What did the "Barley Plebiscite" do for us?

[TOM4CWB]

Hi folks... a little accounting should be in order here. What did this exercise teach you?

1.) Ralph Goodale is ruling the grain industry throught the CWB Act, Section 47 which required this vote, and haunts us every minute of the day.

2.) Our grain industry still does not recognise farm partners (primarily of the female variety)... who do the much grunt work in western Canada... as people who are worthy to express themselves or their opinions.

SHAME on US.

It would be like holding a federal, provincial, or municipal election and only allowing one vote per household.

I didn't hear one whimper or complaint from anyone. WHY?

3.) Blame David Andersen, Chuck Strahl & Stephen Harper for the Barley Plebiscite. Meanwhile Ralph Goodale et al... smile all the way to the ballot box!

What a perfect diversion...

4.)Got many of those principaled people who worked together to elect a Conservative Minority Governement...

Fighting amongst themselves... People who would now rather kill their cat or dog... than have a liberal shadow pass in front of their pet on a cloudy day!

[parsley]

"Canadian Press Newswire
15 March 2007

Strahl will allow scrutineers to monitor barley plebiscite vote-count


WINNIPEG (CP) _ Scrutineers will now be present when the ballots for the federal barley plebiscite are counted later this month.

Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl says he changed his mind because some farm groups have questioned the integrity of KPMG, the company handling the plebiscite on behalf of the government.

Critics of the government's plans to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on barley sales have expressed concerns the numbered ballots might not be destroyed as promised and could be used to identify farmers and conduct audits.

Strahl called the complaints ``wild-eyed accusations'' and says the government is never going to see the individual ballots.

Manitoba Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk praised Strahl for his change of heart.

She says the Canadian Wheat Board belongs to farmers and they should be able to have peace of mind that their votes are tabulated fairly and confidentially."


Parsley

[craig]

I find it interesting that here we have an example of the PRo CWB camp questioning the creditability of the plebisite at every opportunity. This is the same camp who claims that the naysayers would never be happy no matter what information they were provided. The reality is there are those that don't trust the government and those who don't trust the CWB. It is a democratic right to be able to voice those concerns and a duty by those parties involved to defend there actions.

[chaffmeister]

In a Western Seducer article this morning, Dr. Richard Gray was quoted as saying “that while CWB officials who know more about selling barley than anyone were muzzled, "self-proclaimed experts" in the government had free rein to express their views.”

Punchline #1: “CWB officials who know more about selling barley than anyone…”
Punchline #2: the idea that Richard Gray would even know who knows about selling barley.

If the debate on barley marketing during the plebiscite showed me anything it’s that the level of knowledge and understanding of grain trading among “CWB officials” is astonishingly and alarmingly low. That goes for the academics they hire as well.

[parsley]

Maybe that explains why farmers have no money in farm pockets at the end of the year.

When we are forced to pay people to do a job they don't know how to do, farmers paying the tab go out of business.

Parsley

[charliep]

Interesting comment when Richard Gray has been vocal through the debate. The CWB also responded to 2 of the 3 papers in the plebiscite background. They also responded to the "Market Signals Project" prepared by the Cereal Grain Value Chain Roundtable.

The biggest disappointment through the whole plebiscite is how little time was spent talking about barley marketing issues. There are many issues starting with barley competitiveness both with other crops grown in western and relative to competitors (highlighting Australia). Perhaps we should have had more of the debates Richard Gray talks about.

[parsley]

Richard Gray has been one of the frontrunners of the barley debate!

I notice he is one of the stars of the savemycwb page, where this group of farmers call other farmers who don't agree with them...rats.

Now there's class.

Must have the same scriptwriter as when they called organic farmers dogs.

rats and dogs, boys.

I hope you pressed option #3 delete.

Parsley

[AdamSmith]

Here's what I learned, or better said, was re-enforced in my own mind.

"Process" will always trump "Tangible Results".

The people who think they are integral to this industry, whether it be, cwb directors and officials, Ag Canada bureaucrats or Agriculture Ministers and their advisors and staff, couldn't identify a tangible result to save their business suit covered asses.

Yet I'm sure they get wood just thinking of the concept of a good process.

And don't even talk to them about "Principles". Not when they can engage in "casual process" on a daily basis.

[winwin]

Comrades;of course the cwb experts should be speaking out;they should be the only ones speaking out.

Because they are the only ones allowed to export they should also be the only ones allowed to think.It is when the people are allowed to trade that they then want to start thinking.

It is these independent minds that are the real threat to communist utopia.To paraphrase Tom Peters who said Think and grow Rich--------"stop thinking and grow poor"

[BennyHin]

Tom Peters? He is so nineties. He went out like "new coke", "dot.coms, and the use of the term, "synergies".

Where did you buy that tom peters book... at the nickel auction to raise money to build a new roof for the curling (drinking) arena" .

[just_wondering]

from the urban dictionary
BennyHinn = troll
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.