Water meter protests

Banjo String · 16-10-2014 11:25am

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

That's it but people that have their own private wells had to pay for other peoples water also. It's fairer this way you pay for what you use.

So people should only pay tax in lieu of facilities they're receiving?

What about people who don't have kids contributing to child benefit?

Folk who don't own cars, contributing to the roads?

I pay laya health insurance, but I don't avail of it (or the he which I contribute to) because thankfully, I'm never sick.

I could go on.

Sam Kade · 16-10-2014 11:31am

FREETV wrote: »

So like complete moronic fools people will keep voting for the main parties here like the Americans keep doing?

It is no wonder this Country is the way it is.

You still don't get it if SF get in they will bring the country to it's knees in a very short time.

Dickie10 · 16-10-2014 11:38am

well people i think the reason that we will never, ever have a revolution of the sort you see in eastern eeurope or the middle east in ireland is because there are not enough working class people in the same areas. there are too many different classes and competeing views.

In eastern europe and the like communism brought every one down to the same sh88t level, so people had nothing too lose.
think about it? Dublin is not a big city on international or even european levels. now its not even an industrial heartland city, more so agri produce and some hi tech stuff now, up until recently enough there were vegetable and hay markets in the city and meat factories and the Guinness plant were big blue collar employers. Thats only half the poopulation in south dublin and rich parts of the north side like howth/sutton/castleknock, those peole will never march alongside people from finglas, inchicore etc. straight away you are down to about the number that marched last week.
then other cities such as cork and limerick have the same problem. then you go into rural ireland which by financial scale is probarbly mostly working class but they see nothing in common with urban working class because they own aand farm land which they make very little off but would be scared to march or be seen marching with urban working classes , there are so many different social classes that a big mass revolution will never happen and we will always vote in either FF or FG as the big party that my friends is a FACT.

I, myself am a rural agri sector worker and personally id be absolullty sh88ting it if a party of the extreme left or perhaps right got in power, i will always vote either FG or FF just to be safe

sh1tstirrer · 16-10-2014 11:39am

Banjo String wrote: »

So people should only pay tax in lieu of facilities they're receiving?

What about people who don't have kids contributing to child benefit?

Folk who don't own cars, contributing to the roads?

I pay laya health insurance, but I don't avail of it (or the he which I contribute to) because thankfully, I'm never sick.

I could go on.

Nobody should have to pay tax for utilities, it's a service same as esb. If you own a car you are contributing fuel tax, motor tax, vrt etc. I pay car insurance never used it but it's handy to have.

RandomName2 · 16-10-2014 11:45am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If they are doing such a terrible job, why has there not been a vote of no confidence in the government? If Shinners and co are so sure the gov is ****ed why not get them out and get a GE going?

I was talking about a general principle.

The problem is that there isn't any written contract between a TD and those who elected him. A TD can say whatever he likes prior to an election, and do whatever he likes after an election (provided it's approved of by the whip :mad:) and the only recourse the public has is to not vote for them a few years' down the line in the next GE. If that person doesn't intend running for office again, there's no recourse at all!

And because of the whip system you can't even blame TDs when they do stuff they said they would never do - because if they go against the party they are out of a job. He hear this crap about it being necessary for the government to enact legislation - but what it really does is give the largest coalition a blank check; and makes the Dail pretty much pointless. Who even turns up there on a day to day basis?

How long were Reilly and Shatter kept in jobs that they were doing serious harm in - just for the sake of party cohesion? Why was noone in Fianna Fail personally accountable for the except for Bertie Ahern? Why do eejits get elected purely because of the party ticket they are on?

Parties like Sinn Fein can say whatever they like - knowing full well that they don't have to enact a single thing that they say; even if they by some fluke get into government. They might even have get-outs like blaming the past government, or their majority partners in the coalition. Did Sinn Fein say that they would issue a motion of no-confidence in this sort of scenario? Who cares? They don't have to if they can't be arsed, and even if they did, such a mtoion would be lost. And even it it were won it wouldn't make things one iota better.

Parties also can often ensure their members (both hapless and useful) get reelected by throwing out goodies in the budget before the GE; making for a terrible system where the government never has to properly examine its own conduct in the day-to-day running of the country.

The entire system stinks at the moment.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 11:48am

RandomName2 wrote: »

I was talking about a general principle.

The problem is that there isn't any written contract between a TD and those who elected him. A TD can say whatever he likes prior to an election, and do whatever he likes after an election (provided it's approved of by the whip :mad:) and the only recourse the public has is to not vote for them a few years' down the line in the next GE. If that person doesn't intend running for office again, there's no recourse at all!

And because of the whip system you can't even blame TDs when they do stuff they said they would never do - because if they go against the party they are out of a job. He hear this crap about it being necessary for the government to enact legislation - but what it really does is give the largest coalition a blank check; and makes the Dail pretty much pointless. Who even turns up there on a day to day basis?

How long were Reilly and Shatter kept in jobs that they were doing serious harm in - just for the sake of party cohesion? Why was noone in Fianna Fail personally accountable for the except for Bertie Ahern? Why do eejits get elected purely because of the party ticket they are on?

Parties like Sinn Fein can say whatever they like - knowing full well that they don't have to enact a single thing that they say; even if they by some fluke get into government. They might even have get-outs like blaming the past government, or their majority partners in the coalition. Did Sinn Fein say that they would issue a motion of no-confidence in this sort of scenario? Who cares? They don't have to if they can't be arsed, and even if they did, such a mtoion would be lost. And even it it were won it wouldn't make things one iota better.

Parties also can often ensure their members (both hapless and useful) get reelected by throwing out goodies in the budget before the GE; making for a terrible system where the government never has to properly examine its own conduct in the day-to-day running of the country.

The entire system stinks at the moment.

I agree, So next time there is an election on what can you do to change it?

893bet · 16-10-2014 11:49am

I actually think FG ate doing a reasonable job.

Lets behonest. No matter what they do they are going to be publically whipped.

FREETV · 16-10-2014 11:51am

Coup d'etat.

FREETV · 16-10-2014 11:52am

893bet wrote: »

I actually think FG ate doing a reasonable job.

Lets behonest. No matter what they do they are going to be publically whipped.

I would love to see Enda and his cohorts whipped publically or stoned.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 11:52am

FREETV wrote: »

Coup d'etat.

Advocating illegal activities again i see.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 11:53am

FREETV wrote: »

I would love to see Enda and his cohorts whipped publically or stoned.

And violence?

Again showing your true colours.

FREETV · 16-10-2014 11:54am

I don't need too, the Government do enough of that and the Gardai arresting peaceful protestors.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 11:56am

FREETV wrote: »

I don't need too, the Government do enough of that and the Gardai arresting peaceful protestors.

Well you do seem to want violence on the streets

FREETV wrote: »

Maybe people should keep a few fireworks for the marches on Nov1 Nationwide.

Gardai would love those!

Banjo String · 16-10-2014 11:57am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And violence?

Again showing your true colours.

Says the man who wished protestors would be pepper sprayed, baton charged, water cannoned, and thrown on their backs and handcuffed.

Bet you forgot you said that.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 12:01pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Says the man who wished protestors would be pepper sprayed, baton charged, water cannoned, and thrown on their backs and handcuffed.

Bet you forgot you said that.

Nope, That wouldn't be illegal

Barely There · 16-10-2014 12:02pm

893bet wrote: »

I actually think FG ate doing a reasonable job.

Lets behonest. No matter what they do they are going to be publically whipped.

I can pretty much call the 2016 GE already.

If anyone's curious, it will be a return to power for the FG/Lab coalition.

The Hard Left vote is fragmented around the likes of SF, PBP, AAA and various Independents, these parties are toxic in terms of transfers and even if they're able to retain some of the public anger into 2016, they're simply not going to be able to convert first preference votes into seats (the joys of a multi-seat, transferable vote system

).

FF will make some gains, but are still too tarnished by recent economic events to make anything like a return to previous seat numbers.

Which leaves the current Coalition partners.
Labour have a fight to retain their votes in working class urban areas, but they'll still be needed by FG to make up a majority.
FG will by default become the party of choice for most middle class voters - the kind of people who actually vote and know how to make a transfer count. Ironically, they'll go into the next Govt. in a stronger position than they are now.

Anyway, that's how things will pan out.

FREETV · 16-10-2014 12:06pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well you do seem to want violence on the streets

All tongue in cheek!

Banjo String · 16-10-2014 12:12pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nope, That wouldn't be illegal

But you called him out on

And violence?

Again showing your true colours.

The above would be considered violence. Do you hypocrisy much?

FREETV · 16-10-2014 12:17pm

Here is proof about tap water toxicity.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk

Another reason never to pay for mains water.

VinLieger · 16-10-2014 12:20pm

FREETV wrote: »

Here is proof about tap water toxicity.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk

Another reason never to pay for mains water.

Random link's are not proof unless you can back up the veracity of the site and information you are linking

RandomName2 · 16-10-2014 12:31pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree, So next time there is an election on what can you do to change it?

Nothing.

I can vote for a party who promises to make significant changes to it. Such a party is likely to be at political fringes and not form a government. Even if they do, such changes are difficult. Since they don't have any requirement to uphold their election promise they almost certainly won't.

I could run as an independent. This is a difficult and expensive task that is unlikely to succeed. Even if it does I won't be part of a party, so it would be unlikely for me to ever form part of a government.

Even if a potential government requires independents, if such a government believes I won't be biddable, and actually intend upholding my promise during the election they will probably chose other, more malleable individuals.

If I run for election as part of a party, and I get elected, and I try proposing such changes, or voting for such changes, I will be sacked by the party for not going along with the whip.

Alternatively I could go the apolitical route of proposing such changes with the threat of violence. While I baulk at this sort of thing from a moral point of view, from a pragmatic aspect I would need active followers for such a campaign. Such followers are more likely to be like Sinn Fein's previous rank and file - more interested in violence for violence sake instead of specific political legislation. Even if such a campaign is successful, it would in all likihood be dangerous and bloody, and cause more harm than good due to the pandora's box of removing the established status quo in exchange for chaos.

Alternatively I could pray to some sort of constitutional deity in the hope that it will change the way things are done by magic. Might be the best bet, all's said.

Barely There · 16-10-2014 12:36pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nothing.

I can vote for a party who promises to make significant changes to it. Such a party is likely to be at political fringes and not form a government. Even if they do, such changes are difficult. Since they don't have any requirement to uphold their election promise they almost certainly won't.

I could run as an independent. This is a difficult and expensive task that is unlikely to succeed. Even if it does I won't be part of a party, so it would be unlikely for me to ever form part of a government.

Even if a potential government requires independents, if such a government believes I won't be biddable, and actually intend upholding my promise during the election they will probably chose other, more malleable individuals.

If I run for election as part of a party, and I get elected, and I try proposing such changes, or voting for such changes, I will be sacked by the party for not going along with the whip.

Alternatively I could go the apolitical route of proposing such changes with the threat of violence. While I baulk at this sort of thing from a moral point of view, from a pragmatic aspect I would need active followers for such a campaign. Such followers are more likely to be like Sinn Fein's previous rank and file - more interested in violence for violence sake instead of specific political legislation. Even if such a campaign is successful, it would in all likihood be dangerous and bloody, and cause more harm than good due to the pandora's box of removing the established status quo in exchange for chaos.

Alternatively I could pray to some sort of constitutional deity in the hope that it will change the way things are done by magic. Might be the best bet, all's said.

You left out 'emigrate'.

Good luck finding a decent country to live in that doesn't charge for water though.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 12:44pm

FREETV wrote: »

All tongue in cheek!

Yet you keep.advocating violence and even said it would be great if people.bought fireworks to a protest likely to have MANY kids, women and pensioners.

Uriel. · 16-10-2014 12:48pm

FREETV wrote: »

Here is proof about tap water toxicity.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk

Another reason never to pay for mains water.

Why are you worried about paying for water, a service I am sure you don't use, seeing as it must cause cancer?

or is it ok to drink a cancer causing substance provided its free?

micosoft · 16-10-2014 12:53pm

Tony EH wrote: »

No, I'd be happy if they'd raised tax to help fix the problems with the water supply, ring-fenced it, so it would be used directly and then eased it back a few years down the line.

Your new Irish Water bill is just going to rise and rise because you're paying for a private business concern (or will be in future) and all of the subsequent costs that such an entity demands.

Irish Water is the issue, not paying for water, which we've always done.

What costs would that be? Theoretically if the Irish Government of the day decided to privatise (and of course you are being totally dishonest stating that this will happen given there are no moves to privatise the ESB grid or Bord Gais grid) what of it? Typically for a utility the return for shareholders is in the order of 2-4%. They have very low margins and tend to be long term investments as they require a lot of equity*. So usually invested in by long term investors risk averse investors, like say Pension companies. Of course, because they are private they tend to be significantly over 4% cheaper to run due to being run more efficiently in the main. I'd be quite happy part of my pension is in a low risk investment like Irish Water.

This is completely separate from the fact that Irish Water charges will increase significantly over the next decade as the subvention from the exchequer reduces over the next 10 years to zero. Although you could say it is cynical it's pretty normal to phase in charges over a period of time when transitioning from Exchequer to Direct funding model. So the rise in cost is not due to IW being inefficient or "price gouging" or any other ridiculous idea - it's because the subvention from general taxation is gone. The Government can then spend that money on paying down national debt or funding services that can't reasonably or realistically be charged at point of use or are a social transfer (Gardai, Defence, Health, Social Welfare).

* Business 101

I'm just going to stick this in based on the general level of ignorance on the topic and the confusion that a private company is privatised and a public company is owned by the state.

A Private Company is a company limited by share/s. In the case of Irish Water there is one share held I believe Bord Gais Eireann (not Bord Gais Energy, the Gas supply company which is to be sold). Typical of modern semi states. The very old ones (ESB) have a slightly different model.

A Public Company is a company that has been floated on a stock exchange i.e. on the ISEQ. The shareholders of a public company investment is called the equity.

It would require legislation and a significant amount of time to float Irish Water, not something that could be done overnight. Anyone that objects will have plenty of time to object and vote out/vote in a government who does not want to Float Irish Water. Of course, a democratically elected government has the right to make these decisions should they choose. The anti democrats out there may want differently but that's not how it works in a democracy.

Sinn Fein have proposed getting equity for Irish Water. Based on the above it means the ONLY party proposing partial privatisation of Irish Water is Sinn Fein. They have yet to explain the level of return (profit) the equity investors would get or their voting rights... which suggests they have not thought this through, but what's new there!

Uriel. · 16-10-2014 12:56pm

micosoft wrote: »

What costs would that be? Theoretically if the Irish Government of the day decided to privatise (and of course you are being totally dishonest stating that this will happen given there are no moves to privatise the ESB grid or Bord Gais grid) what of it? Typically for a utility the return for shareholders is in the order of 2-4%. They have very low margins and tend to be long term investments as they require a lot of equity. So usually invested in by long term investors risk averse investors, like say Pension companies. Of course, because they are private they tend to be significantly over 4% cheaper to run due to being run more efficiently in the main. I'd be quite happy part of my pension is in a low risk investment like Irish Water.

This is completely separate from the fact that Irish Water charges will increase significantly over the next decade as the subvention from the exchequer reduces over the next 10 years to zero. Although you could say it is cynical it's pretty normal to phase in charges over a period of time when transitioning from Exchequer to Direct funding model. So the rise in cost is not due to IW being inefficient or "price gouging" or any other ridiculous idea - it's because the subvention from general taxation is gone. The Government can then spend that money on paying down national debt or funding services that can't reasonably or realistically be charged at point of use or are a social transfer (Gardai, Defence, Health, Social Welfare).

What the fu*k is this?

Sense?

can't be having that.

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 1:18pm

Banjo String wrote: »

But you called him out on

The above would be considered violence. Do you hypocrisy much?

There is quite a difference to Gardai removing protesters who bully/intimidate men going about their work and who cause criminal damage to private property and calling for politicians to be whipped and stoned in public or for people to bring fireworks to a mass protest that will be packed with women, kids and pensioners :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr · 16-10-2014 1:24pm

FREETV wrote: »

Here is proof about tap water toxicity.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk

Another reason never to pay for mains water.

Proof?

From your own link

This is a review of the possible link between fluoridation and cancer. Other possible health effects of water fluoridation (positive or negative) are not addressed in detail.

Does fluoride cause cancer?

Some of the controversy about the possible link stems from a study of lab animals reported by the US National Toxicology Program in 1990. The researchers found “equivocal” (uncertain) evidence of cancer-causing potential of fluoridated drinking water in male rats, based on a higher than expected number of cases of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer). There was no evidence of cancer-causing potential in female rats or in male or female mice.

What have studies found?

More than 50 population-based studies have looked at the potential link between water fluoride levels and cancer. Most of these have not found a strong link to cancer. Just about all of the studies have been retrospective (looking back in time). They have compared, for example, the rates of cancer in a community before and after water fluoridation, or compared cancer rates in communities with lower levels of fluoride in drinking water to those with higher levels (either naturally or due to fluoridation). Some factors are hard to control for in these types of studies (that is, the groups being compared may be different in ways other than just the drinking water), so the conclusions reached by any single study must be looked at with caution.

More recent research

Two more recent studies have compared the rates of osteosarcoma in areas with higher versus lower levels of fluoridation in Ireland and the United States. Neither study found an increased risk of osteosarcoma in areas of water fluoridation.

micosoft · 16-10-2014 1:28pm

FREETV wrote: »

Here is proof about tap water toxicity.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-rister.

Did you even read it? Despite some appalling obfuscation created by a very vocal group of people threatening to sue US charities unless they play ball. Let me help with some salient points from the link you provided...

More than 50 population-based studies have looked at the potential link between water fluoride levels and cancer. Most of these have not found a strong link to cancer.

The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer

So no evidence, but sure let's teach the controversy. Given some anti-science/fluoride groups are threatening to sue charities on the topic...

Interesting Article from New Zealand here where pro science and anti science collided. Says a lot about both sides.

Monife · 16-10-2014 1:46pm

Coat22 wrote: »

Won’t be futile – they’ll end up getting an “exemption” and won’t have to pay because they couldn’t be bothered their ar$e contributing to society apart from scabbing off it.

I’m big time in favour of water charges if it means less in other taxes such as income tax and VAT. I think even these muppets realise the money for their houses/holidays/pints has to come from somewhere but they genuinely believe that the “rich” (ie those earning 2-3k a month and having to pay out 50% in mortgage costs) should be made pay it for them.

It will all be irrelevant anyway as they’ll all vote in the shinners at the next election and it will all be reversed in favour of the “working class” (if ever there was irony in a term)

I would be more in favour of sorting out the black economy as a means of bringing down the tax burden – of course that would send shivers up the spine of most of these people.

Brilliant post, sums up my thoughts exactly.

Most of the videos I have seen on FB are nothing but low life thugs intimidating people trying to do an honest days work.

At least the massive protest in Dublin was more along the lines of an actual meaningful protest but it is not going to get anyone anywhere. The government will do as it likes and the only way to change it is to vote for someone else. Although I could imagine the majority of these "protesters" are not even registered to vote.

Water meter protests

Comments