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

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 3:29pm

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?

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.

nice_guy80 · 20-12-2013 4:15pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Did Ming make that point? 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.

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 4:23pm

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).

nice_guy80 · 20-12-2013 5:05pm

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

For Reals · 20-12-2013 5:24pm

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?

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 6:02pm

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?

Banjo String · 20-12-2013 7:32pm

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.

oscarBravo · 20-12-2013 7:34pm

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?

Phoebas · 20-12-2013 7:38pm

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.

oscarBravo · 20-12-2013 7:40pm

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?

hatrickpatrick · 20-12-2013 11:18pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

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.

Oh I agree completely, I'm merely pointing out that since this government lamps universally refuses to engage with any opposition amendments or allows its members to vote independently of the cabinet, you could remove the Dail and allow the cabinet to unilaterally pass laws and it probably wouldn't make any difference to what actually ends up on the statute books.

Change the standing orders so that politicians aren't penalised for not holding a party whip and debate in the Dail would become more meaningful entirely.

hatrickpatrick · 20-12-2013 11:21pm

Phoebas wrote: »

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.

Because once they start charging for it, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the money will be spent on improving it rather than on payouts to Irish water directors, banks, whatever.

If they made water charges conditional on fixing the system first, they would have no choice but to spend the money on that.

hatrickpatrick · 20-12-2013 11:45pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you should discuss what I said, instead of going off on the tangent of what you believe I seem to be implying. 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.

Okay, so if there is no accompanying tax cut, then at the very least this can be described as a tax increase. No?

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.

Exactly. So it's effectively a tax increase. Calling it a purely water charge is therefore dishonest - it's a way of increasing taxes without having to openly call it a tax increase.

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?

Absolutely not. I am merely pointing out that if something is getting more expensive, it's far from unreasonable to demand that the quality of the service improve.

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?

Your argument was that Ming's point was irrelevant because we were already paying for water anyway, I'm pointing out that if we're paying more for it than we used to, the quality of the service better be up to scratch. Unreasonable...?

nice_guy80 · 21-12-2013 1:23am

the reason for the deterioration in the quality of water in places like Roscommon is the huge cutbacks in personnel and funding for new facilities and services at local council level over the past few years, while middle and top management retained their jobs

the deterioration in water is then being used as an excuse to introduce a private water company and metering.

Good loser · 21-12-2013 1:43am

Many people have their own water supply i.e. drill their wells, pay for the installation and maintain same. If the supply gets contanimated they often bore a new well a distance away. If there is an ESB or frost or drought problem they may have to do without supply for a while.

Through general taxation these people also pay for all those currently getting free State water. That is unfair on those people.

As for Ming his 'sample' probably comes from one source. Has he any problem then with those in Roscommon getting okay water from paying? Plus when it comes to paying that particular supply might be fixed - he probably hopes not. The logic of his position is that as long as Roscommon water was okay the charges are okay.

raymon · 21-12-2013 1:46am

Don't be fooled by Fianna Fails amnesia and this FF thread.

The water charges were their idea.

Here is an extract from the Fianna Fail memo of understanding 2010

Water services reform

36.

The Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) will carry out consultations to determine the framework for household water charges with a view to start charging by the end of the EU-
programme period.

oscarBravo · 21-12-2013 5:24pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Okay, so if there is no accompanying tax cut, then at the very least this can be described as a tax increase. No?

You can call it a tax increase if that floats your boat. Probably the least emotionally-charged way to describe it is a lessening of the enormous chasm between public revenue and expenditure.

Absolutely not. I am merely pointing out that if something is getting more expensive, it's far from unreasonable to demand that the quality of the service improve.

And I've pointed out that that argument only makes sense if you're content with undrinkable water as long as you're not being billed for it. In other words, it's not unreasonable to demand that the quality of the service meet a minimum standard anyway, and the question of how it's paid for shouldn't have any bearing on that.

Your argument was that Ming's point was irrelevant...

My argument was that Ming's point was incoherent.

VinLieger · 22-12-2013 1:42am

raymon wrote: »

Don't be fooled by Fianna Fails amnesia and this FF thread.

The water charges were their idea.

Here is an extract from the Fianna Fail memo of understanding 2010

Thats correct but they unfortunately have a leg to stand on here in that Fine Gael are the ones forcing people to pay for undrinkable water

raymon · 22-12-2013 3:46am

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats correct but they unfortunately have a leg to stand on here in that Fine Gael are the ones forcing people to pay for undrinkable water

You are saying that the FF manipulation and amnesia is correct here ?

I'm not sure I understand.

The FF water charges are a FF idea.

I don't want to defend FG , but ........

Son Of A Vidic · 22-12-2013 6:15am

My name is URL wrote: »

...He's a hypocrite a lot of the time, as are the majority of others in the Dail, but he's spot on with what he said today.. nobody else seemed bothered enough to raise the issue.

And it really is a fundamental issue. Why should anyone be forced to pay for a resource that isn't really a resource? I've lost count of the amount of times I've visited friends and been nearly rugby tackled when I went to have a glass of water. In 21st century Ireland, it would appear that water being 'not fit for human consumption', seems to be quite an acceptable standard to levy a new tax on.

micosoft · 22-12-2013 8:51am

Banjo String wrote: »

Why should people pay for it to be Dirty though?

Fix the problem before putting the hand out.

With what money?

micosoft · 22-12-2013 8:59am

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And it really is a fundamental issue. Why should anyone be forced to pay for a resource that isn't really a resource? I've lost count of the amount of times I've visited friends and been nearly rugby tackled when I went to have a glass of water. In 21st century Ireland, it would appear that water being 'not fit for human consumption', seems to be quite an acceptable standard to levy a new tax on.

This is utterly untrue. The quality of water in Ireland is outstanding. A tiny number of highly localised issues are conflated into "everything is **** in this country always". I have a real problem with people like yourself grotesquely exaggerating your points to support your case. As someone who has travelled a lot in this world and have seen the real problems people in many countries have in getting clean potable water I think its appalling to see people make up stuff to score points. I've seen one or two cases where people complained about water for cosmetic reasons. Other then that the handful of boil notices I received in my lifetime is testament to the quality of our water. Leaving aside the debate about paying for water Irish People should be grateful at the ease by which they get potable water to their tap - very few countries in the World have this facility.

micosoft · 22-12-2013 9:02am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Okay, so if there is no accompanying tax cut, then at the very least this can be described as a tax increase. No?

Correct. Given we have a 13 Billion annual deficit you can argue that we are on a tax holiday and only now beginning to pay for the services we receive. It's nonsense to argue we are being double taxed or whatever (a meaningless term) given we do not pay the amount of tax needed to sustain state services by a massive margin.

Phoebas · 22-12-2013 10:08am

In Ming's constituency around half of all treated water is lost through leaks. You'd think he want a sustainable solution to that (and to the problem of contaminated water).
Unfortunately, he seems more interested in stunt politics designed only to raise Ming's profile. I wonder did he even read the bill that he was deflecting from.

Sierra Oscar · 22-12-2013 12:02pm

raymon wrote: »

You are saying that the FF manipulation and amnesia is correct here ?

I'm not sure I understand.

The FF water charges are a FF idea.

I don't want to defend FG , but ........

Your missing the point Raymon. Whether you agree with water charges or not, this is still a terrible way to legislate.

There are mistakes in the legislation which will not be addressed because it is being forced through the Oireachtas.

Mr.Micro · 22-12-2013 1:46pm

Phoebas wrote: »

In Ming's constituency around half of all treated water is lost through leaks. You'd think he want a sustainable solution to that (and to the problem of contaminated water).
Unfortunately, he seems more interested in stunt politics designed only to raise Ming's profile. I wonder did he even read the bill that he was deflecting from.

We need a standardisation of water provision in Ireland, whether we like it or not. At the moment there is little control to protect the supply, guarantee provision and treatment of waste water. In the UK water charges are the norm. Ming and the opposition are right to oppose the bill, but not just to gain kudos, or retain an antiquated inefficient water system.

raymon · 22-12-2013 8:56pm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Your missing the point Raymon. Whether you agree with water charges or not, this is still a terrible way to legislate.

There are mistakes in the legislation which will not be addressed because it is being forced through the Oireachtas.

Again your Fianna Fail amnesia is staggering.

The guillotine of bills was one of the characteristics of the last Fianna Fail govt., amongst other anti democratic measures.

You and your fellow Fianna Failers should conserve your faux outrage .

AlekSmart · 24-12-2013 1:45pm

micosoft wrote: »

Correct. Given we have a 13 Billion annual deficit you can argue that we are on a tax holiday and only now beginning to pay for the services we receive. It's nonsense to argue we are being double taxed or whatever (a meaningless term) given we do not pay the amount of tax needed to sustain state services by a massive margin.

Because,it appears,large numbers of us require that Tax Contribution to buy a "little place of our own",which then allows us to give out stink about how expensive it is to own,and run,one's own home....:rolleyes:

creedp · 24-12-2013 1:59pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Because,it appears,large numbers of us require that Tax Contribution to buy a "little place of our own",which then allows us to give out stink about how expensive it is to own,and run,one's own home....:rolleyes:

I know because its so bloody heavenly to rent in this country .. never understand the condascending attitude people have to those who decide to buy a house .. what's the problem? Nobody forcing others to rent .. if that's what they want then get over it!!

I've resisted the temptation to insert an emoticon .. pity other wouldn't do the same more often

Fr. Ned · 28-12-2013 2:39pm

A quick question. May be slightly off topic.
Water charges are being brought in to pay for water services, i.e. drinking water etc, but also to pay for the treatment of foul water, toilets, baths etc.
Is this correct?

Phoebas · 28-12-2013 3:05pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

A quick question. May be slightly off topic.
Water charges are being brought in to pay for water services, i.e. drinking water etc, but also to pay for the treatment of foul water, toilets, baths etc.
Is this correct?

It is.
https://www.water.ie/about-us/about-irish-water/

Fr. Ned · 28-12-2013 3:15pm

Phoebas wrote: »

It is.
https://www.water.ie/about-us/about-irish-water/

Thanks for that.
The question I have now might be harder to answer though.
I have my own water treatment system as I live out from the nearest town.
Considering at least half of the proposed water charge will be used to fund the disposal of waste water and I pay to dispose of my own, will I be entitled to a 50% reduction in water rates?
As it is, I pay a yearly charge to have my system maintained and serviced as well as the initial cost of installation.

hatrickpatrick · 05-01-2014 12:39am

raymon wrote: »

Again your Fianna Fail amnesia is staggering.

The guillotine of bills was one of the characteristics of the last Fianna Fail govt., amongst other anti democratic measures.

You and your fellow Fianna Failers should conserve your faux outrage .

So because someone did wrong before, it's ok for the new people to do wrong now?
God almighty.
Whether it was an FFailure or not is irrelevant to the fact that right now, it's being done by our current cabinet and it shouldn't be.

raymon · 06-01-2014 1:50am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So because someone did wrong before, it's ok for the new people to do wrong now?
God almighty.
Whether it was an FFailure or not is irrelevant to the fact that right now, it's being done by our current cabinet and it shouldn't be.

I am not defending FG/ Lab or their taxes. I pay too much in taxes already.

My point is that the walkout of Bertie's boys led by Martin was cynical.

It was Martin's cabinet that proposed the water taxes. It was their idea. They told the troika that FF would implement water taxes.
The guillotine of bills was a Fianna Fail characteristic when the were over the other side of the house.

I am not defending taxes or guillotines but the FF outrage is fake. The walkout was a carefully choreographed stunt.

For Reals · 09-01-2014 4:09pm

And so it begins....

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/21510710/

So it would seem all concerns have been validated. Irish water will be given licence to hike fees based on their underperformance. If they are not making the profits expected, they can raise rates to meet these perceived losses.
Seriously, how do I start a company like that? If I make a profit, that's for me, if I make a loss, give me more money, y`know, just to make up my losses.
This is the bastard child of Communism and Capitalism. Nuts.
So the horror story in parts of the States where collecting water is illegal, we`re doing it the Irish way. You can collect all the water you want, but you`ve still got to pay Irish Water, because you`re NOT using their service as much as expected.
Lunacy.

And of course, if some party get in on the back of doing away with the water charge, once in office we`ll get the `contracts need to be honoured' routine.
Which personally I believe to be bull**** at this point. If something in inherently wrong the next elected body should grow a pair on behalf of the public over the fear of looking bad to the business community, like bankers. I mean after the bail outs the world thinks we`re stand up guys or patsys? I forget.

Phoebas · 09-01-2014 8:17pm

For Reals wrote: »

So it would seem all concerns have been validated. Irish water will be given licence to hike fees based on their underperformance.

The linked article doesn't say that at all.

Fr. Ned · 09-01-2014 9:44pm

Enda's latest quango spends €50 million of our money on consultants in 1 year.

Headed by a serial waster of our tax euro in every position he has worked in, from Galway city council to Fingal county council to Dublin city council/
This guy is on €200,000 PA plus expenses.

€50,000,000.00 on consultants in one year!!!!

The people of Ireland better wake up and wake up fast.

For Reals · 09-01-2014 11:16pm

Phoebas wrote: »

The linked article doesn't say that at all.

Their underperformance as a company, they are not meeting expected turn over;

"It is understood Irish Water may be given permission to hike the price of water if demand is lower than expected."

This means to me that if they are not making as much turnaround as expected they may be allowed hike up the charges to compensate.
'We thought we'd sell more than we actually are so we're going to raise prices on what we are selling'. That's fine if the so called 'consumer' has options to shop elsewhere and isn't already part funding the pricks.

For Reals · 09-01-2014 11:19pm

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Enda's latest quango spends €50 million of our money on consultants in 1 year.

Headed by a serial waster of our tax euro in every position he has worked in, from Galway city council to Fingal county council to Dublin city council/
This guy is on €200,000 PA plus expenses.

€50,000,000.00 on consultants in one year!!!!

The people of Ireland better wake up and wake up fast.

It's that fact that not one thing seems to have changed in how our representatives organise, or pay others to organise, these things, (see Limerick Fest.). $50 million, I would love to see details on where that money went in a year.

Phoebas · 10-01-2014 12:29am

For Reals wrote: »

Their underperformance as a company, they are not meeting expected turn over;

"It is understood Irish Water may be given permission to hike the price of water if demand is lower than expected."

This means to me that if they are not making as much turnaround as expected they may be allowed hike up the charges to compensate.
'We thought we'd sell more than we actually are so we're going to raise prices on what we are selling'. That's fine if the so called 'consumer' has options to shop elsewhere and isn't already part funding the pricks.

How is greater than expected consumer conservation of water underperformance by Irish Water? If water metering leads to much more water being conserved then that would be a positive outcome!

Cookie_Monster · 10-01-2014 1:08am

Phoebas wrote: »

How is greater than expected consumer conservation of water underperformance by Irish Water? If water metering leads to much more water being conserved then that would be a positive outcome!

not for IW whose income would be greatly reduced.

Phoebas · 10-01-2014 1:14am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

not for IW whose income would be greatly reduced.

And the proportional cost of supplying water would be greater ... hence the possible higher proportional cost being passed on to consumers.

JRant · 10-01-2014 11:14am

Phoebas wrote: »

And the proportional cost of supplying water would be greater ... hence the possible higher proportional cost being passed on to consumers.

No, the costs would not change, how did you come to that conclusion?

Demand changes and with it the unit price should vary accordingly. Less demand should drive the price lower to intice consumers to buy more. However if reports on the radio this morning are to be believed not only can they raise prices when demand falls but also when the supply falls, due to drought etc. sure how can they lose, it's a racket if you ask me.

creedp · 10-01-2014 11:23am

JRant wrote: »

No, the costs would not change, how did you come to that conclusion?

Demand changes and with it the unit price should vary accordingly. Less demand should drive the price lower to intice consumers to buy more. However if reports on the radio this morning are to be believed not only can they raise prices when demand falls but also when the supply falls, due to drought etc. sure how can they lose, it's a racket if you ask me.

A racket is right. This makes a mockery of the argument made by many that this was all about conserving a scarce natural resource and that spending money on meters would result in those who waste water eing charged more while those who conserve water could miniminse their water charges. Another fine quango with a can't lose outlook .. €100m in consultancy in 2014 anyone!

Larbre34 · 10-01-2014 1:45pm

This is the HSE #2, plain and simple.

We know now what the consultants costs were in '13, those costs are continuing to accumulate.

Irish Water have advertised hundreds of posts in the 40-100k range to staff this quango. At the same time they have forced Service Level Agreements on the County Councils to carry out the SAME WORK they were carrying out before, only now as agents to this monster in the making and the SLAs last for 12 YEARS!!!!

If the objective here was at the beginning to improve the water supply infrastructure, then the Govt/Dept should have given it over to the National Roads Authority or Railway Procurement Agency, who between them have massive professional expertise in infrastructure engineering and who although still in paid existence are at this moment doing sweet **** all.

Not a single home should pay a bill when it arrives in 2015, furthermore the commercial sector should stop paying. This whole thing is such a breathtaking black hole and as bad as any quango idea in the FF/PD era that it shouldnt just end Phil Hogan, it should end this Government.

Theyll say of course that its a promise to the Troika to charge for water, I can only guess the Troika might raise an eyebrow or two at the waste of money involved in the choice of method before the bills are even issued.

Sierra Oscar · 10-01-2014 1:52pm

Why didn't the government release these consultancy payment figures prior to the passing of this bill?

Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, Independents and even TD's from the government backbenches have been trying for months and months to get these consultancy payment figures, but the government was keeping it all under wraps. What a farce, you can be sure that there will be plenty of more revelations judging by the way the government have tried to shutdown this debate.

Phoebas · 10-01-2014 2:19pm

JRant wrote: »

No, the costs would not change, how did you come to that conclusion?

Demand changes and with it the unit price should vary accordingly. Less demand should drive the price lower to intice consumers to buy more. However if reports on the radio this morning are to be believed not only can they raise prices when demand falls but also when the supply falls, due to drought etc. sure how can they lose, it's a racket if you ask me.

Why the hell would you want to entice people to use more of a valuable resource than was necessary? - that doesn't make any sense at all.

Phoebas · 10-01-2014 2:24pm

JRant wrote: »

No, the costs would not change, how did you come to that conclusion?

Irish Water need the capacity to produce water based on expected usage. If the actual usage is lower than expected the costs of producing the water remains the same, but revenue from the water will be down.

So the actual cost of producing the water doesn't change but the proportional per unit cost goes up.

JRant · 10-01-2014 2:31pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Why the hell would you want to entice people to use more of a valuable resource than was necessary? - that doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm talking about it from an economic point of view. When a company has a surplus of stock what usually happens is that they have a sale (i.e. Drop their price) to offload this stock.

Also why on earth should people be penalised for using less of this valuable resource? This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

It smacks of the golden circle all over again. O'brien's 'Sierra' group hovering around in the backround waiting to cream as much of this scheme as they can get their hands on.

JRant · 10-01-2014 2:36pm

Phoebas wrote: »

Irish Water need the capacity to produce water based on expected usage. If the actual usage is lower than expected the costs of producing the water remains the same, but revenue from the water will be down.

So the actual cost of producing the water doesn't change but the proportional per unit cost goes up.

Thats not what you said originally though. Either way it's not relevant as profit is a function of revenue - costs. If the cost remains the same but the revenue decreases, this leads to a reduction in profit or a loss.

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

Comments