results

[craig]

As a free market supporter I am disappointed with the election results. While we can put any slant you want on it, the reality is there are still a large number of producers who want to retain the CWB and that side of the argument has manged to convince them that their choice is all or nothing. Going forward I feel it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where the CWB fails. While many will continue to fight for that elusive open market, I would feel much more comfortable operating under a CWB that delivers what it claims or implies it does. The climate for implementing change is still before us. Let's not pass up the opportunity we currently have.

[JohnKenneth]

great perspective craig. i frequently find myself in the tough position of having to point out where the cwb fails, yet in a tone/using words that doesn't offend those who support continuation of the monopoly. i have a lot of direct experience using the ppo contracts, and trying to stickhandle around the sticky delivery policy, so i'm always getting asked what to do, and how. the why is so-right-there, but where people quit listening. it's really too bad farmers care so much about cwb policy, because it gets in the way of productive discussion about maximizing profitability, and causes many to make poor marketing decisions.

where do we go from here? i agree we're still on the path to better opportunities, but i'm so sick of all the rhetoric that this vote and any/all to come will generate. why debate? why not just move forward? why can't we all look to the pulse canadas and canola councils of our world to see just how much more can be done without a monopoly, the federal transfers and top-heavy administration? why not just work harder to get a better price using the tools we have - which are many, the majority of which are simply poorly utilized or not well understood.

elections and votes are not only useless in this environment, they are divisive, distracting and the fuel of the same emotions that continually cause us to make poor marketing decisions.

shame on the manitoba government for perpetuating this waste of time, money and energy.

[liberty]

I concur with Craig.

Like it or not, demographics have an influence in this debate. Many farmers today are of the older generation and they grew up in the era of big government socialism and the CWB. It's all they have ever known and they seem set to stymie change every step of the way.

I doubt that anyone is going to convince these closet socialists (and I know many of them) that substantive change is necessary and beneficial. The CWB voting system is set up to give these leftist, parochial interests a dominant position.

In the short term, all we can hope for is that Chuck Strahl keeps up the pressure on these regressive forces. If the CWB continues to insist on waging war on the man who is legally their boss, then this organization seems doomed to tear itself apart with infighting. At this juncture, I really couldn't care less if it does. This is the kind of thing that happens when the state takes control of the economy.

[parsley]

You sound like a little old lady in 1929 who was informed she could not vote because she was not legally designated as a person.

So, she decided to try harder to sway the way her husband voted, because that was a much more comfortable way to work within the existing political system.

She gave up trying to get a vote, feeling "it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where 'male-voting-only' fails".

She instead resorted to having a good bawl every four or so years when only all-men were elected as MP's.

feel it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where the CWB fails

Uh huh.

Parsley

[parsley]

You sound like a little old lady in 1929 who was informed she could not vote because she was not legally designated as a person.

So, she decided to try harder to sway the way her husband voted, because that was a much more comfortable way to work within the existing political system.

She gave up trying to get a vote, feeling "it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where 'male-voting-only' fails".

She instead resorted to having a good bawl every four or so years when only all-men were elected as MP's.

feel it is even more important to continue to point out those areas where the CWB fails

Uh huh.

Parsley

[SASKFARMER3]

Dwayne Anderson Looses No surprise the guy did a Flaman run on changing the system then once you get your first check you just do the same as before.
In our area it was clear early on that people were pissed at the man not what he stands for. Farmers are sick and tired of empty promises and Dwayne was a casualty of that.
I also agree that a large number of people are voting on gut response to some of the things the conservatives are doing on this matter. But also lots didn't vote because the CWB needs to show us how it works for us not just tell us it works.

[northfarmer]

Henry Vos is a successful farmer snd businessman.....he is also open to change.....his on farm epxerience, his direct involvement in leadership roles in the industry(WCE, ACPC, seed industry)will serve us well...

... our farming operation voted for him and it is gratifying that Macklin no longer speaks for the farmers of my region.....

There is no question where Macklin stood on the issues of the day at the CWB and his defeat should send a clear message that change and freedom for farmer to chhose how thay market their grain are what is needed.....

[wedino]

Vader >>60 per cent of the popular vote went to the single desk side - pretty strong endorsement<<

Quebec requires a 67% majority to impose a compulsory marketing board.

[AdamSmith]

wedino,

In Quebec is it 67% of those voting or is 67% of all eligable farmers?

[wedino]

I'll go out on a limb & say 67% of eligible producers. Here's what I read: For example in Quebec, the support of two-thirds of farmers is required to impose a compulsory marketing board.

Also of interest, in Manitoba, it's required to obtain a 60% majority to impose a VOLUNTARY producer checkoff.

[Vader]

wedino, I accept that a 2/3 majority is a legitimate threshold before making very significant changes.

Perhaps the anti-board side needs to have that degree of support to dismantle the CWB.

I you maintain that the CWB supporters need to have the 2/3 majority for the continuation of the single desk then that is the question that needs to be put to the people. Although the candidates do have as part of their election platform either a single desk or an "choice" position that is not the only criteria that people base their choices on.

Let us change the question from "who" do you want on the board of the CWB to "do you want the CWB to continue to have exclusive marketing authority over wheat and barley". In that scenario, I have no doubt that the support level would easily surpass the 2/3 majority.

Let's ask the question "who wants the CWB to become a run of the mill domestic, underfunded, understaffed grain broker with no facilities". Support for the continuation of the CWB in its current form might go as high as 75%.

[wedino]

The cwb paid for a survey in May of this year, you're all ready aware of this survey, aren't you Vader?.
In that survey, farmers were asked: “If you had to choose between
three different approaches to marketing barley, which of the following would you prefer.” In that survey 29.0% of
respondents supported the existing CWB monopoly, 45.7% wanted marketing choice, 18.7% wanted no CWB
marketing of barley at all and 6.6% didn’t know or did not respond.

Vader, due you agree that my final payments are smaller due to the cwb conducting this survey?