Ontario NDP Executive elections

58 posts / 0 new
Last post

Dan Harris wrote:

What I'm saying is that people on executive SHOULD be free to oppose a decision at executive AND at council without being labeled, stigmatized and be put thru the additional hoop of an 'executive solidarity' motion.  

The would be more democratic

I don't see how it being "acceptable" to not inform one's colleagues that one intends to continue to oppose a position that the majority has endorsed by a moajority in which one took part and then going on to so oppose is more "democratic".  At ScottP noted above, all that is expected is to be up front about one's intent to continue opposing a motion that the majority has adopted.  "Executive solidarity", as you title it, would require you to support the opinion that you had opposed.  That would be undemocratic and is not what the expectation is.

Being "put through the additional hoop", as you phrase it, is simply being up front about one's intentions to continue to oppose a decision that the majority has not endorsed.  If you feel "stigmatized" by doing so, let me suggest the stigma would (and should) be stronger on anyone who had not told her/his colleagues of an intent to oppose a motion adopted after debate and then "sandbagged" those colleagues by speaking in opposition without warning.    

How on earth is setting up a system in which people can keep their intent hidden for a longer period of time more "democratic"?  Though I usually don't vote straight slate at convention, I highly doubt I would support anyone advocating such an approach based on what I have read in this discussion.

aka Mycroft

Wilf Day wrote:
Scott Piatkowski wrote:

I'm running for Vice-President, but I'll have to make my case later.

And, as someone who has always disliked slates (and has campaigned against them), I'm mildly amused to find myself on one.

There are six Vice-Presidents, three male and three female. Don't keep us in suspense; who else is on the slate?


Perhaps the first rule of the official slate is you don't talk about the official slate?

Dan Harris

I'm sorry but the expectation of Executive Solidarity within the ONDP IS that you keep your opposition to yourself and present a 'united front'.  Which does in effect mean that you are seen as supporting the opinion you opposed.

Robo,  have you sat on the ONDP executive before?

You talk about 'sandbagging' coleagues. Well I can tell you as someone who has had to vote against the executive in order to properly represent my constituency(at the time youth) I was sandbagged by a budget that called for the youth wing funding to be eliminated(and wasn't the one passed to the executive in preparation for the meeting) then again after the vote by an executive solidarity motion meant to silence our (myself and my other youth wing rep's) opposition.  

Tell me why should there be stigma associated with having a difference of opinion with the majority or in the above case for actually representing my constituency? And yes not 'informing' the executive that you intend to oppose the majority opinion does carry with it a much larger stigma.

I'm certainly not advocating that one should 'hide' their intentions as you seem to think I am, but that intention has been made clear by voting against the original motion (whatever it is), 19 times out of 20 that's where it ends because its foolish to be dissenting for the sake of dissent.  A further motion to cast aside different opinions(that nearly always finishes with the same vote) is unnecessary and yes its primary functions are to whip those opinions in line and to call people out. 

In the end, what I'm saying is that I won't let things like being stigmatized or executive solidarity motions get in the way of representing my constituency if I get elected.

The current system allows for those votes to take place and that won't change at this convention. So if elected that is the framwork I have to work in and will do so.

In any case, nobody can ever accuse me of hiding my intentions, I'm quite open about them.

Wilf Day

Rowena Santos Facebook page says "In my position as the NDP Caucus Outreach Officer, former Executive Assistant to the MPP of Parkdale-High Park, and in being a successful candidate myself . . ."

What election did she win?

Have any previous Vice-Presidents been on party or caucus staff?


Dan Harris

Hey Wilf,  there's more to being a successful candidate then just winning the election.  Rowena's municipal campaign was great, it brought new people into the fold and she deserved to win.  It certainly would have been MORE successful if Rowena had won,  though if that had happened she wouldn't be running for the ONDP exec.  So City Hall's loss will be our gain IF she gets elected.



Agreed, Dan. Remember, when Santos ran for municipal council, there were, literally, like 16 others running in the ward. David Miller (who was at the time still card carrying NDP and possibly was still the most popular politician in Canada) lives there, endorsed & campaigned for Gord Perks.....whom he knew. That had a lot of sway. If anyone should be a VP, Rowena Santos is for sure the real deal. 

Lost in Bruce County

I am voting for Rowena Santos. She's a breath of fresh air - fantastic ideas and strategies.