really dont fall under the monopoly. So for him to advocate that the CWB system is so good yet he doesnt use it or it doesnt apply to him, to me thats a conflict of interest.
Lastly the NFU's modo is staus quo. They fight against any progress, even fight free trade agreements for pity sake. Someone like Steward Wells is the last thing the CWB needs even if you are a monopoly supporter. We all know(leaving the choice argument aside) that the CWB needs some fresh thinkers to bring that organization forward with new ideas.

[parsley]

If I parallel your idea:

"A neglible % of organic armers in Sask produce a neglible % of the grain."

Yet you made the point the buyback "pennies" are the principle, didn't you?

I really don't think you are petty, vvalk, or resent that organics pocket a few more dollars on a buyback. I considered it that you raised the principle of FAIRNESS. 'Why should there be negotiated buybacks', is the solid point, isn't it?

For me, conventional farmers control almost all of the vote, yet ironically, organics negotiated a positive buyback condition. We have no MIGHT!

So is "mighty numbers" a solution worthwhile seeking? The larger farmers getting the most voice will get you......?

Comprendre?

I will say this vvalk, I have observed that you have business accumen, and approach things from a business perspective. But you are also a farmer. And it has been my experience, that farmers actually help each other a lot.

So when you say, "Parsley. Is it not a conflict of interest for an organic farmer or seed grower to sit as a director and make decisions where they get special priviledges?", I have to say this to you:

1. The government appointees have way more conflict of interest, and thus detimental influence on the direction of the Board and it's ecomomic impact on farmers. Government grants can sway an industry wildly.

2. Farmers have a tendency to leave room in the bed for the other farmer to roll over.

3. EVERONE has self interest. Me, you and freewheat. BUT, a lot of smart people voting in the boardroom assume the "broad view" position. ("If dummy Parsley et al get rid of all the organic wheat to Liberia, it's better outlook for the rest of us."lol) The biggest view is "If every farmer makes 10 million a year, it's not only good for each farmer, but good for our communities and our country.

That is smart.

The trick is to elect somebody smart with PRINCIPLES. Without the latter, they run off with the money bag and leave farmers holding Momma's empty purse full of contaminated flax.

So actually, I think all kinds of farmer representation is healthy. No restricitons.

We disagree.

"Lastly the NFU's modo is staus quo. They fight against any progress,"

Again, I disagree.

They fight and work hard to progress socialism. They are a united brotherhood working for government control and undivided equality. imho, Stuart Wells would advocate every present buyback exemptee eventually paying pricier buybacks.

It is a very different philosophy from working towards the might of the individual and equality of OPPORTUNITY.

You have yet to learn to respect that vision, vvalk. You will.

Without repspect, you do not give it weight. And thus you don't not take them seriously and your offense and defense is weakened.

They are very serious.

We do need new blood. We agree. LOL Thank goodness for new generations.

There are very few brand new IDEAS that are born, though, vvalk, but new and effective tactics arise each day that support ideas. Tactics revive discarded thoughts. Bring them into new light. Free imprisoned ideas.

Use your many many talents. With honor. Pars

[gustgd]

Canadian Wheat Board elections are being held this fall in the odd-numbered districts. An interesting race is shaping up in District 3, which is southwest Saskatchewan and part of southeast Alberta. Two candidates are throwing their hats into the ring and more will no doubt follow. District 3 has long been represented by Larry Hill of Swift Current, a strong supporter of the CWB’s single desk. Hill has always won by a wide margin, but he has served the maximum number of terms and now the district is wide open. The two candidates who have announced their intentions to run are both single desk supporters, but they differ in their approach. Stewart Wells of Swift Current is a former president of the National Farmers Union. Bright and articulate, Wells hardly ever has anything negative to say about the CWB. He will certainly have a lot of name recognition. The second candidate is Brett Meinert of Shaunavon. While also a supporter of the CWB’s marketing functions, Meinert promises to address the industry and producer frustrations that arise in dealing with the CWB. Meinert has served on the board of South West Terminal and as president of the Inland Terminal Association of Canada. With two high profile single desk supporters in the running, it’ll be interesting to see who comes forward to represent the dual marketing viewpoint. I’m Kevin Hursh.

[gustgd]

last post should have had a paper post not the thumbs down

In talking to people about Brett he seems like an intelligent man who may be open to changes at the CWB, in making them more accountable to farmers.

He at least has industry experience at South West and with ITAC. He almost has to say rah rah CWB because thats where his bread gets buttered.
In three is it ABS?

Anyone but Stew!

Anyone taking on the NFU will still have an enormous fight on their hands they are well organized and have strong representation in the nursing home, and post office dumpster diving crowd.

Remember ABS!

[charliep]

Perhaps the most thing is someone who has an understanding of the supply chain from farm gate to customer combined with the ability to provide strategic direction for a $5 to $8 bln business. They should also have an understanding of functions and responsibility of a CWB director.