Setting the scene

Drug use is not new to the beautiful Fijian Islands. Alcohol, kava and marijuana are part of daily life for many Fijians. Illicit drugs are much less common, although Fiji Police believe their use is on the rise. Because of Fiji’s location as a major port in the heart of the Pacific, the country faces both illicit drug trafficking and increasing use, especially amongst the young.

Traditionally, ethnic Fijians – known as iTaukei – and indo-Fijians (who make up around 37% of Fiji’s 827,900 people), as well as the myriad of other ethnicities that form Fiji’s colourful, at times strained, multiculturalism, have used various forms of phycho-active drugs during their rituals and ceremonies. Indentured labourers and riley seafarers bought marijuana and hemp traditions from India and elsewhere to Fiji when they arrived to work the sugar plantations and to trade.

Like it is throughout the Pacific, kava (the beaten down root of a narcotic pepper plant, mixed with water) is widely consumed by iTaukei and, over time, indo-Fijians have also slowly adopted kava drinking rituals.

As the sun sets over Fiji the ubiquitous “clank” sound of kava being stomped into a fine dust can be heard as young men pound the “grog” in preparation of the evenings drinking session around the Tanoa bowl. Like elsewhere, kava drinking is still a male dominated affair in Fiji, although by no means exclusively so.

Marijuana grows easily in Fiji’s sunny, wet climate. Many of the country’s 322 islands, coated with coconut trees, tropical forest, and thick vegetable patches, are difficult to access or patrol, creating ideal conditions for growing and cultivating the plant. Increasingly, marijuana is used as a cash crop, particularly during times of economic hardship or financial strife within a community.

Gateway and harder drugs

Assistant Superintendent Sakeo Ganivatu is the head of the Fiji Police drug unit based in Central Division HQ in the capital, Suva. He says marijuana and glue sniffing are the most common illicit drugs used in Fiji. He says drug use exists everywhere in Fiji, it is not something confined to the bigger urban centres; “it is in rural areas just as much as in urban areas” he says.

I asked him if harder drugs were also an issue in Fiji. Sakeo says they are increasingly coming into the country.

Sakeo believes that kava and alcohol are gateway drugs. He says their use “gets young ones into substance abuse” and establishes harmful patterns of behaviour. He explains that drinking kava everyday “can be fatal for young people, it makes them lazy, they don’t work, then they follow the easiest path in life and then it invites [the use of] other drugs”.

I asked Sakeo about people using kava and alcohol together, having heard anecdotal reports of this. “Generally you would drink grog one night, alcohol the next, rather than together” he says. He did however think that kava and alcohol use carried serious social costs. He was concerned with the link between them and violent crime.

Fiji Police work with communities on causes of drug abuse

Assistant Superintendent Sakeo Ganivatu comes across as a kind man with a big heart. He sees the best way to reduce drug use – he’s mostly talking about marijuana, glue sniffing and alcohol here – is through improving the overall environment that people live in. This means targeting a range of community based programmes that address social, economic and educational short-falls.

Sakeo and his team have done a lot of work with squatter settlement communities in Fiji’s capital, Suva. He recruited around 20 volunteers to do a survey of the inhabitants of the squatter area and then from that data created a plan to try and help them.

One of his initiatives was to get young people playing more sports in safer environments. There was nowhere (other than on the road) for the kids to play, so he has been trying to get bulldozers in to clear a rugby field for them. He wants kids to have alternatives to sitting around sniffing glue.

His team has worked with local communities to improve other social and economic conditions. Sakeo’s team advocated for road construction in areas where lack of resourcing and transport, and hence isolation, has made bad situations worse for people.

They have also been involved in giving workshops on parenting and with the establishment of a fish farm project. This suit of measures hopes to create chances for young people to be kept away from glue sniffing and marijuana, and this is more likely with the community’s and school’s direct involvement and support.

Pilot ‘pride and self-discipline’ programme in schools

Sakeo was keen to talk to me about his Catch them Young programme, which kicked off in June 2011. He says the in-school component of it has been a huge success in reducing drug related complaints from teachers to police and he wants it rolled out all over Fiji.

Piloted at Gospel Primary in Samabula, Suva, the programme was designed to be the school based element that would complement the other community based programmes on offer. Targeting year 7 and 8 students, Catch them Young uses police or military style drill techniques such as marching. Sakeo says these drills are the “types that cadets do” and aim to “install [self] discipline” in the kids.

This aspect of the programme is not about punishment, it’s about pride. Sakeo explains that eventually the kids graduate the programme in a ceremony that involves a display of their newly honed police drills. He says the idea of it “is to teach them how to resist temptation, and increase discipline”. He says that there was a rapid drop in the number of kids in year 7 and 8 caught with drugs, down to zero.

Before you baulk at the concept, keep in mind that Fiji is a country with a proud military culture and tradition. Giving kids an opportunity to emulate drills, while marching in a uniform might seem odd to a New Zealander, but in Fiji this type of activity is deeply associated with respect and tradition. It is not surprising then that the approach has so far been a success.

The programme includes an awareness element where police officers present to students on the dangers of drug use and how it can affect their lives and school work. His team has presented the pilot programme to the Fiji Police Commissioner who has signed it off for expansion all over schools in Fiji. Now they just need to find a way to resource the programme as up till now it has been run through volunteer time from the Police drug unit, an already well under-resourced outfit.

Little known about party drug scene

Sakeo told me that Fiji Police’s drug unit simply does not have the resources to monitor drug use in Fiji’s numerous late night clubs and pubs. I know from personal experience, as an expatriate living and working in Suva, that the night clubs seem to never shut. An early morning cab ride through downtown displays a confronting array of drunks and party-goers just wrapping up their evening’s entertainment, just as you are off on the early flight to Nadi.

Sakeo does not know how common illicit drug use is as very little statistics exist. What he could tell me was that more women are being caught with drugs, especially since the early 2000’s, where a small spike in arrests was observed. Prior to this time there were very few drug related arrests of women.

The numbers still remain low. Statistics provided to me by Fiji Police show that just 5 women were arrested for drug related offences in the first quarter of 2011, with 2 arrests for the same period in 2012. This is despite the same data set suggesting that 88% of Fiji’s population are engaging in drug use of one form or another.

Sound statistical information is rare when it comes to drug use in Fiji, and unfortunately so is funding for the drug unit’s community and in-school programmes. Fortunately, the same could not be said for the dedication and enthusiasm shown by the unit and its volunteers.

Jacob Quinn, from Hamilton, NZ, is a communications officer and freelance journalist living and working in Suva, Fiji.
–

*This article appeared in the June 2012 edition of the NZ Drug Foundation’s monthly magazine, Matters of Substance. Visit the foundation’s website here and become a member here to receive the magazine.

Jake and Liv on Nananu-i-Ra, Fiji

Olivia and I are soon to move back to New Zealand. Moving home will conclude what has been a two-and-a-bit-year-long “OE” that didn’t involve living in London’s Clapham Junction. Rather, it begun in Kosovo, then shifted to Australia and Fiji. It’s been an incredible journey and I am so glad we did it. There really is no greater way to learn to appreciate your country like living aboard.

I have missed New Zealand. It is the things you miss that make you realise why your country is so special. Most of what I miss doesn’t have a dollar value. Much of it is simply about family, connectedness, a sense of belonging to a place and people. I care about my home, the places I have lived; The Waikato, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty, Wellington, I feel like I – in some way – own part them. You don’t get that anywhere else.

While in Fiji I have been working in a communications role with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Regional Office for the Pacific, which is based in Fiji’s capital, Suva. It has been an interesting and eye-opening opportunity for me, exposing me to Pacific Island politics. I hope some of the lessons I’ve gained here will be useful to me in the future in NZ. The South Pacific is, after all, our backyard.

In terms of lifestyle living in Suva has been amazing and, at times, frustrating. On the weekend you are a two-hour bus and boat trip from snorkelling off a desert island or surfing (or in my case body-boarding, which some of my horrible friends say doesn’t count) warm water coral reef breaks. The work-life balance Fiji can offer is great – especially for international staff, when compared to other duty stations you could be posted.

On the frustrating side, Suva’s expatriate rents tend to be comparatively high, food options for some (such as those that require gluten-free stuff) can be somewhat limit, and getting used to the “Pacific way” of doing things can be a challenge for foreigners forced to adjust to the pace of life (and level of “efficiency”). Fresh food is cheap and good quality. Fresh tuna and snapper are affordable enough to be regular items on the dinner menu.

Fijians are warm and welcoming people. I recall mentioning to a colleague that in NZ I would occasionally feel threatened walking past a high school at the end of the school day, with hundreds of testosterone filled boys lurking about looking to impress each other. This is not something I’ve experienced in Fiji. Big groups of gigantic rugby playing boys wander past you, they move out of your way, laughing amongst themselves (more or less constantly), then they say hello, bula, yadra, moce or good day and are on their way. I will remember that about Fiji, it’s not intimidating.

So, where to from here for us? Well, for starters we are heading back to Tron where we are both from and where our parents live. I actually really like Hamilton, it’s home – sure – but I feel comfortable there. Day-to-day life isn’t a chore, the climate is favourable, incredible great outdoors stuff is at your finger tips in all directions, going to the supermarket is a 5 minute drive and there is always a park, that kind of stuff.

Hamilton has actually changed a great deal over the last 10-15 years. In terms of R&D it is now a place to be, plus there are some major developments on the cards that will bring sizeable economic and job boosts. As evidence, here is a rather inspiring recent article published in the National Business Review. It does a good job of highlighting some of this change that’s happened of late.

I’m really excited about coming home. Although, I must say, August was a rather aggressive, ambitious month to choose to transition back, weather wise.

Unwanted (I don’t mean unplanned) pregnancies are not wonderful things, children born into homes that don’t want them, or are not ready for them, don’t generally lead as full and healthy lives as those who were wanted and where the parents were ready and willing participants.

Contraceptives are particularly wonderful things in disadvantaged communities, where people are less able to cope with social and financial impacts of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.

If every young woman who wanted effective long-term contraceptives could get their hands on them, in a medically sound environment, the world be a better place. So it is with sympathetic ears that most people received Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s recent announcement of cheaper contraceptives for disadvantaged women (i.e. those on benefits).

Unfortunately, Ms Bennett knew what she was doing, and she knew what she was not doing. What she was not doing was providing cheaper contraceptives to disadvantage women. Because if that was what she was doing the pre-budget announcement would have been for more than the paltry sum of $1 million dollars over four years. (Oh, and it would have been announced by the Minster of Health).

$250,000 a year buys you a decent advertising campaign. But it doesn’t pay for a single surgical procedure to insert a long-term intrauterine or similar device. It really doesn’t go anywhere near paying for cheaper contraceptives, for anyone.

Let’s not forget that heavily subsidised contraceptives are already available from your doctor or sexual health clinic and are funded through the Health Vote. So, again, this “announcement” was not, sadly, about contraceptives.

This is thing that irritates me about this policy. It’s not about health and it’s not even about social welfare, it’s just - totally - about politics. Hell, I don’t mind that politics and policy mix, that’s to be expected.

For instance, a party tells you that you deserve more of your income and that the other party wants to take more of it from you (that’s the politics) so when in office they cut income taxes to try to stimulate spending in the real economy (that’s the policy). Politics is used to sell, or undermine, policy – we can expect that.

But when politics is used for no broader social purpose, or utility, it really is a waste of time. What is the point of a political process that doesn’t achieve anything other than (in this case cynical) point scoring? It should be the political journalist’s job to see this difference and call it out on behalf of the public.

So shame on all of those who ran headlines about the government’s ‘new plan’ to fund free contraceptives for women and their daughters who are on benefits. The government is suggesting no such thing, because they haven’t actually funded it. When they announce an extra $50 million dollars a year to go with it, then you can run the story.

What the government really funded was an advertising campaign to promote themselves, and we – collectively – just paid $1 million dollars for it. Not a bad investment from their point of view.

When President Bartlet is giving instructions to the one Cabinet member who is appointed the designated survivor during the State of the Union address, he asks the man if he has a best friend, if that friend is smarter than him, and if he could trust that friend with his life. The Cabinet member says yes on all counts, Bartlet then says “That’s your chief of staff”, not aware McGarry has heard him in the next room and broken into a smile, visibly moved.

Labour CoS Alastair Cameron

As you may have heard the NZ Leader of the Opposition’s Office Chief of Staff, former MP Stuart Nash, recently hung up his boots after just a few months in the job.

Today iPredict launched stocks on who would replace him. The candidates according to iPredict were Alastair Cameron, Marcus Ganley, Jon Johansson, Conor Roberts, James Bews-Hair, John Pagani, John Tamihere, and Gordon Jon Thompson.

Alastair Cameron shot to an early lead, indicating insider knowledge of his advantage. Alastair was a Ministerial Adviser to Hon Marian Hobbs from 2002-2005, a Fulbright scholar to Columbia University, and a previous chair of a few Wellington based Labour Electorate Committees (LEC’s), my sources tell me. He is also, I presume, Deputy Leader Grant Robertson’s choice candidate, as they are good friends. I personally haven’t met Alastair but it sounds as though he’d do a fine job.

When I first heard of Nash’s resignation my first thought was that Marcus Ganley was probably the right man for the job. I worked with Marcus briefly in Dr Cullen’s office in 2008, where he was Senior Advisor, where he basically ran the office. Ganley is probably NZ Labour’s most experienced political staffer still living in Australasia (he is currently Australian Finance Minister Penny Wong’s Senior Advisor).  Although, I can imagine trading that job in for one in NZ wouldn’t be top of his priority list (plus his GF works in Julia Gillard’s office).

Of the other candidates I did have to laugh when I saw Jon Johansson’s name. Jon is a well known NZ political commentator and academic from Victoria University (he was my honour’s thesis supervisor). I can’t imagine he would consider the job for a moment. A) He’s not a Labour activist and probably only ever voted them on occasion, if ever. B) He’s an academic, and a fine one at that – why would he trade that nice lifestyle and a job in a reputable politics department for an 80 hour a week thankless job in opposition, when it probably wouldn’t even come with a pay rise?!

Meanwhile, Conor Roberts is probably enjoying himself far too much in his role as Chief Political Advisor to the Lord Mayor of Auckland to bother with a move to windy old Wellington. Gordon Jon Thompson has been there, done that, got the t-shirt (in the Goffice) and I’m sure would prefer to stay put in his shiny new role heading up Research at UMR. And John Tamihere? Please, pull the other one.

Finally, one name not mentioned on the list that probably should be is Sarah Clark, former head of the Labour Research Unit under the Clark years. It wouldn’t be foolish to be considering a woman for the role.

Good luck to all. It’s a mightly important job and the person who gets it is odds-on to be the next Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff.

Update: The Standard reports that Alastair has been confirmed as the new Chief of Staff.

A week ago my GF and I adopted a cat from another Suva expat who was departing Fiji for considerably less fare shores. The cat’s name was Zipper. She was about two and a half and absolutely charming.

She settled in instantly, was affectionate – but not too affectionate – didn’t meow too much. She was cute, friendly, and seemed to love us instantly. I kept her locked in the house for the first 4 days to get her settled in.

I was told she ate dry biscuits and “didn’t mind raw veal, from the cost-you-less”. Fancy that.

She was desperate to get outside from the moment she moved in. She was after all an island cat, not built for inside living.

Because we were only two houses down from where she last lived, on a quiet dead-end street in our leafy suburb in Fiji’s capital, I was confident she wouldn’t stray too far, and if she did, I would know where she went.

The first few days of her heading outside went well, she came back without worry. I was confident she knew where her bread was now buttered.

Jump to Thursday night and she didn’t come home. I was worried. I went looking for her to no avail.

Friday came and went and Zipper was nowhere to be seen. I was worried sick. In just one week I’d become ridiculously attached to this little feline.

Saturday morning I cancelled weekend plans for a getaway and contacted the former owners land lord to get access to her property.

In the pouring rain I found Zipper tucked under the veranda shivering and hurt. I picked her up and her back leg was badly damaged, bone exposed and she’d been bleeding. I rushed her to a local veterinary clinic.

The good news was the Zipper could hold herself on three legs, meaning her pelvis and other rear leg hadn’t been smashed by the speeding driver who inevitably clipped her on my street. The bad news was that she would lose the leg.

There was no question that I wanted to do whatever could be done to help Zipper survive.

Later that day I got a call from the vet who said everything had gone well, that Zipper had woken up, had eaten, had stood on three legs and was looking perky, all things considered.

I was so relieved. It was the first time in three days since she hadn’t come home that I hadn’t been worried sick.

Skip to this morning and the vet’s office calls to break the news that Zipper had died in the night. There must have been something else wrong with her that they couldn’t see from the surgery, organ damage perhaps from the impact of the car.

I was numb. I called my girlfriend (who was out of Fiji with work) and I called Zipper’s two previous “owners” to break the news.

A few hours later I went to the vet and bid my farewells to her. Many tears were shed. I went home and cleaned up and put away Zippers blankets, her bowls, and her kitty litter tray. Many more tears were shed.

I’ve had many cats in my life, well my family has, and I’ve never had this kind of emotional response to the loss of an animal. Perhaps it was because mostly our other cats passed in old age.

Zipper after all, at just two and a half, was staring down the barrel of being shipped to NZ at the end of the year and enjoying another few decades getting used to the NZ climate.

Perhaps it’s because I feel so bloody responsible because I could have kept Zipper locked in for a few more days, like many people think you should when you relocate an animal.

Zipper got hit on a road she frequently hung around. I know it wasn’t my fault, but Christ, did I – and do I – feel awful. I have not cried like I did today, well not since I didn’t get my way as a 11 year old.

It really helped me though, I grieved for wee Zipper and now I feel like I’ve let her go. A really good cry can be bloody cathartic.

Zipper will be missed.

(I will admit I was starting to get worried, especially after reading this strange rambling interview earlier in the week).

But it worked. It was a strong speech that began to paint a portrait of what Shearer would look like as Prime Minister. Moderate, down-to-earth, growth-focused yet compassionate, not afraid of tacking left or right when the moment called, ideological agile you might say.

Excellent developments, from my similarly agile, generally left-leaning, centrist point of view.

There’s been much analysis of the speech already today, so I wont bother with much more. Do read Kaine Thompson’s, lengthy thoughts. Thompson, who was #campCunliffe during the leadership battle, gives it a solid pass mark. Also, as usual, I agree with most of Danyl Mclauchlan’s initial thoughts.

Kudos, it would seem, is due to David Shearer’s staff who had briefed John Armstrong good and early (Armstrong wrote some weeks back about the speech, signalling much of what arrived today). In turn, this led to the senior most journalist in the Press Gallery concluding his opinion shaping column today with this gem:

“A new leader has to start somewhere. Shearer delayed doing so until he felt that he had got things right. The wait was worth it. Today’s speech is the perfect antidote to last year’s electoral disaster. It marks a new beginning for Labour. It’s game-on from here on.”

An achievement by anyone’s measure, surely. I suppose this is what good briefing does – it takes someone with you. You let them in, tell them what they want to hear, manage their expectations correctly and then deliver on those expectations.

While doling out praise to (I assume) his staffers, I think this pearler is also worthy of acclaim. Shearer, when responding to Key’s announcement of a 10 point list of goals for government over the next (oddly) five years, said:

All Key has given the country is another list, Labour leader David Shearer said. ”After three-and-a-half years New Zealanders should expect John Key to be delivering some results, yet today he is just setting targets,” said Shearer. “Rather than another ‘to-do’ list I want to see a ‘done’ list.”

This is not the kind of pithy rebuttal we have become accustomed to hearing from this man. I like it and look forward to more of it. Keep up the good work.

]]> http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/shearer-finally-hits-his-stride/feed/ 0 Jake http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/farrar-hits-the-nail-on-the-head/ http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/farrar-hits-the-nail-on-the-head/#comments Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:06:26 +0000 Jake Quinn http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/?p=2804 ]]> David Farrar nails it in this blog. The blog relates to comments by Labour activist, candidate and political commentator (and wife of David Shearer’s political advisor, John), Josie Pagani, made on Radio New Zealand and then online, in regards to the POAL dispute.

Pagani’s moderate, non-fundamentalist view, where she accepts a certain inevitability (that some industries need to be more flexible than others) but expresses concern about how to manage that process, is quite likely shared by millions of New Zealanders.

For having that view she’s been lambasted online by activists of a party she has dedicated many hundreds of hours to campaign for. It’s not right. Her views need to be part of the mix. If Labour wants to be a party that attracts more than 35 percent of the vote it simply has to be the broad church that many, including the leadership team, know it can be.

I absolutely detest the vitriol that comes from the extremes of politics (on both the left and right). You see it on the blog comments on the major right and left-wing blogs, including Mr Farrar’s. These people are passionate about their cause but they do not realise how many voters and potential activists or members they scare off with their hatred and fundamentalism.

Some interesting points are made in the post about the lack of a cohesive vision, both here and elsewhere. It seems that Labour parties the world over understood what they used to stand for, but are now struggling to find an effective space between the centre and the left that makes sense to both voters and membership.

Jimmy goes on to attack David Shearer’s staff, saying he “is being let down by an inept communications team and by useless advisors. We really have to stop assuming that because someone is a journalist they get campaign and political communications. There is more to it than boozy lunches with Duncan Garner.” 

On the points raised about poor advice and advisers, I think that he (and some other bloggers) probably overstate this. Don’t get me wrong, crappy staff can create massive headaches, and good ones are worth their weight in gold, but leadership and vision mostly comes from the leader and their deputy, they are the ones that are ultimately responsible for how the public perceives their vision.

When Goff was in charge there were calls from left-blogs to sack some of his staff. Do you think a new press secretary would have suddenly made Goff more loved by the public? I doubt it. While it would be nice to think a savvy staffer could have that kind of impact (and I guess this is a meme encouraged on shows like West Wing and elsewhere), I think its unrealistic.

When getting stuck into staffers, it’s worth keeping in mind that the battle of ideas within a party happens within the caucus, party council and senior leadership group. Staffers role’s are much more to do with following orders and cleaning up messes rather than dictating politically-genius strategic manoeuvres to senior MPs. (It’s also worth pointing out that there has been a near complete turn over of Opposition Leader’s Office staff over the last year or so).

Shearer (and his counterparts in Aus and the UK) are receiving no shortage of advice, from all sorts of quarters, plenty of of it good, plenty of it not. They need to have the smarts to pick who to listen to. Ultimately though, the buck stops with them. Blaming staffers, while not entirely a waste of time, is probably a bit of a red herring.

What should the review be? The first thing I’d ask would be “how would National do this?”. Their review under Michelle Boag, following their devastating 2002 loss, was highly effective for them. It brought in swaths of higher-than-the-usual-calibre candidates and set them up well for 2005 and 2008.

A big part of National’s renewal process was getting in fresh candidates from outside the usual channels, and this needs to be a focus of Labour’s renewal process too. Labour should be focusing on constant MP renewal. There needs to be a shift from the idea that (unless you are truly incredible) being an MP is a job for life. It shouldn’t be for the vast bulk of people who try it. Once you’ve served (or tried to serve) your purpose you need to be gone, by lunch time.

Labour’s list selection process has been described (admittedly by me) as an exercises in incumbency protection. Sitting MPs should not be protected simply because they are MPs, merit based selections to list spots must rule. Similarly, staffers from Wellington shouldn’t be getting high spots simply because they’re well-connected. Strong smart activists and philosophically aligned community members and business people need to be the ones getting the winnable list spots.

I think it’s helpful if people are from a community when they run in it, this brings the community with the candidate. It brings their family, cousins, their school mates, local business people who know their families, their community networks, their social capital, with them.

MPs should get punished for poor performance. I don’t need to name names but there a few candidates that probably did worse than the national “swing” against their party in the 2011 election. This shouldn’t be rewarded with being able to contest the seat (or any seat) at the next election. Basically, if you do worse than the swing you shouldn’t get a chance to try that again. There is probably someone more in-tune with that community sitting on your campaign team, on the local DHB, in the mayor’s office, local chamber of commerce or wherever.

The review should obviously focus on increasing party membership. With strong and new MPs and more members donations will naturally follow. It’s near impossible to increase membership when you are not popular. But this term, leading up to 2014 when Labour should be able to form the next government, is the time to do it. People will be far more willing to listen, sign up, and donate, in the next three years than they were in the last six.

Organisationally, there are other issues that people more in-the-know than I, can talk about. These are just my views about the selection process and the need for change. It’s not the only thing that needs to be addressed, but it is a biggy. I’d also like to see the party membership, perhaps through their regional executive committees, have a meaningful role in the leadership selection.

]]> http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/thoughts-on-labours-review/feed/ 0 Jake http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/political-blogs-like-other-party-coms-require-oversight/ http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/political-blogs-like-other-party-coms-require-oversight/#comments Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:00:27 +0000 Jake Quinn http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/?p=2778 ]]> What is the point of having a media unit if they cannot filter and influence what messaging makes its way into the public from your organisation? This is a question that political parties need to ask themselves when deciding on how to manage their MP’s media releases, blog posts and media interviews.

It is common practice for media staff, most of whom are ex-journalists or at least have developed understandings of how media works and how issues will likely play out, to coordinate interviews and press releases.  So why would you leave them out of having input to (and more importantly, oversight of) a party political blog, that you’ve set up to communicate political messages and to engage with interested voters and journalists.

Today’s blog post by Labour MP Raymond Huo, and a couple of other noteworthy examples from 2011, are examples of well-meaning but ultimately counterproductive pieces of political communication, that, had they been put under the nose of a press secretary, would have stayed in the drafts column, never to see the light of day.

This is why you pay press secretaries. Even if you are an award-winning writer or a former journalist yourself, you cannot keep your political antennae on 24/7 – especially in the wake of a personal attack or when reacting to something that you feel particularly emotionally charged about.

In the heat of the moment you lose your cool and write something that turns out sounding silly. It hits the press, you are embarrassed, your colleagues are embarrassed, and then your leader has to have a quite stern word with you. Now you wish you’d run it past someone in the media unit.

I am of the view that to minimize the risk of embarrassing or counter-productive communications working their way into the public domain political parties must include their communications staffers in all external political communications, including blog posts. Press officers tend to be available (almost) 24 hours a day, they have smart phones, and the sign-off processes needn’t be overly cumbersome or bureaucratic.

Political party blogs like what Labour and the Greens have are incredible useful communications tools. Conversely, blogs which consists of newsletter links and rehashed press releases are not worth the $25 a year it costs to register the domain name.  Labour and the Greens should be commended for running real blogs, with real opinions on current issues, but they are foolish if they don’t bring these tools within their broader communications strategies and oversight mechanisms.

Related posts here, here and here.

We need to talk about inequality as it’s something we can choose to manage

Martin Robinson (5 January) mischievously tries to link the salaries of All Blacks to the debate about the social consequences of increasing inequality.

He claims redistributing AB’s salaries to all other NZ rugby players would ruin the team – sure it could, but no mainstream commentator is suggesting that, nor are they suggesting a purely equal society, which is the ‘strawman’ Robinson is arguing against.

Since the 1980’s income inequality in NZ has risen to amongst the highest of developed countries.

We need to talk about the negative effects of this on social cohesion, highlighted by Garth George (29 December), such as increasing rates of imprisonment, mental illness, drug abuse, and teenage births, and what we are willing to do to maintain a healthy society.

Countries can organise themselves to manage income disparities. The ratio of CEO to blue-collar worker income is 11:1 in Japan compared to 480:1 in the USA, both are wealthy but are at opposite ends of the social cohesion scale.

If we don’t manage inequality, many of us may need, like Robinson’s brother, to live in gated communities as social ills sky rocket. Is this the type of country we want our grand-children to grow up in?

I’m about a third of the way through it. I’m also reading Infidel the autobiography of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and planning on getting stuck into Island by Aldous Huxley and Portfolios of the Poor (which examines how the poorest people in parts of South Africa, Bangladesh and India draw on extensive small-scale financial instruments to manage their finances, it’s essentially a book about the possibilities of microfinance) by Daryl Collins et al.

Oh how I love three-week holidays in the Coromandel with nothing much to do but sleep, fish, swim, walk, drink and read.

Drew Western, a professor of psychology and psychiatry, argues, amongst other things, that Republicans have an easily told story, a set of clear values that define them, and that they do not shy away from more divisive arguments. He says the latter allows them to show strength and display the courage of their convictions.

Democrats, he argues, more often wish not to offend and have thus avoided engaging in some of the more divisive and emotional arguments (such as on abortion and gun control, despite a majority of the population aligning more with their views than with Republicans). He also says Democrats have failed to create themselves easily told stories about what defines them and their values. I imagine that later in the book he goes on to try to rectify this. (Note: he excludes the ‘great communicator’ President Clinton, who he thinks fully understood the nature of the political brain, from his critique of US Democrats.)

The central thesis is that Republicans and their consultants understand that elections are won because of people’s emotional responses to parties, candidates and their stories, rather than the issues they campaign on. He says issues should be quite some way down the priority list in terms of campaign strategy. He goes to some length to try and prove his points using clinical examples. Reading this stuff raises two main points for me:

1) It would be easy for left-wing strategists to over-react to Western’s lessons, to have an “ahuh!” moment and throw out years of sensible politics and adopt some really stupid touchy feely crap, perhaps centered around social media and twenty something’s feelings and thus be reduced to blubbering idiots.

2) The Labour Party in 2011 campaigned pretty well, it tried the values stuff and it didn’t shy from traditionally sticky debates (retirement age and CGT). But, it campaigned heavily on issues, on policies. Many of its policies were 2-1 more popular than National’s. Polls showed people prefered a CGT as a means of debt reduction to asset sales by 2-1. Had you polled, you would have probably found 2-1 in support of introducing a top income tax rate on people earning over $120,000.

I feel like Labour had its policies fairly down pat. But on election day, those Kiwis that did vote voted for National by almost 2 votes to 1, compared to Labour. National didn’t need policies to win the election. It won for a range of reasons such as voters’ emotional responses to Key’s perceived strength as a Prime Minister compared to Goff, their emotional response to the government’s handling of a series of severe crises and to a successful Rugby World Cup, and more (such as the desire for Kiwi’s to give people a go – we tend to reelect governments at least once).

Importantly, also,  National won because tens of thousands of Labour votes didn’t turn out to vote. Labour were not quite credible as an alternative government, their leadership represented the past rather than the future. Voters obviously weren’t given sufficient emotional motivation to vote for them. (Point is - obvious to me atleast - that they didn’t “not turn out” because of Labour’s policies, it was something higher level than that).

Issues didn’t dominate the 2011 campaign. Policy barely rated a mention when push came to shove. The lesson Labour should take from this is that David Shearer will be PM in 2014 if he can articulate in simple terms why Labour shares New Zealanders values and beliefs, why David Shearer is a strong leader – and better than Key or whoever National puts up – that Shearer is a good husband, neighbour and man, and that National isn’t actually the party of the Kiwi every-man, but that Labour is.

Poverty eradication, especially during times of limited economic growth, is – surely – most effectively addressed through redistributing existing wealth.

National’s answer to poverty is to remove welfare. There are very few jobs for people on welfare to take these days, so removing welfare is highly unlikely to remove people from poverty, it is, rather, likely to do the exact opposite.

Make the poor poorer, which will have them turn to crime. So not brill’ for the rest of us either.

This whole debate boils down to whether we, as New Zealanders, actually have “enough” already. Enough money, enough time, enough stuff. I’d suggest that on the material side of the argument we do, overall.

I’d guess that with the second lowest taxes (after Mexico) in the OECD and very few other redistributive measures (such as wealth taxes like those on inheritance, land or capital gains) we probably just aren’t sharing it very effectively.

As a nation with enough stuff, we actually choose poverty don’t we? In fact, we have chosen it.

By wanting and accepting lower taxes and cuts in government programs and welfare.

We know there is enough food in the world to feed everyone – we just don’t use it effectively, that’s almost conventional wisdom these days.

It’s the same with poverty, we’ve got enough money in this particular country, it’s just not very fairly distributed – and it’s getting worse.

We don’t have to live this way, but pretending it’s not in our power to solve it is ridiculous.

Birds were chirping, puppies – that didn’t appear to have homes – hovered nearby with their tails only half wagging between their legs in a completely rational display of happiness and fear (ex-pats tend to pat dogs, locals not so much).

A family of mongooses ran across the street in front of us.

My girlfriend is not particularly interesting in NZ politics – she’s seemingly got bigger fish to fry.

As I tend to do from time to time, I tried to keep her abreast of developments at home.

“So, don’t ‘spose you’ve heard that David Shearer is the new Labour Party leader?”

She walked on quietly as if I hadn’t spoken.

“Honey, did you hear me?”

“Oh, yes, I was thinking of something else,” she replied absently.

“No, you weren’t listening.”

“I was f**king listing, actually.”

I flinch briefly.

“Right, good, OK. So?”

“I think it’s good.”

“Why’s that?”

“The other guy,” she says, “he’s all experienced and stuff right, that’s what you were saying the other night, I was half listening.”

“Yeh, that’s David Cunliffe,” I respond. “He wasn’t selected. I kind of backed him from the beginning but both candidates had their risks and their advantages. I wasn’t really fussed to be fair.”

Her: “Well, the thing is, I don’t actually know anything about this David Cunliffe.”

…”Other than, maybe, that he’s like a politician, or whatever.”

…”But David Shearer, I actually know something about him that I like. Wasn’t he some big UN guy in Africa or something?”

“That’s right,” I confirm. “Think he headed up UN humanitarian response in Iraq and Jerusalem, and he worked with Save the Children too, in Somalia.”

“Yeh, he’s had an interesting career, got out there in the world and done important stuff, and I, without following politics, actually remember that already. I think that matters,” she says.

Me: “I’d say you’re probably right.”

Her: “He’s just totally new, he’s not really the politician type, and that’s what Labour needs, I reckon, especially to beat John Key.”

]]> http://lifeandpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/sometimes-you-just-need-to-ask-your-girlfriend/feed/ 2 Jake