" Beck expressed opposition to Lewis’ views on resources and also turned down his campaign’s invitation for a meeting, unless and until Lewis reversed his positions.” "She pointed to Lewis saying on Nov. 20, 2025, that he was “unequivocally opposed to any new fossil fuel development — including LNG.” I agree with Mr Lewis and it is time we change our sources of power, and such a change will also provide new jobs. Both she and Rachel Notley of Alberta remain wedded to the exploitation and burning of oil and gas. Our planet is now 2 degrees hotter than it was due to our refusal to engage climate disaster in any meaningful way. There are many kinds of energy we could develop and all provide jobs.
I totally disagree, Avi is another Pierre Poilievre he has used demonizing other candidates and too mouthy about Carney when conservatives are destroying us. My intuition says back away from a politician who is like a bully and a mouth piece like Pierre. It’s a free country to chose who you want and not forced into accepting a manic
The original LEAP presentation was an ACADEMIC TREATISE suggesting that a way to deal with climate change COULD (and maybe should) be constrained by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Mr. Lewis has made the point over and over again that this would never fully occur, due to the need for petroleum products being needed for other processes or materials manufacturing, but keeps on being ignored because our current media source don't publicize such realism being interjected into a situation such as the introduction of LEAP creating a controversy that allows our media to sell its product.
The problem in Canada is that most of our media print sources are owned by American right-wing companies, and they prefer that their "property" publishes only its own version of news reality, while keeping their stories favouring people such as Poilievre front and centre propagating his tales of hate without fact to back their outbursts. All they really want to happen, then is that whenever people pass through the check-out counter at Safeway or Superstore, they'll grab a scandal rag such as the National Enquirer; thus emphasizing the point that its stories are also printed without the benefit of "fact" supporting its drivel , leaving the reader to believe that such innuendo and gossip publication must therefore have validity.
In accepting this premise, this reader is now beginning to believe that IF a paper can print allegations about a famous personality of such emotional titillation without opposition save for that which may come from the aggrieved person's media representative wrote, "we, the people" have a similar "right" to shoot our mouths off also without benefit of "fact", but merely gut reaction to the issues we face every day that allows us to believe such trash.
Unfortunately, such a reaction makes sense - sort of, because we DO have the right to express our opinion in public. However, we have been raised by parents who believed that "fact" is implicit in our higher forms of media information distribution, making us unwilling in most cases to outright reject the absurdities published in these scandal rags, much less when we hear the same "fact" being spewed by a Poilievre or Trump; we simply cannot accept the possibility of our media being biased in some political direction, because after all, aren't such sources of information bound to the principle of "objectivity"?
Unfortunately, we encounter that bias every day, even when we read about things happening in the world every day by a "major" print media source. Yet here in Saskatchewan, our two "major" newspapers are owned by Post Media, which was once a SUBSIDY of an American firm whose principal earner was that same National Enquirer - and its current owners are even worse, in that they've now introduced a level of right-wing extremism into its media presentations.
All we have to do in order to "prove" this allegation is to examine the typical content that we see in these papers on a daily basis. The overwhelming majority of their Op-Ed columns come from allegedly "non-profit" organizations such as the Fraser Institute, and "feature" columnists writing for the Canadians Taxpayers Federation or the Saskatchewan branch plant - which really has NO membership save for the writers themselves. All THREE, by the way, funded by Koch Enterprises, well known for its funding of right wing causes, and sponsor of the American Legislative Exchange Council, commonly known as ALEC.
The sole purpose of the Koch Brothers even setting up ALEC was so that the more extreme "right" of American governorship could formulate literal "boilerplate" legislation with "fill in the blanks" segments that could make for the provision and introduction of right wing bias such as anti-unionism. Former Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall regularly attended ALEC's annual get-togethers of legislators, and was once even a guest speaker at one of their conferences; however, what should make Saskatchewanians be "aware" of its existence is that our former premier actually used one of these boilerplate renditions to pass into legislation a "right to work", anti-union bill that was so extreme that the Supreme Court was forced to declare it unconstitutional.
Our problem in trying to get our media back to focusing upon fact as opposed to hateful innuendo is that the political movement on the "left" is being stifled in its effectiveness by instead of offering alternatives for the colossal screw-ups coming from governments such as those in Saskatchewan or Alberta, merely shout into the wind about the "travesty" that these governments have just laid upon we poor voters, without EVER offering a solution to the matter - and then tremble in fear and frustration when some right-wing troll MLA such as Jeremy Harrison ridicules our position because the provincial wing of the NDP has membership that believe ideas such as LEAP offered up by Avi have no place in a province where our very livelihood is being kept on life support by an industry that could care less about anything other than providing shareholder worth to its stockholders.
Case in point: How many of your friends believe that once this "war" with Iran that Trump and Netanyahu started"ends", gas prices will return to normal? They won't; we're going to be paying for this "war" for the next five years because refineries world-wide (about 80 or so, depending upon who's quoting the statistics) have been made inoperable due to military bombardment. Add to this soaring insurance costs due to the "need" of tankers to travel through the Strait of Hormuz, PLUS Iran's intentions to charge millions in tolls upon these same tankers, and this "return to normal" fairy tale still being told by our media is a pipe dream that won't allow us to think about what's happening to us, especially when our MAJOR source of pain is "affordability", a political issue now being exacerbated by the ever-increasing price of gas at the pumps.
Right now our "progressive" parties aren't loudly pushing the obvious, mainly by saying, "Look, why are we letting Big Oil further ruin our ability to provide for our families, when as a result of this stupid Iranian 'war' they're making $30 million an hour for every hour it continues?" By voicing their protest in other forms that don't express outright rejection of what is occurring world-wide and supported by true "fact", our protestations sound more like the pathetic screams coming from ADDICTS who won't consider abandoning their drug of choice because they've gotten too used to its easy availability.
The fact is, we ARE bloody addicts; we're also cowards for not DEMANDING that the petroleum giants should be providing us with solutions to the problems they've now created for us.
In the past two years more than 38,000 oil patch workers have lost their jobs as the industry scales down its investment in Canadian sourced product. Furthermore, the industry's stated goal is to reduce that labour component by another 50,000 workers in the next 18 to 30 months by automating most of its labour component through the usage of AI-driven technology. Now, ask yourself the question: Given that this sudden surge in our unemployment rate only threatens to drive the economies of both Saskatchewan and Alberta into recession and/or a loss of worker population, shouldn't it be obvious that our government should immediately be working on establishing worker retraining programs so that the families thus affected might have hope for future employment and prosperity?
More to the point, WHY should we, the taxpayers, set up these infrastructural necessities when the petroleum industry is the only player in this game that is profiting from our suffering, a suffering, I might add, that was brought into being by two world leaders whose sole reason for picking this skirmish with Iran was to keep themselves out of jail...
We ARE "addicts", but our "rehabilitation" could be made less onerous were we to intensify our efforts to move towards more "green energy" sources.
In summing up this argument, people should also be made aware that one of Avi's more recently espoused "maniacal" solutions to our "affordability" crisis issues was for governments to set up publicly run grocery stores. Now you may recall that not long ago some guy in New York city who wanted to become its mayor offered up such a possible solution for its residents, only to be buried in the media and the speeches of his opposing candidates for the same office that this was nothing more than some "far left Marxist, socialist, or maybe even 'communist' idea having no place in an American economic model utilizing the principles of capitalism."
That guy, Zohran Mamdani, won despite such violent opposition coming his way - AND these grocery stores are now set up all over the city, and are operating with profit and public acceptance, with the result that groceries priced in the larger chain stores are also coming way down in price.
All of this is to suggest that, for a change, maybe we should start boycotting politicians that use words such as "socialism" or "progressive" or "communist" as thought they were curse words describing yet another weird position when having sex. The point is, you don't HAVE to accept everything being offered up by Avi as a possible measure to move us along on the progressive highway.
If Wab Kinew, Canada's now most popular politician, can accept a world with Avi in it, yet still support the efforts of a NDP government opposition party striving to regain a voice at the federal level, what's wrong with the rest of us not also following this pragmatic approach?
Maybe the very first step we should be taking in regaining NDP credibility with our voters is for us to start thinking for ourselves, instead of allowing others to think for us...
Very good point Ken but my senses are screaming Avi is dangerous. And I’m listening to my intuition but holy moly great piece written. Can I share it? I’m more concerned about conservatives and I don’t appreciate Avi demonizing the liberals when the conservatives are the mob. I lost everything I worked very hard for by my provincial conservative government, they threw me under a bus and not one person helped or stood by me. To me SaskParty are my monsters and Avi speaks like Pierre. While you made so much sense I can’t stand by Avi. I have so much life trauma and Avi wants the conservatives in over the liberals, I’m tired of bullies. I can tell the people who follow him, by their comments. But maybe I have too much anger and can’t heal after what men have done to me. I live in fear of more robbery, hunger and these attacks on the better person. If Avi spoke against the conservatives maybe I’d trust him but so far I just can’t trust him. He’d bring us to Pierre Poilievre running our country. I live in Saskatchewan the dumbest place on earth, and the most nasty people. My friends left and many family and my dog died. I’m stuck in a small apartment in housing that’s getting dangerous. Avi isn’t speaking on what we need it’s just his few points but take away MAID so more suicides, call down the liberals is exhausting I’m happy someone with intelligence in federally, like your words you have written on point, but at 64 I’m drowning, I’m upset and I do not want the conservatives in federally but I like the liberals because federally they were the only ones who listened and called me often. I was ostracized and isolated in my conservative community. And still being bullied by SaskParty. I liked Heather and the old man who ran, but Avi is too much of a bully for me, not on the right political path, few common points but it’s his behaviour maybe bullying the wrong people. 🤷♀️
I have no problem with you sharing my piece; my concern lies with the fact that you consider Avi to be a "bully" when my only take is that he's currently too academically wrapped up in policy; HOWEVER, by him taking this route of going across Canada listening to what people want or expect of the federal NDP will knock the shit out of that approach, at which point many of his ideas will have been tested at least in part in New York, so that he can refine his approach again to better stress the importance of a progressive view being taken in providing working policy to Canadian reality.
I could probably give you a better answer IF I understood your concept of bullying, with examples. My experience as a teacher suggests that your perception of this behaviour started in about Grade 7 or 8 with you, until you got it full force once you entered the work force. As well, I don't perceive him as "bullying" any political party, and I recently listened to him tear a new one in Poilievre when he was in Prince Albert. As you may not want these comments on this bulletin board, you could direct same to maccrain@sasktel.net.
No he isn't and no he hasn't. When it comes to other candidates the shoe tended to be very much on the other foot--Avi repeatedly said that it was OK that they disagreed with him, although he declined to change his own opinions because of that disagreement. Whereas those other candidates called him dangerous or whatnot. In his victory speech and indeed during the campaign he said very nice things about all of them. Why are people, ostensibly in the NDP, making up falsehoods about the leader of the NDP?
Well Ryan, she is ditching the environment and avoiding the hard core left . That is unforgivable. I will not vote for Sask Party Lite. If I vote NDP again it will be for Avi Lewis.
Every political party has a sort of dilemma, which is generally felt most keenly for left-ish parties like the NDP, since the media is generally on the right: How far do you compromise your beliefs to get elected? It almost always has been "at least somewhat". But, at a certain point, such as with Labour in the UK, you've compromised them so far that getting elected does not result in actually doing ANYTHING you originally wanted to do. If you reach that stage, there is no longer any point in getting elected.
While I take Mr. Meili's point that working to shift the party itself can be a better approach than just trying to change horses in midstream, as the saying goes, I think things like this petition represent a perception that Carla Beck's leadership has reached that stage where, if she were to be elected, it would be pointless, because no real NDP policies would result. I myself don't know if that's a reasonable perception . . . but as leader I would suggest that it is her job, if that perception is NOT accurate, to make sure the people she's leading know it. If they wrongly have that perception, it's on her and she needs to step up. On the other hand, if the perception IS accurate, then she shouldn't be leading the NDP and her electability is beside the point since electing her would be useless.
I totally agree Ryan, your words are true, when a politician demonizes and asks for a petition for her to leave, I read immaturity and selfishness. You can’t base one issue and leave everyone else alone and that’s what Betty did. It wasn’t cool just because she wanted to deal with one thing. Carla has worked exhaustingly all hours. We don’t all agree with every party, but this bully tactic was terrible. So Saskatchewan to throw someone under a bus. Betty ignored our calls, but Carla’s office had open their doors. I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing. To belittle a hard working candidate is cruel. To demonize someone you never gave a chance just because it was your issue but not everyone else’s. We are in a crunch and these haters are ruining it. I’ve never had any one to fight my battles but I do have hope for the NDP for citizens and our democracy. Thank you for coming back to Saskatchewan I wanted to escape this bully province.
As for Avi I don’t like him at all, mouthy and arrogant, he reminds me of Pierre Poilievre, Heather and the others had more personality and didn’t use threats and lies to get voted in. I listened to my intuitive sense and Avi doesn’t cut it, when someone lied like he does that’s it for me. He used cold hearted tactics and still does. No one is going to like everyone, and some people need to realize we have the freedom to disagree or choice.
Wise and generous. Good for you. I hope Saskatchewan NDP members heed this sound advice.
" Beck expressed opposition to Lewis’ views on resources and also turned down his campaign’s invitation for a meeting, unless and until Lewis reversed his positions.” "She pointed to Lewis saying on Nov. 20, 2025, that he was “unequivocally opposed to any new fossil fuel development — including LNG.” I agree with Mr Lewis and it is time we change our sources of power, and such a change will also provide new jobs. Both she and Rachel Notley of Alberta remain wedded to the exploitation and burning of oil and gas. Our planet is now 2 degrees hotter than it was due to our refusal to engage climate disaster in any meaningful way. There are many kinds of energy we could develop and all provide jobs.
I totally disagree, Avi is another Pierre Poilievre he has used demonizing other candidates and too mouthy about Carney when conservatives are destroying us. My intuition says back away from a politician who is like a bully and a mouth piece like Pierre. It’s a free country to chose who you want and not forced into accepting a manic
The original LEAP presentation was an ACADEMIC TREATISE suggesting that a way to deal with climate change COULD (and maybe should) be constrained by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Mr. Lewis has made the point over and over again that this would never fully occur, due to the need for petroleum products being needed for other processes or materials manufacturing, but keeps on being ignored because our current media source don't publicize such realism being interjected into a situation such as the introduction of LEAP creating a controversy that allows our media to sell its product.
The problem in Canada is that most of our media print sources are owned by American right-wing companies, and they prefer that their "property" publishes only its own version of news reality, while keeping their stories favouring people such as Poilievre front and centre propagating his tales of hate without fact to back their outbursts. All they really want to happen, then is that whenever people pass through the check-out counter at Safeway or Superstore, they'll grab a scandal rag such as the National Enquirer; thus emphasizing the point that its stories are also printed without the benefit of "fact" supporting its drivel , leaving the reader to believe that such innuendo and gossip publication must therefore have validity.
In accepting this premise, this reader is now beginning to believe that IF a paper can print allegations about a famous personality of such emotional titillation without opposition save for that which may come from the aggrieved person's media representative wrote, "we, the people" have a similar "right" to shoot our mouths off also without benefit of "fact", but merely gut reaction to the issues we face every day that allows us to believe such trash.
Unfortunately, such a reaction makes sense - sort of, because we DO have the right to express our opinion in public. However, we have been raised by parents who believed that "fact" is implicit in our higher forms of media information distribution, making us unwilling in most cases to outright reject the absurdities published in these scandal rags, much less when we hear the same "fact" being spewed by a Poilievre or Trump; we simply cannot accept the possibility of our media being biased in some political direction, because after all, aren't such sources of information bound to the principle of "objectivity"?
Unfortunately, we encounter that bias every day, even when we read about things happening in the world every day by a "major" print media source. Yet here in Saskatchewan, our two "major" newspapers are owned by Post Media, which was once a SUBSIDY of an American firm whose principal earner was that same National Enquirer - and its current owners are even worse, in that they've now introduced a level of right-wing extremism into its media presentations.
All we have to do in order to "prove" this allegation is to examine the typical content that we see in these papers on a daily basis. The overwhelming majority of their Op-Ed columns come from allegedly "non-profit" organizations such as the Fraser Institute, and "feature" columnists writing for the Canadians Taxpayers Federation or the Saskatchewan branch plant - which really has NO membership save for the writers themselves. All THREE, by the way, funded by Koch Enterprises, well known for its funding of right wing causes, and sponsor of the American Legislative Exchange Council, commonly known as ALEC.
The sole purpose of the Koch Brothers even setting up ALEC was so that the more extreme "right" of American governorship could formulate literal "boilerplate" legislation with "fill in the blanks" segments that could make for the provision and introduction of right wing bias such as anti-unionism. Former Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall regularly attended ALEC's annual get-togethers of legislators, and was once even a guest speaker at one of their conferences; however, what should make Saskatchewanians be "aware" of its existence is that our former premier actually used one of these boilerplate renditions to pass into legislation a "right to work", anti-union bill that was so extreme that the Supreme Court was forced to declare it unconstitutional.
Our problem in trying to get our media back to focusing upon fact as opposed to hateful innuendo is that the political movement on the "left" is being stifled in its effectiveness by instead of offering alternatives for the colossal screw-ups coming from governments such as those in Saskatchewan or Alberta, merely shout into the wind about the "travesty" that these governments have just laid upon we poor voters, without EVER offering a solution to the matter - and then tremble in fear and frustration when some right-wing troll MLA such as Jeremy Harrison ridicules our position because the provincial wing of the NDP has membership that believe ideas such as LEAP offered up by Avi have no place in a province where our very livelihood is being kept on life support by an industry that could care less about anything other than providing shareholder worth to its stockholders.
Case in point: How many of your friends believe that once this "war" with Iran that Trump and Netanyahu started"ends", gas prices will return to normal? They won't; we're going to be paying for this "war" for the next five years because refineries world-wide (about 80 or so, depending upon who's quoting the statistics) have been made inoperable due to military bombardment. Add to this soaring insurance costs due to the "need" of tankers to travel through the Strait of Hormuz, PLUS Iran's intentions to charge millions in tolls upon these same tankers, and this "return to normal" fairy tale still being told by our media is a pipe dream that won't allow us to think about what's happening to us, especially when our MAJOR source of pain is "affordability", a political issue now being exacerbated by the ever-increasing price of gas at the pumps.
Right now our "progressive" parties aren't loudly pushing the obvious, mainly by saying, "Look, why are we letting Big Oil further ruin our ability to provide for our families, when as a result of this stupid Iranian 'war' they're making $30 million an hour for every hour it continues?" By voicing their protest in other forms that don't express outright rejection of what is occurring world-wide and supported by true "fact", our protestations sound more like the pathetic screams coming from ADDICTS who won't consider abandoning their drug of choice because they've gotten too used to its easy availability.
The fact is, we ARE bloody addicts; we're also cowards for not DEMANDING that the petroleum giants should be providing us with solutions to the problems they've now created for us.
In the past two years more than 38,000 oil patch workers have lost their jobs as the industry scales down its investment in Canadian sourced product. Furthermore, the industry's stated goal is to reduce that labour component by another 50,000 workers in the next 18 to 30 months by automating most of its labour component through the usage of AI-driven technology. Now, ask yourself the question: Given that this sudden surge in our unemployment rate only threatens to drive the economies of both Saskatchewan and Alberta into recession and/or a loss of worker population, shouldn't it be obvious that our government should immediately be working on establishing worker retraining programs so that the families thus affected might have hope for future employment and prosperity?
More to the point, WHY should we, the taxpayers, set up these infrastructural necessities when the petroleum industry is the only player in this game that is profiting from our suffering, a suffering, I might add, that was brought into being by two world leaders whose sole reason for picking this skirmish with Iran was to keep themselves out of jail...
We ARE "addicts", but our "rehabilitation" could be made less onerous were we to intensify our efforts to move towards more "green energy" sources.
In summing up this argument, people should also be made aware that one of Avi's more recently espoused "maniacal" solutions to our "affordability" crisis issues was for governments to set up publicly run grocery stores. Now you may recall that not long ago some guy in New York city who wanted to become its mayor offered up such a possible solution for its residents, only to be buried in the media and the speeches of his opposing candidates for the same office that this was nothing more than some "far left Marxist, socialist, or maybe even 'communist' idea having no place in an American economic model utilizing the principles of capitalism."
That guy, Zohran Mamdani, won despite such violent opposition coming his way - AND these grocery stores are now set up all over the city, and are operating with profit and public acceptance, with the result that groceries priced in the larger chain stores are also coming way down in price.
All of this is to suggest that, for a change, maybe we should start boycotting politicians that use words such as "socialism" or "progressive" or "communist" as thought they were curse words describing yet another weird position when having sex. The point is, you don't HAVE to accept everything being offered up by Avi as a possible measure to move us along on the progressive highway.
If Wab Kinew, Canada's now most popular politician, can accept a world with Avi in it, yet still support the efforts of a NDP government opposition party striving to regain a voice at the federal level, what's wrong with the rest of us not also following this pragmatic approach?
Maybe the very first step we should be taking in regaining NDP credibility with our voters is for us to start thinking for ourselves, instead of allowing others to think for us...
Very good point Ken but my senses are screaming Avi is dangerous. And I’m listening to my intuition but holy moly great piece written. Can I share it? I’m more concerned about conservatives and I don’t appreciate Avi demonizing the liberals when the conservatives are the mob. I lost everything I worked very hard for by my provincial conservative government, they threw me under a bus and not one person helped or stood by me. To me SaskParty are my monsters and Avi speaks like Pierre. While you made so much sense I can’t stand by Avi. I have so much life trauma and Avi wants the conservatives in over the liberals, I’m tired of bullies. I can tell the people who follow him, by their comments. But maybe I have too much anger and can’t heal after what men have done to me. I live in fear of more robbery, hunger and these attacks on the better person. If Avi spoke against the conservatives maybe I’d trust him but so far I just can’t trust him. He’d bring us to Pierre Poilievre running our country. I live in Saskatchewan the dumbest place on earth, and the most nasty people. My friends left and many family and my dog died. I’m stuck in a small apartment in housing that’s getting dangerous. Avi isn’t speaking on what we need it’s just his few points but take away MAID so more suicides, call down the liberals is exhausting I’m happy someone with intelligence in federally, like your words you have written on point, but at 64 I’m drowning, I’m upset and I do not want the conservatives in federally but I like the liberals because federally they were the only ones who listened and called me often. I was ostracized and isolated in my conservative community. And still being bullied by SaskParty. I liked Heather and the old man who ran, but Avi is too much of a bully for me, not on the right political path, few common points but it’s his behaviour maybe bullying the wrong people. 🤷♀️
I have no problem with you sharing my piece; my concern lies with the fact that you consider Avi to be a "bully" when my only take is that he's currently too academically wrapped up in policy; HOWEVER, by him taking this route of going across Canada listening to what people want or expect of the federal NDP will knock the shit out of that approach, at which point many of his ideas will have been tested at least in part in New York, so that he can refine his approach again to better stress the importance of a progressive view being taken in providing working policy to Canadian reality.
I could probably give you a better answer IF I understood your concept of bullying, with examples. My experience as a teacher suggests that your perception of this behaviour started in about Grade 7 or 8 with you, until you got it full force once you entered the work force. As well, I don't perceive him as "bullying" any political party, and I recently listened to him tear a new one in Poilievre when he was in Prince Albert. As you may not want these comments on this bulletin board, you could direct same to maccrain@sasktel.net.
No he isn't and no he hasn't. When it comes to other candidates the shoe tended to be very much on the other foot--Avi repeatedly said that it was OK that they disagreed with him, although he declined to change his own opinions because of that disagreement. Whereas those other candidates called him dangerous or whatnot. In his victory speech and indeed during the campaign he said very nice things about all of them. Why are people, ostensibly in the NDP, making up falsehoods about the leader of the NDP?
Well Ryan, she is ditching the environment and avoiding the hard core left . That is unforgivable. I will not vote for Sask Party Lite. If I vote NDP again it will be for Avi Lewis.
These are wise words, Ryan. I believe Carla can still win the next election. Thank you for your input.
I entirely agree with you on this point, Ryan! Very well said.
my thoughts as well. thanks for putting it into words
Linda
Well said. Thank you
Every political party has a sort of dilemma, which is generally felt most keenly for left-ish parties like the NDP, since the media is generally on the right: How far do you compromise your beliefs to get elected? It almost always has been "at least somewhat". But, at a certain point, such as with Labour in the UK, you've compromised them so far that getting elected does not result in actually doing ANYTHING you originally wanted to do. If you reach that stage, there is no longer any point in getting elected.
While I take Mr. Meili's point that working to shift the party itself can be a better approach than just trying to change horses in midstream, as the saying goes, I think things like this petition represent a perception that Carla Beck's leadership has reached that stage where, if she were to be elected, it would be pointless, because no real NDP policies would result. I myself don't know if that's a reasonable perception . . . but as leader I would suggest that it is her job, if that perception is NOT accurate, to make sure the people she's leading know it. If they wrongly have that perception, it's on her and she needs to step up. On the other hand, if the perception IS accurate, then she shouldn't be leading the NDP and her electability is beside the point since electing her would be useless.
Very thoughtful Ryan and appreciated. Sound advice for sure , your support is important.
Thank you!
I totally agree Ryan, your words are true, when a politician demonizes and asks for a petition for her to leave, I read immaturity and selfishness. You can’t base one issue and leave everyone else alone and that’s what Betty did. It wasn’t cool just because she wanted to deal with one thing. Carla has worked exhaustingly all hours. We don’t all agree with every party, but this bully tactic was terrible. So Saskatchewan to throw someone under a bus. Betty ignored our calls, but Carla’s office had open their doors. I couldn’t believe what I was witnessing. To belittle a hard working candidate is cruel. To demonize someone you never gave a chance just because it was your issue but not everyone else’s. We are in a crunch and these haters are ruining it. I’ve never had any one to fight my battles but I do have hope for the NDP for citizens and our democracy. Thank you for coming back to Saskatchewan I wanted to escape this bully province.
As for Avi I don’t like him at all, mouthy and arrogant, he reminds me of Pierre Poilievre, Heather and the others had more personality and didn’t use threats and lies to get voted in. I listened to my intuitive sense and Avi doesn’t cut it, when someone lied like he does that’s it for me. He used cold hearted tactics and still does. No one is going to like everyone, and some people need to realize we have the freedom to disagree or choice.