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

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

That's not a fact - its just your opinion.

Mark this post then and come back to me in 10 years.

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Mark this post then and come back to me in 10 years.

So its not a fact, its a prediction then.

Fr. Ned

BTW, considering we have been paying for water all along through our taxes, can we expect a corresponding reduction in our general taxation now that we'll be funding this quango separately?

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

BTW, considering we have been paying for water all along through our taxes, can we expect a corresponding reduction in our general taxation now that we'll be funding this quango separately?

Did you not notice the massive reduction in the tax take since the start of the recession?

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

Did you not notice the massive reduction in the tax take since the start of the recession?

That's a no then.

I didn't notice the massive reduction in our PS/CS wage bill either, so much for benchmarking eh?

Cookie_Monster

Phoebas wrote: »

The is no 'revenue per unit' for water that spills out of leaky pipes

exactly, the revenue per unit for 40% of production is zero, the other 60% is whatever they decide, say 10, so an average r.p.u. of 6. If leakage is reduced to 20% then average r.p.u becomes 8.

Phoebas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

exactly, the revenue per unit for 40% of production is zero, the other 60% is whatever they decide, say 10, so an average r.p.u. of 6. If leakage is reduced to 20% then average r.p.u becomes 8.

Sure. If they can decrease production from savings from fixing leaks, the revenue per unit of produced water increases, but not the revenue per unit of water actually used .

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Mark this post then and come back to me in 10 years.

Mark my post - come back to me in 10 years time when we have a properly funded Water Supply company delivering safe clean water to all at a reasonable rate, while maintaining and upgrading the network to deal with the long term population growth in Ireland while minimising this growth by ensuring water conservation by billing based on the polluter pays principle.

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

Mark my post - come back to me in 10 years time when we have a properly funded Water Supply company delivering safe clean water to all at a reasonable rate, while maintaining and upgrading the network to deal with the long term population growth in Ireland while minimising this growth by ensuring water conservation by billing based on the polluter pays principle.

Dream on mate.....
This is the Republic of Ireland.:rolleyes:

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

Mark my post - come back to me in 10 years time when we have a properly funded Water Supply company delivering safe clean water to all at a reasonable rate, while maintaining and upgrading the network to deal with the long term population growth in Ireland while minimising this growth by ensuring water conservation by billing based on the polluter pays principle.

BTW, how does charging more if people don't use enough water square with the 'polluter pays' principle?

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

BTW, how does charging more if people don't use enough water square with the 'polluter pays' principle?

It would be useful if you actually read the posts that contradict your posts. I've already addressed this. It's highly unlikely to occur because even with individual household consumption going down overall consumption is going up due to population increase etc. So the chances are the above scenario will never play out.

Even in this scenario, it's been explained that a water distribution system is largely a fixed cost (small variable element). Even if overall demand went down it would still cost roughly the same amount to maintain it. Therefore people would have to pay more. It's not rocket science. It's also highly unlikely as every projection is that demand will go up - hence plans to bring water from the Shannon to supply Dublins needs.

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Dream on mate.....
This is the Republic of Ireland.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the evidence suggests otherwise. We've setup plenty of successful semi-state organisations.

Good loser

Fr. Ned wrote: »

BTW, considering we have been paying for water all along through our taxes, can we expect a corresponding reduction in our general taxation now that we'll be funding this quango separately?

I've been providing and paying for my own water for years - as have hundreds and thousands others. And paying for yours through general taxation. At least that inequity should end with the new system.

For Reals

Irish Water are asking that they be allowed raise their charges if water demand falls below projected usage. That's a fact.
How does that carry with the water conservation angle?
They were instructed to use Bord Gais staff as consultants, they chose not to, $50m. Does this sound like the frugal socially aware, taxpayer champions who will keep costs at a set rate, y'know, just to be nice?

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

Irish Water are asking that they be allowed raise their charges if water demand falls below projected usage. That's a fact.
How does that carry with the water conservation angle?

Is it a fact? Its been reported that the CER are considering this, but did Irish Water ask the CER to consider it?

For Reals wrote: »

They were instructed to use Bord Gais staff as consultants, they chose not to, $50m. Does this sound like the frugal socially aware, taxpayer champions who will keep costs at a set rate, y'know, just to be nice?

Really? Who instructed them to do that?

emo72

Phoebas wrote: »

Is it a fact? Its been reported that the CER are considering this, but did Irish Water ask the CER to consider it?


Really? Who instructed them to do that?

Irish Water Consultancy Group.

emo72

For a bit more depth. From today's independent....

"The document was drawn up by the IWCG, an inter agency group made up of the department of the environment, bord gais and local authority employee unions."

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Is it a fact? Its been reported that the CER are considering this, but did Irish Water ask the CER to consider it?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-will-be-allowed-raise-prices-every-year-29798831.html

To be fair, I'm sure Irish Water are aghast and would have nothing to do with it

Phoebas wrote: »

Really? Who instructed them to do that?

Seemingly the government...demanded....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spent-50m-despite-order-to-use-bord-gais-expertise-29910029.html

Why so quick to defend them or err on the side that they are simply great chaps?

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-will-be-allowed-raise-prices-every-year-29798831.html

To be fair, I'm sure Irish Water are aghast and would have nothing to do with it



Seemingly the government...demanded....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spent-50m-despite-order-to-use-bord-gais-expertise-29910029.html

Why so quick to defend them or err on the side that they are simply great chaps?

Not trying to defend them, nor did I say they were 'great chaps' or anything like it. just trying to get at the actual facts.


So your first 'fact' isn't a fact at all - its just your opinion.

On the second question, they weren't instructed to exclusively use BG consultants and they did use some BG consultants. It seems that the CER were happy enough with their external spend, but maybe they have a case to answer. I'll hold my fire till they appear at the committees.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Not trying to defend them, nor did I say they were 'great chaps' or anything like it. just trying to get at the actual facts.


So your first 'fact' isn't a fact at all - its just your opinion.

On the second question, they weren't instructed to exclusively use BG consultants and they did use some BG consultants. It seems that the CER were happy enough with their external spend, but maybe they have a case to answer. I'll hold my fire till they appear at the committees.

Well apologises for assuming Irish Water requested it, but its not an opinion, its on the table. Did I request it? Maybe it was you? And again, not 'exclusively' you say, do you have proof?
Your opinions aside, neither outcome bodes well for the taxpayer.

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

Well apologises for assuming Irish Water requested it, but its not an opinion, its on the table. Did I request it? Maybe it was you? And again, not 'exclusively' you say, do you have proof?
Your opinions aside, neither outcome bodes well for the taxpayer.

Where did you get the idea that Irish Water requested the price increase? You stated it as a fact earlier on; now you can't make up your mind if its an assumption you came to yourself or something else.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that Irish Water requested the price increase? You stated it as a fact earlier on; now you can't make up your mind if its an assumption you came to yourself or something else.

Its being considered that they are free to raise the fees should they deem it necessary to increase profit, should water consumption not meet predicted targets. That's a fact. How's that? I never said they requested a price increase.
You're sidelining the fact that its on the cards.

Also, they were told to use Bord Gais consultants and your only concern is, says who? followed up by, 'exclusively?'

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

Its being considered that they are free to raise the fees should they deem it necessary to increase profit, should water consumption not meet predicted targets. That's a fact. How's that? I never said they requested a price increase.

Lie!

For Reals wrote: »

Irish Water are asking that they be allowed raise their charges if water demand falls below projected usage. That's a fact.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Lie!

You proved I wasn't in the same post.

I had said they requested that they be able to raise fees under the circumstance they see a loss of profits, not that they requested a price increase.

All your pedantry aside, don't call me a liar, especially when I'm fully aware all my previous posts are here for all to see as a matter of record.

Sierra Oscar

ESRI professor says unnecessary staff could cost Irish Water €2bn

Irish Water overstaffing will cost up to €2bn, says expert

The way the new utility company Irish Water is being staffed involves waste of up to €2 billion and will add to the level of water charges for Irish households and businesses in years to come, according to one of Ireland’s leading economists.

Prof John FitzGerald of the Economic and Social Research Institute said the new utility probably needs about 1,700 staff but instead is going to have to pay for more than 4,000, who will provide services to it by way of 34 local authorities.

This is an absolute farce. The opposition warned the government that Irish Water would be plagued with difficulties and mistakes if they rushed the legislation through the Dáil without proper debate.

The opposition were right on this one by the looks of it.

_Kaiser_

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is an absolute farce. The opposition warned the government that Irish Water would be plagued with difficulties and mistakes if they rushed the legislation through the Dáil without proper debate.

The opposition were right on this one by the looks of it.

Unfortunately Kenny and his arrogant band of merry men will push it through regardless and then it'll be too late to change anything - "oh it'd cost to much to terminate contracts" etc

Anyone who thinks FG are ANY better than their predecessors really needs to wake up. The big loser here is the ordinary taxpayer/voter of course but when has it been any different?

nuac

This legislation could indeed have done with more debate and teasing out in either Dáil or Senate

Larbre34

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, what we are looking at here is HSE 2: The Revenge.

Not one household in Ireland should pay these charges when they arrive. When the compliance level is less than 10%, the whole exercise will fail. It would probably bring down the Government, but thats frankly no harm.

Phoebas

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not one household in Ireland should pay these charges when they arrive. When the compliance level is less than 10%, the whole exercise will fail. It would probably bring down the Government, but thats frankly no harm.

There isn't a chance in hell of this happening.


The fact that the LA staff were being retained was well known and the projected staff numbers and costs were also known. All that's new is Fitzgerald's analysis that if we approached it differently the staff numbers could be lower.
Would the opposition have come to this analysis last year if there was more debate in the Dail, and if so, why didn't they come to it in absence of Dail debate? If they don't get debate time in the Dail, do they just put the bill back on the shelf?

Larbre34

Phoebas wrote: »

There isn't a chance in hell of this happening.


The fact that the LA staff were being retained was well known and the projected staff numbers and costs were also known. All that's new is Fitzgerald's analysis that if we approached it differently the staff numbers could be lower.
Would the opposition have come to this analysis last year if there was more debate in the Dail, and if so, why didn't they come to it in absence of Dail debate? If they don't get debate time in the Dail, do they just put the bill back on the shelf?

Theres a big difference between what the Opposition missed in the details of the legislation due to ignorance or ineptitude and what people are prepared to put up with when the thing is operating in practice. Lets face it, most vociferous Dáil opposition is after the fact and is media led.

The LPT was linked to Revenue so people were handcuffed into paying one way or the other. These Water (establishment and consultants) charges are entirely different, and have no such linkage to be collected in other ways. Why would people pay them to contribute to this shambles? This is a real chance for people to act together and against whats going on at Govt level, and if the operation has no revenue, where can it go but to fail.