While you'd never know it from all the rhetoric that was spoke at the recent CUPE Ontario Annual Convention about the shared interests and goals of the ONDP and CUPE Ontario, a resolution put forward by the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU) could have severly tested the limits of that relationship. As reported by Uncorrected Proofs last week, Resolution 26 read as follows:
RESOLUTION #26
SUBMITTED BY OCHU
· Because our political work for the last four years has focused, appropriately, on the provincial Liberals; and.
· Because the provincial conservative Party supports public funding for private schools and 2 Tier Medicare; and.
· Because the provincial NDP should not mirror the federal NDP by propping up the Conservatives in a minority government.
Therefore be it resolved:
1. That CUPE Ontario work actively to expose the political agenda of the provincial Conservative party during the lead-up to the provincial election; and
2. That CUPE Ontario push both the New Democratic and Liberal parties to work together to advance a progressive political agenda for working people in the event that there is a minority government.
However, said resolution failed to even hit the convention floor. While the Liberals were routinely bashed over the four day conference, it would have been interesting to see (and hear) what would have taken place had the OCHU resolution hit the floor. While the resolution was clear to read "in the event that there is a minority government," the very fact that the union would pass a resolution openly suggesting anything but an NDP majority (no matter the unliklihood of it happening) would have tested the limits of the relationship between the two entities. However, since the resolution was not discussed, consider it dead for now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
How exactly has the federal NDP 'propped up' the federal Conservatives, as the third 'whereas' clause claims?
Same question. How exactly has the federally NDP propped up the fed conservatives?
Framing the resolution in that way, with the 3rd whereas, sure was pushing an misgotten agenda, and had no basis in reality.
Reality, going toe to toe, the libs have supported the cons over 60 % of the time.
Maybe that's why the resolution never even made it to the floor.
Sure would have added for a lively debate, with the 'lie' being put to the truth.
I'm not entirely sure to be honest. That would have been a valid question to ask if the resolution had hit the floor. I suspect that the mission if Afghanistan- and I recognize the complexities of that vote- might have been identified as an answer to that question. Also, perhaps the fact the NDP has not actively sought to defeat the government. I agree though- the third whereas is very questionable.
However, said resolution failed to even hit the convention floor
Do you know why the resolution didn't make it to the floor?
The resolutions are heard depending on which sector or portion of the action plan is being debated, and of course, time issues. During the debate on political action- of which this resolution was a part of- it was the 7th resolution to be discussed. However, the alotted time ran out after the fourth resolution was discussed, and consequently this resolution was not debated. In regards to how the order of resolutions to be debated is made, I believe that is up to the resolutions committee in consultation with the executive branch.
Post a Comment