Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Opposition Stage Collective Dáil Walkout as Gov Guillotines Water Services Bill 2013

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    gotBass
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭gotBass


    What I would like to know is who is in the background. Water privatisation is going to happen, the question is which pack of crooks this time is going to screw us. When things like this get rammed through there is always someone waiting to cash in on the rest of us.
    No point being annoyed just pay up like a good little Paddy. Btw I have no problem with taxes but something smells off here.


  • Options
    #33
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    No.
    Cannot agree with you on this one. Some of the opposition deputies have introduced very well thought out bills on various issues only for them to be shot down by the government. (you just never hear about them in the media due to the government spin masters controlling the flow of information)

    Water is a right, not a privilege.
    Everyone is entitled to an amount of clean, drinkable water everyday.
    The government have not even proposed what level of water consumption each day will not be charged for.

    Water is a resource that is now a commodity. The local authorities have provided water to people up to now, apart from those with their own supply. This provision has been hotch potch in quality in many cases. To ensure future quality it needs to be provided by a standard authority, hopefully that will modernise the provision of water and treatment of fresh and waste water. It simply cannot continue into the modern age as it is. The only thing left, that we will not have to pay for is air, and I won't hold my breath on that one.


  • Options
    #34
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    No.
    Cannot agree with you on this one. Some of the opposition deputies have introduced very well thought out bills on various issues only for them to be shot down by the government. (you just never hear about them in the media due to the government spin masters controlling the flow of information)

    Water is a right, not a privilege.
    Everyone is entitled to an amount of clean, drinkable water everyday.
    The government have not even proposed what level of water consumption each day will not be charged for.

    OK so let's not tax water, property or income because these are "rights".

    I never mentioned anything about opposition TDs by the way.


  • Options
    #35
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Who claimed that? Nicely dodged.

    You seemed to be, by implying that the only thing that's changing is the method of paying for water.
    If we accept your argument that we're already paying for it through other taxes, ten with the addition of water charges its fair to say we're going to be paying more for it than we used to. In that context, it's entirely reasonable to object to having to pay more based on the quality of the water provided. No?


  • Options
    #36
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    ezra_pound wrote: »
    I'm sure all posters here can speak for themselves. I'm just supporting his view which you fail to see. Ming is a clientelist local issue pothole fixing TD and represents much of what is wrong with this country.

    If ming wants his constituents drinking healthy clean water then he should support the funding of the water system and this water tax.

    Simple.

    Brings me back to the original question I asked you about coffee.

    If you pay for a coffee in a cafe/shop would you expect it to be bedrinkable and from freshly washed mug's?

    Again. Ming Flanagan was making a point that you can't ask people to pay directly for a service if the service isn't being provided.

    Water had been funded via taxes up until now. If it's going to be paid for directly without a reduction in other taxes, at least make it drinkable (even being able to brush your teeth with would be nice)

    But hey, It's Ming. Ming must be dismissed regardless of how much sense he talks at times.

    Right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Does anyone here live in an area where they cannot drink the water???
    Or wash in it. Or wash clothes, brush teeth, water the garden.
    For months on end

    Do you know how much hassle that causes??

    (and Ming will get voted in by a landslide at the next election, along with Naughten)


  • Options
    #38
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Ming playing stunt politics again.

    He'd much better serve his constituents if he put some actual facts about the quality of the water on the record rather than playing games.


  • Options
    #39
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Again. Ming Flanagan was making a point that you can't ask people to pay directly for a service if the service isn't being provided.

    You seem to know more about Ming's position on water charges than Ming does. I can't figure out if he's in favour of water charges if the quality is up to standard or if he's ideologically opposed to charges.


  • Options
    #40
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Personally I don't see the point in debating anything when the current voting system ensures that politicians are forced to vote with their party regardless.

    It is very important. The opposition often proposes amendments to address problems with the legislation that it has identified that the government may have overlooked. Sure, it might not make it into the news and the government might table the same amendments themselves once they acknowledge the problem so that they can vote it through. However nonetheless it is the opposition that identified the issue. If you guillotine a debate then the opposition is not being given that opportunity to table amendments.

    There are issues that the opposition have identified with the legislation and they cannot articulate those problems because the debate has been guillotined. I am fairly certain that the legislation will have to be amended retrospectively to address some of these issues - but not before the taxpayer has been hit with unnecessary costs.

    Rushing through legislation is a bad way to legislate, always has been and always will be. It should be cut out once and for all as the government promised.


  • Options
    #41
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    You could hardly call the work of the current Dail democratic when the government just guillotines all legislation and doesn't debate the issues properly, due to its large majority and use of the whip system


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    micosoft
    Registered Users Posts: 2,359 ✭✭✭micosoft


    Manach wrote: »
    Water- to which access has been recognised as a fundamental level of human rights- the speed that this act been taken without any overriding urgent reasons to allow debate, is an the OP pointed out, wrong.

    Food and Shelter are also universal rights. Are you suggesting that they also be supplied by the state? Industry in this country using rights to argue that you don't have to pay for something.


  • Options
    #43
    micosoft
    Registered Users Posts: 2,359 ✭✭✭micosoft


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Water had been funded via taxes up until now. If it's going to be paid for directly without a reduction in other taxes, at least make it drinkable (even being able to brush your teeth with would be nice)

    Here's the problem - it hasn't been properly funded and the infrastructure the English left us has slowly degraded through neglect over the decades. For once we are about to properly fund water services in this country. Expecting it to be all fixed before charging is not an option unless Irish Water is to become massively indebted and people pay off that debt in years to come typical Irish approach, let our children pay.


  • Options
    #44
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    You seem to know more about Ming's position on water charges than Ming does. I can't figure out if he's in favour of water charges if the quality is up to standard or if he's ideologically opposed to charges.

    Eh, no I don't seem to know more about his position, I do not know wether he supports water charges, or opposes them. My comments were based on his comments made yesterday only.

    What I took from what he said, is that its wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for the supply of water that is fit for human consumption.



    micosoft wrote: »
    Here's the problem - it hasn't been properly funded and the infrastructure the English left us has slowly degraded through neglect over the decades. For once we are about to properly fund water services in this country. Expecting it to be all fixed before charging is not an option unless Irish Water is to become massively indebted and people pay off that debt in years to come typical Irish approach, let our children pay.


    Blame the English :pac:

    Ref his goods and services act. Why would Coca Cola (for example) be sued, and their products pulled from Irish stores if ehat they were selling was poisonous, yet it is (seemingly) ok for the Irish Govt to do it:confused:


  • Options
    #45
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Eh, no I don't seem to know more about his position, I do not know wether he supports water charges, or opposes them. My comments were based on his comments made yesterday only.

    What I took from what he said, is that its wrong to expect people to be forced to pay for the supply of water that is fit for human consumption.

    That's my problem with this kind of stunt politics: its not at all clear if he would support charging for water that is fit for human consumption.
    Nor is it clear how he thinks getting the water fit for human consumption should be funded.

    Ming is just playing games here; a cheap stunt designed to get some publicity for Ming himself but without any real substance.


  • Options
    #46
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    That's my problem with this kind of stunt politics: its not at all clear if he would support charging for water that is fit for human consumption.
    Nor is it clear how he thinks getting the water fit for human consumption should be funded.

    Ming is just playing games here; a cheap stunt designed to get some publicity for Ming himself but without any real substance.

    Maybe you'd like to be a bit clearer with your position on it so.

    Do you you think the people he's representing should have to pay for 'glorified piss', and secondly would you pay for it if it was being piped into your house, and your children couldn't even brush their teeth with it?


  • Options
    #47
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Maybe you'd like to be a bit clearer with your position on it so.

    Do you you think the people he's representing should have to pay for 'glorified piss', and secondly would you pay for it if it was being piped into your house, and your children couldn't even brush their teeth with it?

    I wouldn't want contaminated water -full stop.
    I can't tell if Ming thinks its ok to have a contaminated water supply as long as its free. I think everyone should have a clean water supply.


  • Options
    #48
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,679 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    micosoft wrote: »
    Food and Shelter are also universal rights. Are you suggesting that they also be supplied by the state? Industry in this country using rights to argue that you don't have to pay for something.
    Rights by their nature have been used as a rheorertic trump card to mean that has to be secured against all other interests - according to the texts I've read on the subject. So to delimit what are rights - these can be pared down to those backed by international agreements/bodies, that this state was agreed to. In water's case, this (AFAIR) comes from a UN rights body. Hence their is a general presumption that this is something that a state owes to the general citizernery through the general imposition of taxes payable to said state. Again from a text on taxes, "are a basic framework for a society".
    This also has to be place in the historical context of a massive increase of state power and share of the economic activity of the state, where what had been core expenditures have been used to fund these new activities.


  • Options
    #49
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    I wouldn't want contaminated water -full stop.
    I can't tell if Ming thinks its ok to have a contaminated water supply as long as its free. I think everyone should have a clean water supply.

    But it's not free as is. It's paid for via tax/vat already.

    His point being it's fundamentally wrong to expect them to pay directly for it, if it's unfit for human consumption.


  • Options
    #50
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    His point being it's fundamentally wrong to expect them to pay directly for it, if it's unfit for human consumption.

    If that is his point I didn't get it from his stunt.

    Does he think its fundamentally right to expect them to pay for it directly if it is fit for human consumption?
    Or does he think that there is no fundamental right to clean water as long as its free at the point of usage?


  • Options
    #51
    creedp
    Registered Users Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭creedp


    Phoebas wrote: »
    If that is his point I didn't get it from his stunt.

    Does he think its fundamentally right to expect them to pay for it directly if it is fit for human consumption?
    Or does he think that there is no fundamental right to clean water as long as its free at the point of usage?


    We can play semantics all we want but the reality which everyone accepts now is that water charges are coming - and the Govt can blame the Troika for this - coveniently letting them off the hook. From my perspective water is already being paid for through taxes so there is no such thing as free water in Ireland. Charges are being implemented to raise revenue to fund an almighty quango in Irish Water and ultimately generate profit for some private individual/company.

    What I can't understand is why there isn't more scrunity around how much money needs to be generated in charges to fund Irish Water and the installation of water meters to premises all over the country as well as investing in water infrastructure to actually provide for a more efficient and higher quality water supply. Will it actually be the case that the Govt will have to continue invest in the infrastructure as Irish Water will have no money for such works after they pay themselves and pay for meters. So status quo really except private investors such as D O'Brien and Co will have made a tasty profit out of installing meters and can look forward to even more profit down the road on privitisation of the service.

    However, will investor ensure that the Govt has funded the upgrade of the infrastructure before it is privitised? Why would a private investor want to dump serious money into such works when, unless water charges will be very significant, the payback would be too long term. If there's one thing O'Brien and Co want more than anything else is a quick buck.

    Its my view that Ming has a point in that before the income from direct charges in additon to current tax funding are squandered on Irish Water and meters, the infrastructure should have been brought up to an acceptable standard such that at least people are paying for a clean water supply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    creedp wrote: »
    We can play semantics all we want but the reality which everyone accepts now is that water charges are coming - and the Govt can blame the Troika for this - coveniently letting them off the hook. From my perspective water is already being paid for through taxes so there is no such thing as free water in Ireland. Charges are being implemented to raise revenue to fund an almighty quango in Irish Water and ultimately generate profit for some private individual/company.

    What I can't understand is why there isn't more scrunity around how much money needs to be generated in charges to fund Irish Water and the installation of water meters to premises all over the country as well as investing in water infrastructure to actually provide for a more efficient and higher quality water supply. Will it actually be the case that the Govt will have to continue invest in the infrastructure as Irish Water will have no money for such works after they pay themselves and pay for meters. So status quo really except private investors such as D O'Brien and Co will have made a tasty profit out of installing meters and can look forward to even more profit down the road on privitisation of the service.

    However, will investor ensure that the Govt has funded the upgrade of the infrastructure before it is privitised? Why would a private investor want to dump serious money into such works when, unless water charges will be very significant, the payback would be too long term. If there's one thing O'Brien and Co want more than anything else is a quick buck.

    Its my view that Ming has a point in that before the income from direct charges in additon to current tax funding are squandered on Irish Water and meters, the infrastructure should have been brought up to an acceptable standard such that at least people are paying for a clean water supply.

    Did Ming make that point? :confused: I didn't hear him making that point.
    Did he happen to mention where the funding for the infrastructure improvements was going to come from.


  • Options
    #53
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Did Ming make that point? :confused: I didn't hear him making that point.
    Did he happen to mention where the funding for the infrastructure improvements was going to come from.

    I think he has made that point in the past

    Like most, he does not believe in the privatisation of a resource such as water.

    I for one, have no problem with water meters, once I get a certain allowance free every day (as should be my basic right)
    and then I pay for the excess.
    I do not want a private company to be charging me however.


  • Options
    #54
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    I think he has made that point in the past

    Like most, he does not believe in the privatisation of a resource such as water.

    A reasonable enough position to take I suppose. I just don't get what point his stunt was trying to make in the context of the Water Services Bill. Just muddying the water (pardon the pun).


  • Options
    #55
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Phoebas wrote: »
    A reasonable enough position to take I suppose. I just don't get what point his stunt was trying to make in the context of the Water Services Bill. Just muddying the water (pardon the pun).

    how can you expect people to start paying for water, when it is piss

    simple


  • Options
    #56
    For Reals
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    The government cannot and should not treat the people as customers. They are not a private concern and we cannot shop elsewhere.

    The whole idea that we need outside or extra special investment to secure the upkeep of anything is nonsense. It's a lure to fool taxpayers using a prophesy of doom. "I've no idea where we'll get the money, but if we don't do something we're all ****ed! Suddenly! Any minute!".
    We were fed the same line about Telecom Éireann. We needed sell it to ensure the upgrading of the infrastructure. That worked out great for us 'consumers' didn't it? Our lower level government lackeys asking the foreign monopoly we helped set up to play nice. 'Asking' mind.
    Here's a prophesy of doom for you, there are parts of the U.S.A. where it is illegal to gather/collect your own water by rain barrel or any other means......Why? The companies with the contracts to supply water successfully lobbied that people collecting their own water was losing them money and them after signing a deal for exclusive supplier rights ;) True story. The term is Rain Water Harvesting.

    If we need a new tax specifically for the upgrading/upkeep of the water supply how the **** has that see-through liquidy stuff been getting into my house all these years?
    Any road, I thought the idea of tax was to cover infrastructure, amongst other things?


  • Options
    #57
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    how can you expect people to start paying for water, when it is piss

    simple

    True that (that the point is simple).
    On the other hand, how can the water be clean without people paying for it to be cleaned?


  • Options
    #58
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Phoebas wrote: »
    True that (that the point is simple).
    On the other hand, how can the water be clean without people paying for it to be cleaned?

    Why should people pay for it to be Dirty though?

    Fix the problem before putting the hand out.


  • Options
    #59
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    Many areas in rural Ireland have their own water schemes, costs paid for by the local residents.
    Yes. Those local residents are also paying for the water consumed by people who don't pay directly for their water, which is unfair.
    Banjo String wrote: »
    Brings me back to the original question I asked you about coffee.

    If you pay for a coffee in a cafe/shop would you expect it to be bedrinkable and from freshly washed mug's?

    Again. Ming Flanagan was making a point that you can't ask people to pay directly for a service if the service isn't being provided.
    Let's follow that point to its logical conclusion: you can't expect your coffee to be drinkable and served in a clean mug if it's thrown in at no extra charge with a meal that you're paying for.

    That's self-evidently nonsense: if you're served coffee, it should be drinkable, whether you paid for it directly or not. If there's drinking water being piped to your house, it should be drinkable whether it's paid for through general taxation or via a monthly bill.

    Ming's point was that his constituents shouldn't be billed for undrinkable water. The logical corollary to his point is that it's OK for the water to be unfit for consumption as long as it continues to be paid for through taxation. That may not have been the point he was trying to make, but it's the point he ended up making, which goes to show he's not as smart as he likes to think he is.
    Water had been funded via taxes up until now. If it's going to be paid for directly without a reduction in other taxes, at least make it drinkable (even being able to brush your teeth with would be nice)
    You don't think it should be made drinkable no matter how it's paid for?


  • Options
    #60
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Banjo String wrote: »
    Why should people pay for it to be Dirty though?

    Fix the problem before putting the hand out.

    Who's going to pay for the problem to be fixed? Taxpayers presumably.

    So I don't quite get the logic that its ok to charge directly for clean water and ok to charge indirectly to clean the water, but not ok to charge directly to clean the water.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    You seemed to be, by implying that the only thing that's changing is the method of paying for water.
    Maybe you should discuss what I said, instead of going off on the tangent of what you believe I seem to be implying.
    If we accept your argument that we're already paying for it through other taxes, ten with the addition of water charges its fair to say we're going to be paying more for it than we used to.
    There's an enormous hole in your logic. You're assuming that when we're paying for water via direct billing, that the government will continue to fund the provision of water services even though it's being paid for directly by the consumer.

    Now, I don't think you believe that that's the case. I think you know that the funds from taxation that hitherto have paid for the provision of water will instead be available to pay for the other things the government has to fund.

    So, which is it? Do you genuinely believe that the government will continue to pay for water that's being paid for directly, or are you dishonestly using the "double payment" rhetoric to make a cheap point that should be beneath you?


    ETA: What do you mean, my "argument that we're already paying for it through other taxes"? How is that an argument, as opposed to a statement of fact? How do you think it's being paid for at the moment?


Advertisement