Man Ban going down a treat with middle NZ…Not

What is it with Labour…instead of talking about their daft policy ideas this week they are instead fielding questions about their man ban.

How is that going for them?

Not well.

man ban

David Cunliffe may well support it but he didn’t last week.

Labour Leader David Cunliffe has thrown his support behind a gender quota for the party.

The system will ensure 45 per cent of Labour MPs are women after the next election, reaching 50 per cent by 2017.

The party’s annual conference in Christchurch also approved a constitutional change that would require the party’s candidate selection panel to consider factors including ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and geographical spread.

The aim is to ensure such groups are fairly represented, but it did not set specific quotas for those.

I don’t think these Labour party fools realise that they simply do not represent the middle ground. No wonder the phone is still off the hook for them.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Quota = Racial/Gender profiling… even if the end justifies the means, it’s still profiling…
    You’d have thought Labour would have learnt their lessons about quota’s when the quota topic turned to snapper… Ohh wait…
    Mind you – if they haven’t learnt the lessons from the 1970’s it’s hardly surprising they would struggle to learn lessons from only a few month’s ago…

  • Toryboy

    I bet the average Labour wummin activist is looking at that with pursed lips and hands on hips saying “oh this sexism is just awful; we try to change things and nothing works”
    Funny how it never occurs to them that THEY may be the problem

    • Hazards001

      There are no real men left in Labour anyway.Working class guys
      tend to be conservative not limp wristed whining bitches that are
      prepared to be shoved from pillar to post by the likes of po faced cows
      like Cosworthy.
      Silent T can play it any way he wants. All he looks like now is a cock less wonder!

    • Sooty

      Nah, not to the members of the coven

  • JeffDaRef

    David Cunliffe, voice of the people…(pffft)

    • johnbronkhorst

      He has spoken!!!
      and realised that the sounds are coming from behind him…
      half from the unions and the other half is the realisation that he is talking out of his own ass!!!
      But the rest of NZ is not!

    • blokeintakapuna

      Voice of Avondale market… And just as authentic…

    • GazzW

      Voice of the paymaster, Comrade Kelly.

  • Pete George

    The 800,000 who are suddenly going to start voting next year obviously don’t do Stuff polls either.

    This ‘turn out the non-voters’ scheme might be missing something – what about the people who have been voting Labour and decide they don’t want to vote any more, or vote for a different party?

    • johnbronkhorst

      Wouldn’t that “turn out the non voter” back fire and turn out the apathetic NATIONAL voter!!

  • Justsayn

    Hate them as we may, they have the new insurance policy right and that has the potential to be a real vote winner for them. I’d hate to end up with their stupid policies simply because they randomly stumbled onto a good one.

    Should the Nats come out and say that is a good idea and we’ll do it / support it?

    • Muffin

      its not a good idea.

      • Justsayn

        What is wrong with it?

        The market is failing at the moment. The current insurance price hike has nothing to do with risk (the risk on a big earthquake in NZ is probably less now than it was 5 years ago), it is simply companies recouping the money they have paid-out. That is not the prospective way insurance is supposed to work.

        Further, the “you tell us your homes value” tack is simply another way to shift risk onto the consumers.

        If new competitor wanted to charge insurance based on risk I’d be tempted, and I expect the main companies would follow.

        • blokeintakapuna

          Really??

          Chch earthquakes cost insurers $20bn and the NZ tax payer another $15bn… And those events were totally unexpected.

          If Labour set up a NZ insurance co like they propose, then the tax payer found fund the entire amount.

          What do you think would happen to your premiums then? Likelihood of further coverage? And effective competition if the government is prepared to undercut commercial insurers?

          • Justsayn

            The events were not totally unexpected – they were the coming about of risks that insured people had been paying premiums to cover for decades. Sure we didn’t know exactly where or when, but it was only a matter of time until some city in NZ was significantly impacted by a large earthquake (you could still say the same now).

            Now other insured people are being asked to reimburse the costs as well as insure against their own risks.

            Reinsurance would be available to the Govt just as it is to private companies (hell it might even be less expensive to get as you don’t have to worry that the private company will simply fold). The Govt insures itself already.

            I think we risk ignoring this idea simply because it comes from Labour. That is a sensible default setting, but we should be open to the concept that they might accidentally stumble onto a good idea, and live to the chance to take from them any leverage that idea might give them.

          • Simo

            Justsayn, you will get your wallet ransacked to pay for it, let the market DICTATE a range of insurance premium’s – shouldn’t use that word you might get the wrong idea!!

        • Alloytoo

          The recent price hikes had everything to do with the cost of reinsurance overseas spiking, causing above inflation increases, that will normalize overtime.

          Once again Labour is selling a solution that is worse than the problem.

          • Justsayn

            Why then are the rises more pronounced in NZ? That sounds like a line from the self interested insurance companies.

            Recently a large ensurer boasted in its annual report that its profits from NZ were up because it has taken the chance that recent events have provided to revisit premiums.

          • Alloytoo

            Because the insurance companies (and reinsurers) have to re-establish the reserves that were used in the Christchurch quake.

            You mean the insurer actually had profits from it’s NZ operation after two years of substantial losses. I’d like my shareholders to know that too.

          • IntrinsicValue

            They aren’t. Insurance premiums in Australia and the US are going up as fast as ours.

          • Sooty

            Australia gets very little earthquakes.

        • No, JS. Premiums have increased simply because the risk has been redefined based on actual experience and the re-insurers are putting boundaries around their own policies. Cunliffe has, as usual, simply indulged in soundbites for the non-thinking section of the population that tends to be at their voting core. Any insurance company will need to buy its reinsurance on the same market as all the local players. And no government, not even this aspiring bunch of financial incompetents, would dare to run without reinsurance.

          • Justsayn

            I guess you might say they now think they had the risk set too low prior to the quakes, and even if the risk in now lower than it was it is still higher than they had assessed it to be.

            That is possible (even if the simpler explanation is more likely), but why don’t we find out before dismissing the idea?

        • Toryboy

          Can you please show me the proof – a page number in the Annual Report will suffice – where the Board of Directors of an Insurance company have said “Let’s recoup our money by screwing our customers, and we will just tell the silly buggers it is all about risk, but we know differently”

          …or is it slightly more likely premium increases are due to an increased risk?

          If what Labour says is true (and I know you desperately want to believe it) you will be able to easily give us the proof.

          • Justsayn
          • IntrinsicValue

            The comments were made by a fund manager, not an insurer. As the article makes clear, the increased profits generated by Insurers in NZ are due to market share increases. More volume, same costs = more profits. Simple business.

          • Justsayn

            I hate to think that Labour might win the next election. That is why I think the Nat should consider taking this policy off them, or at least investigate it before saying no.

            I’d hate to think this might win the Labour-Green gaggle any votes, but fear it may.

          • dyannt

            I can’t find it at the moment, but in one of the media, Cunliffe was reported as saying a few days ago, that their policy wouldn’t necessarily bring down the cost of premiums. If that is the case, what is the point?

        • James

          The point of an insurer is that they are global – as then they can spread their risks further. If you are too focused on a single market then your risks are not spread.

          You therefore need to make sure that your re-insurance is adequate to cover you for catastrophic risks in that single market as you can’t cover it with profits being made in another market that hasn’t been subjected to that catastrophe.

          You are therefore going to end up paying lots of money overseas to re-insurers; and the amount that you pay for your re-insurance cover will be more than for an insurer that has a global reach.

          So profits go overseas – whether through a dividend payment or increased re-insurance payments.

          As to whether the earthquake risk is greater or less the answer is actually greater. Just because we have had a big one in Christchurch doesn’t change the likelihood of a big one in Wellington (just as tossing a head doesn’t change the likelihood of a head on your next coin toss). Indeed it is now a greater risk as one of the known unknowns (an unknown faultline – geologists know that they are out there, just not where); has now become known – and happens to run through a large city. Your risk weighting therefore changes dramatically from “a few in this sparsely populated landmass” to “one less in this sparsely populated landmass – plus this one in this city”.

        • Muffin

          I think you are wrong sorry.

          I dont see how the market is failing, in fact the only insurance company to put its hand up and say it couldnt pay was AMI (NZ only), not sure how adding another AMI to the mix is going to fix anything.

          The insurance companies are now pricing policies based on what it will cost them to do what they say they will, as opposed to using a floor area and arbitrary rate per square metre, I cant beleive they didnt do that years ago. Again I dont see how this is a problem, as they are now charging based on risk….

          I dont like insurance companies but I think we are reasonably well served.

          • Alloytoo

            People generally have no idea of the huge amount of scaling up the insurers (including and especially EQC) had to do to handle the volumes of the Christchurch event, and the costs associated with that.

        • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

          Yes I agree. Kiwi Assure is a vote winner along with Living Wage. No chance for National against these two bribes.

          • tspoon

            Perhaps they should call it KiwiWage. To differentiate against all those other, foreign, alternatives.

    • GazzW

      Yeah, NZ-owned AMI and the state owned insurance company aka EQC did such a great job for Cantabrians post-quake.

      • AMI had simply under assessed the risk and failed to spread it prudently. Hence they had a premium advantage but insufficient reserves when the sky fell in.

        • James

          And the State owned company will be better at understanding the risks, which, according to Liebore, with their in depth actuarial prowess, are overstated by the current insurers – meaning that the current insurers are making excessive profits.

          It will therefore be able to have a premium advantage due to a better understanding of these risks. So when the sky falls in it will have sufficient reserves / re-insurance cover.

          Amazing that only Liebore have discovered this gap in the market and are able to exploit it. It really must be their great business minds and experience in the insurance markets that have enabled them to work it out.

          • James, I am humbled by your intellect and oozing contrition for failing to see the situation with the perspicacity of vision that you display. I will never question Labia’s economic expertise again, I promise.

    • IntrinsicValue

      The Nat’s should come out and tell it like it is. The kiwiassure policy is stupid. The reason insurance companies survive is because they spread risk across multiple countries. A NZ based insurer would collapse at the sniff of any significant event or series of events. That’s the message the Nat’s should be telling.

      • Justsayn

        A Government run scheme could reinsure just as the current providers do.

        • Alloytoo

          It would probably cost the government scheme more to reinsure than existing insurers, based on scale and existing relationships……there goes some of the competitive advantage off the bat.

          • Justsayn

            I think you are guessing. You might be right, but why not find out before saying no to the idea?

          • IntrinsicValue

            Because I for one don’t want to live in a country in which the Government feels it has to operate commercial enterprises in an already commercially competitive market. It’s my money they will be using to fund this, and I say NO, NO, NO.

          • Justsayn

            In general I agree. But the insurance market in NZ may be far from a commercially competitive market – it is possible (I’d say very likely) that the insurance market is failing and that market failure justifies intervention. Why dismiss it without checking it out?

          • IntrinsicValue

            Because I know how the market works. The insurance market in NZ IS competitive. I know because I operate businesses across multiple countries, and can directly compare a range of insurance options across those countries. Insurers are currently recovering what have been and will be massive payouts for natural disasters such as Christchurch. There is a multiplicity of insurance providers in NZ, and ample competition.

          • OneTrack

            it worked in soviet russia. What could go wrong?

          • Alloytoo

            Honestly? You believe “greedy” multinational reinsurers are going to give KiwiAssure the sweetheart deal while Cunliffe is bashing them in the press. Business is about relationships, a cocky new entrant will pay more.

        • James

          And pay more for it due to not being able to internally spread risks.

        • IntrinsicValue

          Yes, but that means paying the same price (or more) that existing competitors. Do you seriously think a state run insurer can do a better job than the plethora of existing options? I doubt it.

          • Justsayn

            You keep saying plethora. How many is that?

            I understood that 65% of the NZ market was held by two Aussie companies, IAG and Suncorp.

          • tspoon

            A plethora is only 17.4%. Good spotting.

          • IntrinsicValue

            I’m not talking about market share, I’m talking about numbers. Google ‘insurance companies in NZ’. There is no shortage of options.

          • IntrinsicValue

            Here’s another question. Do you believe that the state should set up in competition in every market where there is a perceived lack of competition?

          • Justsayn

            No, but where there is market failure there is a case for intervention to be considered. I agree that intervention can be problematic, and needs to be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences.

            Take the 20% deposit that was recently introduced. Banks can still give more than 80% loans, but only a limited number of them. That had meant they are cherry-picking those customers they give them to, and that is fair, but it has also meant they are charging an interest premium (I heard it was 0.8%) over their base rate. That was not intended and does not reflect risk (risk is lower sa they can now cherry-pick their customers), is it simply a gouging that is an unintended outcome of the intervention.

            But the risks here are low, we can investigate but not do it, or we can do it but change our mind and sell the resultant enterprise. Why not even check it out?

    • middleagedwhiteguy

      Really? A good Idea? Maybe on planet Labour. The fact is that Insurance does best when it’s risks are spread as far as possible. When a small insurer tries to make it in a local market it usually does it by undercutting competitors, leaving it very vulnerable should a large event happen. This is exactly what happened to AMI, which was bailed out by the taxpayer. In this case the taxpayer gets a double whammy by having to set up a business which, in similar circumstances, would need to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

      • Justsayn

        “The fact is that Insurance does best when it’s risks are spread as far as possible”. In practice they are not evaluating and spreading risk – they are simply recouping pay-outs.

        As to AMI – if we have to bail them out when they get it wrong then why not simply enter the market? Once the immediate issue has passed (10 years?) we can sell it off.

        I strongly suspect that the voters are going to like this policy and the Nats only get a small window to adopt it…

        • johnbronkhorst

          NO
          Insurance is reliant on LARGE cash reserves and premiums must reflect this, otherwise they will be caught out by a single event.
          Basic commerce 101

        • James

          AMI should not have been bailed out. The people who had claims with them should have gone to the liquidators and tried to recover their funds and, next time, think twice before accepting the cheapest deal.

          As I do, and lots of people do, when we look at ratings, type of cover and claims histories of our insurers.

          • Justsayn

            Agree, but the political reality was that we could not do that even though it was right. We we have to intervene do it boots and all. We can sell the resultant company if it is no longer needed.

            I think we should check the idea out rather than dismiss it simply because silent t has voiced it – that it their approach to evaluating ideas (like the SkyCity deal).

          • OneTrack

            You cant sell “assets” (even ones like Solid Energy)

        • middleagedwhiteguy

          If they are simply recouping payouts, then does it not make sense to recoup that from the largest pool possible? A $20 billion recoup (canty insurance private payout) from a nation of 4.5 million people. You do the maths.

          • Justsayn

            But why let then “recoup” it at all when they charged for it in advance (that is why they had to money to pay it out). There seems more to this and I fear we are cutting off noses.

          • Alloytoo

            Because they would like to have a pool of money to do it again if necessary.

    • Good way to recover Bailout expenses …

    • Toryboy

      What you and many others fail to realise about Insurance companies, and the Christchurch Earthquake, is they do not have vast warehouses stuffed with banknotes.

      The premium money is collected, part is spent on overheads, part (a small part) is kept in reserve to pay claims, the vast majority is invested.

      When the Earthquake hit they suddenly got 300,000 claims (instead of 12 or 13 on a normal day) and your average insurer didn’t have those warehouses stuffed with banknotes.

      What they did have was a lot of investments which had been hard hit by the 2008 crash …and which are not easily or quickly able to be cashed in – and so it caused delays.

      Even now I think you will find that EQC may have several billion dollars, but bugger all of it will be in cash – it is not some kiddies piggybank.

      If Cunliffe creates Kiwiassure what will they do with premiums? yes! you got it! they will invest the money; what will happen in a disaster when Kiwiassure gets 100,000 claims all at once? you got it! there will be delays.

      Ignorance is a sad thing when you see it played out in blog comments.

      I am sure the average person really is so incredibly stupid they assume State or Tower or AMP has a kiddies piggybank with a half a billion $100 notes in it! hahahaha!

      This is why I firmly believe in a ruling elite – so we don’t have ‘ordinary’ people trying to do taxing activities….like ‘thinking’

      • Justsayn

        No one (bar a few greens maybe) thinks they sit on the cash. But how does a delay in realising investments alter things? How does that mix with reinsurance?

        I think you are assuming the insurers were poorly managed – that they must up premiums to overcome some cash on hand shortfall they failed to reinsure. I’m assuming they weren’t poorly managed.

        • Toryboy

          Oh yes, most definitely –

          it was not something anyone could actually SAY in the days after the quakes, but the truth is Insurance companies basically said to Mr Key “how the f*** are we supposed to sell 5 million shares of Microsoft and 4 million Apple by tomorrow without the price collapsing?” (or whatever).

          They had all these claims but no actual cash to pay more than a small percentage of them.

          Mr Key knew exactly what they were meaning – which is why the Government provided a stopgap.

          In short – it was important nobody started talking about their insurance company as being a Ponzi scheme; it was important to maintain confidence in insurance.

          Nothing Mr Cunliffe is promising will change any of that – it is a con trick to get a few votes from people who assume their direct debit to State each month goes into a piggybank.

        • blokeintakapuna

          …and lets not forget, it’s not only Chch Natural disasters the Reinsurers are dealing with… think Tsunami’s, Hurricanes, Bush Fires – it all adds to the costs/risks and hence why it needs to be spread as far and as wide as possible…
          Labour’s plan sounds ok in a sound bite – but the practical realities means their plan is ultimately flawed and doomed for yet another failure.

          • Justsayn

            I’m not sure I buy that, but even if you turn out to be right there seems enough to suggest we should investigate it further before dismissing the idea.

      • OneTrack

        But they do. Just like Uncle Scrooge.

    • Team ENZ

      been there done that! Is that the repeat of the old ” state” owned STATE Insurance? State insurance is now privately owned, but when they were state owned their services and claims were awful and difficult to make claims on..
      So Labia is now trying to reinvent the “insurance ” wheel? Looks like history is going to repeat itself via the labia remits..

  • GazzW

    Just more proof that it’s Kelly who holds the party purse-strings. At the end of the day Cunliffe is just the puppet leader and does as he is told.

    • blokeintakapuna

      And because he needs to twist himself inside out to meet all the promises for everyone, he comes across as a human marionette… A very twisted marionette that thinks because he has strings, he’s able to pull them.

      Trouble is, the funders are wanting a return on their support and investment and the only pulling that is happening is with himself…

    • Marionettes have strings attached. I prefer to think of Silent T as having someone’s hand firmly inserted into his fundamental orifice.

  • Lion_ess

    This hairy lot of has-been hags are surpassing even their own mediocrity. Unable to succeed on merit, they prefer to force themselves on the populace as appointed tokens. So much for opportunity equality, these hags have to resort to gender-bias. Shame on all of them.

    • blokeintakapuna

      Ironic that they are undoing all the hard work of the feminist movement who still campaign for equality of opportunity… And then Labour woman rinse it all away…

    • Labour the gift, the gift that gives, the gift that keeps on giving! Long may it live.

  • Kimbo

    First racial and now gender discrimination in NZ – We may as well abolish the Human Rights Commission,good stuff – Another saving to taxpayers.

    • Kimbo

      As an aside I see the HRC has 70 ! staff – Doing what ?

  • timemagazine

    Why are they not talking about their draft policy? Because their policies are rusty, dusty, outdated and do not work in the real world,so they are turning to nonsensical things nobody is interested in. Although they might thing of themselves as the cool guys.

  • Eiselmann

    Can’t imagine anyone having problems if more females were in parliament and certainly can’t recall the last time a woman failed to be an MP because she was a ‘mere’ female there’s no need for this and if anything it raises questions about female MPs in the Labour party near the bottom of their allocated list MP’s being there on merit or to fill a quota.
    Being on the other end of a quota system when I worked for the government I watched as people were promoted too quickly in order to fill the quota’s and while admittedly one or two eventually did well, many either quit , created chaos or suddenly the role required additional support, considering the lack of depth in the Talent ranks at Labour to begin with any woman who gets in thanks to the quota will have one hell of a bumpy ride…all on taxpayer expense.

    • Eiselmann

      bumpy ride on someone elses expense sounds like something a certain Mayor would be up for …but for that quota

  • Day Day

    Looks like Labour’s completely abandoned middle NZ. Who would’ve thunk?

  • austenpub

    Is the nub of the Labour loser’s argument that only women can represent women, only lesbians can represent lesbians etc? I thought we had electorates so that the chosen MP represented all those in the electorate. Have I missed something here? The idea is MPs represent others not replicate others. Planet Labour is off its axis.

  • tarkwin

    I like the bit about geographical spread. Does that mean even more fat chicks?

  • rrroberto

    I think the glorious leader needs to be held to account. After the election, whatever the result, then the Labour list rankings need to adjust so that the prescribed percentage is achieved, 45% in 2014 and 50%. He can do this by either arranging for the list order to “floating”, or if that’s not an option he can achieve, then he just makes a condition of acceptance onto the labour list, that whoever is wherever in the order, if they are initially successful in being appointed to parliament, but are of the wrong gender to complete the quota equation, they must immediately resign.

    • dumbshit

      or be prepared to rock up for a cut and tuck job

      • rrroberto

        Clayton Cosgrove has ruled that out. Might suit some of the other labia members. Bear in mind that 2015 and beyond, the reverse operation may be required. Though the actual words might be “at least 50%”, after seeing the policy in action there might be a rearguard action which limits it to 50%. . Hence if the contrived policy bought in more than 50% of woman, those extra wimmin would need to be prepared to vacate their seats

        • dumbshit

          that’ll be where strapons come into use

  • James

    I’m sure Len will be happy to help with some career advice for a few of the new MPs. If they are lucky they may just get a reference from him too.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    I think the Whale Oil bros are going in every 5 minutes and clicking to manipulate the results. Curryleaf has instructed the faithful to ignore this unscientific poll…His answer – “Check the Rogue Morgan poll. Thanks it is a nice day”

    • john Doe

      It sure is a nice day SCS…yes it is…cunnylips moving and talking shit..a nice day indeed.

  • Bart67

    Ah yes, quota’s, the very same attitude to seats in parliament that gave us Alamein Kopu!
    That worked well, didn’t it!

  • conwaycaptain

    The insurance companies have forked out approx. 300 million + on the Rena, half a billion on the Costa C.
    Now if a Maersk Triple E hits the bricks you can look at a Billion +.
    In the US they are now looking at the risks from these mega pax vessels, the lifeboats, the fire fighting the evacuation etc and are realising they are a disaster in the making. Some P&I Clubs (ship owners third party insurers) are refusing to cover pax vessels as the claims are open ended especially in the US.

  • cows4me

    I see 79 people think this idea is good, so where are the other 221 that were at the Labia conference, maybe they thought it was a stupid idea to but were to scared to say so.

    • dumbshit

      maybe they were from rent a mob and got a free feed on us

    • john Doe

      Free sausage butts and chips normally gets the troughers salvinating.

  • Karl

    I blame the Whale Army for this poll result. Some people here probably voted against the quota is a good idea. If we aren’t careful, Labour will realise it is a stupid policy a stop it.
    We should all vote to maintain the man ban permanently.

  • Tom

    What a bunch of fucking morons. They bring stupid to a whole new level.

    • john Doe

      Psst dont tell them.

  • john Doe

    Seriously. I have a lefty shaded green lesbian cousin who is going off about this policy on facebook. can you imagine my encouragement.

    • dumbshit

      hence the nom de plume

      • john Doe

        I will let that one go dumbshit

41%