Preliminary Statement from the BC Gingers.

This is very interesting. Is there a website where I could see who the members of the Ginger Group are? Is the manifesto signed and by whom? Thanks,

The Gingergroupies are all stellar members of the NDP intergalactic caucus. No furthur due diligence is necessary. The Gingergroupies will inform you of your opinion when necessity dictates.

Thats great.  Terrific. Just what a party who's already somewhat strategically constipated needs, a harder move to the left.  Up until reading this thread, have never heard of the Ginger Groupies. Mind you 2009 was a busy year personally with me. Plus I was seriously ticked at the provincial NDP at the higher and backroom levels.  So much so, I did the one thing I thought would send the message: I stopped giving them $$$$.  Don't get me wrong, I supported my MLA Dawn Black and still do, but overall like the Ginger Groupies, I'm unhappy with the direction this party has taken.  In 2003, the party elected a leader in Carole James who ran her leadership campaign on a centre left position.  Yet since 2003, she has never ever been allowed to fully implement her ideas or plans for the party.  Nope. Instead, its the political arm of the BCFED.  The Libs are owned by big business and the BCNDP is dictated to by Jim Sinclair.  Sinclair's politics are not my politics, nor are they really the politics of average British Columbians.  Yet at every turn, its "whats the Fed's position on this, or what's the Fed's position on that". 

Out of respect to remind, I'm not going to dredge up policy differences I have with the BCNDP.  But I find that while I support my MLA and several other elected people, I have real concerns with the direction of the party at the provincial council, table officer and higher level. This party does not need to take another turn to the left. It does not need to be the continuing political arm of the BCFED.  It should be a party that works for average people, small business people, union people and even non union people.  Newsflash: not everyone in the labour movement or union member is a left winger.  Most people, union and non union alike, care about their paycheques and getting by day to day.  They are looking for economic security, and ideas to enhance that security.  They want answers, not just crying and hewing from the rafters.  If you criticize, you should offer an alternative.  In the 2009 election, that didn't happen at all.  Instead it was Cut the Carbon Tax.  This party, the BCNDP needs to work on its delivery to the public and how it goes about criticizing the Campbell government. They need to start acting like a government in waiting.  They need to act like that so that the media in this province cannot accuse them of only bitching and whining with offering no alternative.  For that to happen, there needs to be different voices at various levels of the party; particularly at the table officer level.  Mr. Sinclair has enjoyed alot of sunlight and free time and broadcasting on the backs of the BCNDP; to advance his agenda. Its time he took a back seat and let the party grow and adapt to the growing reality in BC, that the battle for votes is at the middle of the spectrum, and the middle doesn't particularly like Jim Sinclair's politics.

I'm a trade unionist, working person, active in the community in various ways, and active in the political realm.  But for BC to work it takes a balanced approach.  You can't have a strong economy without having strong health care, education, social programmes etc. But it works the other way as well.  Why people like Jim Sinclair don't get this baffles me.  For example the minimum wage. Old fight I know, but a balanced alternative was presented by the BCNDP, and when it hit convention in 2007; it had been altered, so that the BCNDP didn't publicly support a small business tax cut along with an increase in the minimum wage.  What's wrong with a balanced policy? It doesn't play well with Mr. Sinclair's beliefs that business is bad.  Even now with the HST, and the way the Libs are kicking sand in the faces of everyone, even some of their most ardent supporters like small business people, you can see where the "leader of organized labour" in BC isn't comfortable in talking about the effects of the tax on business people as well as consumers.

Being a trade unionist, I understand the concept of economic viability. And if businesses aren't successful, then it goes without saying that they won't be hiring people and perhaps laying them off. Then those people aren't consuming goods from other businesses or paying into the tax system.   My question is in short:  While certain big labour unions and big businesses enjoy heavy influence, through the influence they hold at the highest levels of the 2 political parties in power; what about people like average British Columbians who want a voice at the same table?  Sinclair and John Winter's politics are not mine at all.  Conversely, I'm neither a neo con or a hard core socialist.  The BCNDP has a chance yet again to capture support and votes at the centre of the spectrum. All they have to do is come up common sense solutions that are in everyone's best interests, not just Jim Sinclair and some of the big certain sector unions he represents.  Campbell has absolutely abandoned and sold out the centre of the political spectrum.  The BCNDP has an opportunity to make hay yet again.  But I question whether they have the strategy to do so. After the last election and the entire boondoggle that took place, those questions are still there.

GingerGoodone wrote:

Ratbert wrote:

The Gingergroupies are all stellar members of the NDP intergalactic caucus. No furthur due diligence is necessary. The Gingergroupies will inform you of your opinion when necessity dictates.

Now that's funny.        You must be terrifically brave to question the terrible power of us Gingergroupies, who dare to dictate to other NDPers that the majority should have some say over the party's policies and platforms again.  Sounds terribly radical, even democratic, I know, but we Gingergroupies really do know best.  We said so.   

I believe you and wish the Gingers the greatest success in prying the levers of party power from the elitist suits and apparatchiks that deny the grassroots any sort of input into the decision-making process.

Ratbert wrote:

Keglerdave, awsome post.

remind, the antagonistic labour/industry dynamic of the past 20th century has done nothing but force investment out of the province. Organised labour luddites need new ideas and original thinking to attract capital rather than focusing on pitched battles with government to attempt to control the public spending agenda.

So, what exactly is "new ideas and original thinking" a euphemism for?

Absolute nonsense stating capital needs to be "attracteded" to BC, ffs, every mining and petroleum company in the world has its fingers in the BC pie, along with energy giants like GE.

It is a BS line that the anti-worker living wage people have been shouting for about a decade.

The reality is they want BC people's resources for free or as close to it as they can get.

Also, am rewording the post to Keglar above as it was worded poorly, needed a nap.

Okay, my serious comment:

Best of luck, but as a rule I tend to not support these "take back the NDP" initiatives, not because I think they're too left wing or going to hurt the NDP, but because I think they're doomed to failure.  There have been similar initiatives in the past, and they have all been unsuccessful.  I just don't see the NDP as having the intellectual or moral backbone to stand up to neoliberalism, and I think the "return to its socialist roots" shtick is played out and ignoring the history of the NDP.  The Regina Manifesto was a dead letter at least by the time Tommy Douglas got elected, and the NDP hasn't been socialist since maybe the very early days of the CCF.

Honestly, I think what we need to be doing is focusing way more on building strong grassroots movements and radical bases than trying to influence the NDP from within.

And yet, there is a left and a right (and a centre) in the NDP. I thought that was a permanent condition as well. I agree with genstrike about the evidence of the past; however, I'd support a left candidate or policy in the NDP just as I'd support a left candidate or policy in, say, the US Democratic Party.

Cueball wrote:

He means immitating the Liberals. What he is forgetting is that the Liberals steal all their best policies from the NDP. Now that the NDP is aping the Liberals who are aping the NDP, they are two monkeys staring at each other doing nothing.

The "Liberals", federally as well as the BC mutation, do steal their best policies from the NDP because the NDP run like frightened rabbits whenever their well crafted policies meet the usual storm of misinformation from the "Liberal's" cheapsuits.

 Example: the federal NDP's inheritance tax. With a $1 million exemption, it was a balanced tax proposal that would raise revenue without creating hardship but the NDP folded like a cardboard suitcase the moment the opposition started a misinformation campaign.

 Endless complaining about "capitalists" is self-defeating. The division is not between 'capitalists', whatever that means and 'workers'. It is between elitists - including politicians, crown corp execs, business execs and the six figure salaried minions who purport to speak for 'workers' - and the population at large who are continually lied to an misinformed in order to perpetuate the entitlements of the elitists.

Our society has changed whereby the power no longer rests with wealthy individuals and their elected stooges but with a managerial class among goverment, business and labour that values self-entitlement over the welfare of society at large. 

STV = Sexually Transmitted Voting = Dead Issue

Therein genstrike lies the problem, eh?

I love these discussions. All this talk about economy. Whose economy? The devout NDPer gives us a clue: "Being a trade unionist, I understand the concept of economic viability. And if businesses aren't successful, then it goes without saying that they won't be hiring people and perhaps laying them off. Then those people aren't consuming goods from other businesses or paying into the tax system."

So this poster is speaking of the status quo. A consumer based capitalist economy premised on off-shoring, resource extraction, strip malls, suburban sprawl, and two SUVs in every driveway. Or, in other words, the growth economy; infinite consumption of a finite world.

But then we are told: "Getting out of the rut of resource extraction by investing in education, research and development and innovative technology to tranform the economy from primary resource extraction to knowledge-based information and technology."

A service economy! But we have a service economy.

When the powers-that-be wish to sell a service economy, they sell the "knowledge economy". But there are two things wrong with that. First, knowledge, to be valuable, must have an application. No one will buy from me Zork's elucidium-into-gold processing formula if no one knows where Zork is or how to get there. A so-called knowledge economy must be in service to some productive process. Second, technological knowledge and expertise represents only a segment of any economy and it is as easily offshored as manufacturing. In many cases, much easier. Further, as technology develops, it requires fewer persons. What is the impact of virtualization on already sparsely staffed data centres?

What the powers-that-be are really selling is a service economy dominated by retail, poor wages, and driven by a conspicuous consumption itself powered by debt. Debt, as has recently been asserted by the CIBC, I believe, has replaced income as the primary source of disposable income for Canadians. I'm no math wiz, so you do the calculations: how long can consumer debt sustain an economy entirely founded upon comsumer spending?

The challenge for the left, including the BC ginger snaps, is to develop and articulate an alternative economic model. The current model benefits only a small minority and is literally costing us our planet. What is the alternative?

keglerdave wrote:

Ginger:

Last time I looked the Manitoba and Saskatchwan NDP either hold or held power for a long time.  And guess how they went about doing it?  See, to effect change, you have to get into power. Now pay attention closely, because school is now in session. 

You win elections by moving to the center.  You change society by moving where the center is.

If you want to do the former, keep doing what you're doing.  Your victory will be as meaningful as an elementary school student council election.  School is in session, eh?  Too bad.  You get an "F".

I wish these folks would just join the Marxist-Leninist Party. It's a better fit for them and will keep them from continuing to scare the general public away from the BC NDP.

N.Beltov wrote:

Ha ha. Whenever I see "these people" I like to reach for my .... pen. lol. Dead giveaway, Mean Moe. Apparently, you are of the view that the NDP should NOT have a right, centre and left ... despite the casual observation by a supporter in this very thread that that's just the way it is.

Try again. This time, actually make an argument.

I never said that at all. All parties have a left, right and centre, even the GOP.  It depends where that centre is located. IMO the ideal for the BC NDP is this configuration; populist right-pragmatic centre- social dem. left.

While the current percieved configuration is; pragmatic right-social dem centre-socialist/marxist left

and it is the vocal members in the left position in this configuration that scares the hell out of non-political no time to think too busy average folk.

When in fact their ideological beliefs and policy ideas have more in common with the Workless Party or the MLP.

Mean Moe wrote:

I never said that at all. All parties have a left, right and centre, even the GOP.  It depends where that centre is located. IMO the ideal for the BC NDP is this configuration; populist right-pragmatic centre- social dem. left.

While the current percieved configuration is; pragmatic right-social dem centre-socialist/marxist left

and it is the vocal members in the left position in this configuration that scares the hell out of non-political no time to think too busy average folk.

When in fact their ideological beliefs and policy ideas have more in common with the Workless Party or the MLP.

Red Baiting.  Boring.

GingerGoodone wrote:

 I'd really like to know what you find so threatening. 

Ideas?

GingerGoodone wrote:

THE GINGER GROUP HAS BEEN FORMED TO:

1.  Address the democratic deficit within the provincial NDP;

The Ginger Group believes that the current leadership of the provincial NDP has lost its sense of direction and vision, along with the confidence of a large number of NDP members and supporters.  It is imperative that the Provincial NDP immediately address the democratic deficit within the Party.

Further, the Group believes that too much power has been concentrated in the hands of the Table Officers.  The ultimate decision making power must be returned to
Provincial Council.

The NDP has most democratic party system in the western world. IMO too much and PC is waste of time. PC is mostly made up of the complainers and naysayers with a defeatist attitude.

GingerGoodone wrote:

2.  Refocus the Party on the environmental, social, and economic crises, particularly Climate Change, which confront the ordinary citizens of BC, and provide a sense of agency and belonging for the alienated membership of the party.

The Group believes that the leadership of the Party has insulated itself from the membership and appears to be incapable of, or unwilling to, address these crises.
This alienation is destroying the Party.

Sounds all nice but really have some doable prgmatic ideas, or are you really talking about state ownership and making business hurt.

GingerGoodone wrote:

3.  Return the Party to its democratic Socialist roots.

THE GINGER GROUP HAS THEREFORE GATHERED TOGETHER LIKE-MINDED PROVINCIAL NDP MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS TO:

A)    Restore to the membership the power to decide policy and to choose our organizational and political leadership.

B)    Restore our Party as a vigorous advocate for, and an agent of, social justice.

C)    Commit our Party to protection of the environment, including the initiation of real actions to deal with Climate Change

D)    Commit our Party to offering a clear and unambiguous socialist economic model to replace the failed capitalist system which is destroying our environment, undermining basic human rights, and robbing our citizens of their share in the common wealth of our province.

Yup  that's exactly what you want to do and never win an election either.

GingerGoodone wrote:

THE GINGER GROUP WILL ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS ABOVE THROUGH:

Resolutions at the bi-annual Provincial Convention to further these goals;

Electing Provincial leaders who advance the economic principles of socialism (ie. production for use and not for profit)

Electing leaders at the Constituency level who will work towards these goals.

These goals have been attempted at every convention, and the membership votes them down. But you call it a democratic deficit. Like I said, if you wish to start a socialist project then do it in one of the socialist parties because the BC NDP isn't one and can't be one, if it ever wants to form government.

Capitalism routinely collapses and socialism tends to eat itself. We need to learn from these lessons and take the best from both systems that allow people to prosper without the negative effects of both systems. To use a Hegelian terms, we need to be party of synthesis , not antithesis.

Socialism in one province? Is it really doable within the top-down neoliberal framework emanating from Ottawa since 35 years ago?

I vote NDP provincially merely to stop the pawning off of public assets for a song to rich friends of the two old line parties. Beyond that I expect provincial governments not to run us into a debt hole, and dregulation and privatizing the moneymakers tends to contribute to that.

What's afta NAFTA?

It's time to challenge international capital as it was in the 1970's when Labour and other governments backed off. There will be a new monetary deal between western world countries within the next ten years, because this one is finished. It's bankrupt kaput finished. There will be no real recovery until a new way is established and agreed to by western world countries. If ever there was a time for socialism, it's now.

So, nothing new then? Good job urinating on the Gingers. That'll help.

lol. Yea but then the NDP couldn't do such a good job of sucking in all those socialists for their money, time, effort, and so on. Can't have that.