How should water be funded?

bajer101

Now that water charges are becoming a reality, I would be interested in finding out how people think water should be funded. I think a lot of the debate has got lost with some protesters focusing on the Freeman "No Contract" stuff and other distractions. But what about the core question - Should water be provided for free to everyone? We supposedly provide education and health to everyone. Should this extend to water?

I wanted to add a poll, but couldn't see the option. If someone could assist me with that, I'd appreciate it.

Pete_Cavan

Metered charges is the best way because it discourages wasting water and promotes water conservation. This will help control demand which will limit the cost of providing water over the long term compared to the current situation. Demand for water should decrease with people being more sensible with their use of it, repairing leaks and harvesting rainwater for non-potable uses which means less treatment and storage capacity required, less chemicals needed for treatment and less energy costs for pumping it around the network.

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

Godge

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Metered charges is the best way because it discourages wasting water and promotes water conservation. This will help control demand which will limit the cost of providing water over the long term compared to the current situation. Demand for water should decrease with people being more sensible with their use of it, repairing leaks and harvesting rainwater for non-potable uses which means less treatment and storage capacity required, less chemicals needed for treatment and less energy costs for pumping it around the network.

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

Absolutely correct. From both an environmental point of view and a sustainable development point of view, it must be metered charges.

Idbatterim

there are endless threads on this on afterhours, with the usual crap, so I came here to post a new thread, but saw this one, so will post here. Firstly I agree 100% with PeteCavan. The hysteria over this is crazy, everyone is hell bent on how shafted the are being, I wont pay, it never stops raining here etc :rolleyes:

Now this is the thread I was going to create, but maybe it can be discussed here. A huge amount of people are up in arms over it (the ones who have nothing to complain about IMO) everyone is obsessed with a few quid a week, how they will turn off the meters not to pay, what quality will the water be etc

So you have this obsession with not paying or what you will get, for what is effectively fairly small fry. Can I ask what the people or couples paying over the average yearly water charges in a week on the marginal rate are getting over that those that dont pay it? given the obsessions with what exactly we are getting for our taxes...

I thought I may have calmed down a bit from exactly the damage FF caused to this country, when you look at how much was wasted on winning election after election, that could have been spent on our water infrastructure or general infrastructure its a disgrace, Dublin after the boom to end all booms, still doesnt have a decent integrated transport network i.e. MN and DU and we can see the damage it is doing on a number of front... Giving double digit welfare increases, when thousands were flocking into the country on a weekly basis to fill positions... We can now see the knock on effect of this, imagine it was simply raised at the rate of inflation or not at all, the billions we would have saved over the course of the crash, plus interest...

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

yeah, an example of this is the proposal to serve Dublin with water from the Shannon, expected to cost "well over" €500,000,000...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/dublin-to-get-water-from-river-shannon-by-2020-30265418.html

FreudianSlippers

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Metered charges is the best way because it discourages wasting water and promotes water conservation. This will help control demand which will limit the cost of providing water over the long term compared to the current situation. Demand for water should decrease with people being more sensible with their use of it, repairing leaks and harvesting rainwater for non-potable uses which means less treatment and storage capacity required, less chemicals needed for treatment and less energy costs for pumping it around the network.

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

+1

I also believe that UÉ is the correct way to deal with the provision of water/sewerage services. It's clear that the previous system of allocating nebulous funds to the local authorities and having no clear oversight into how those funds were spent was shambolic and resulted in an antiquated and dilapidated infrastructure. We now, hopefully, have an accountable body who will receive funds and directly apply those funds to the provision of the services for which they were established.

meglome

As the others have already said we're doing this the only way that makes sense. There is a reason why most OECD counties do it exactly the same.

I'm just surprised that I get a little shocked by just how overboard the discussion gets here. I suppose it's a mixture of politicians telling people whatever they think those people want to hear over the decades and that people would rather believe some bloke down the local pub over any authority figure. Bad mix.

quadrifoglio verde

meglome wrote: »

As the others have already said we're doing this the only way that makes sense. There is a reason why most OECD counties do it exactly the same.

I'm just surprised that I get a little shocked by just how overboard the discussion gets here. I suppose it's a mixture of politicians telling people whatever they think those people want to hear over the decades and that people would rather believe some bloke down the local pub over any authority figure. Bad mix.

When a person is used to getting something for free, charging them for the same service is difficult. This isn't just restricted to Irish water, look at adverts.ie
The free model was loss making for them, so they moved to a fee (tiny) based model for goods over a certain value. The uproar over it was crazy, but people never consider the alternative, mainly being that loss making entities can't continue.
You'd have had the same uproar, if not worse if we had given free electricity throughout the boom to everyone.
Yes it never seems to stop raining in this country, but to the people who use that as an excuse for justifying not paying, start drinking the water from liffey in the quays, and you'll soon see why we need to pay.

hallo dare

I'm having Trocaire supply me water. €2 a month, clean drinking water to my home, instead of the rip-off that is Irish water.

meglome

hallo dare wrote: »

I'm having Trocaire supply me water. €2 a month, clean drinking water to my home, instead of the rip-off that is Irish water.

I was thinking that if people want the cost of water in Africa they will also need to have the living standards of much of Africa. Good luck with that, you'll forgive me if I don't.

hallo dare

Wow, no sense of humour on this thread i see.

meglome

hallo dare wrote: »

Wow, no sense of humour on this thread i see.

Sorry after seeing that same thing 20 times via social media I was getting a bit tired of it.

nice_guy80

What ever happened to the original 'free allowance'??

Now its a flat fee

antoobrien

nice_guy80 wrote: »

What ever happened to the original 'free allowance'??

Now its a flat fee

It's there for the metered charges, the flat fee charges are calculated to be equivalent to the metered bill based on average usage-allowance.

Dave!

If we're paying Irish Water now, then will there be a corresponding reduction in tax? Otherwise we're paying twice, I would have thought.

creedp

Dave! wrote: »

If we're paying Irish Water now, then will there be a corresponding reduction in tax? Otherwise we're paying twice, I would have thought.

No FG/Lab have increased taxation corresponding to the individuals IW charge just like they increased taxation corresponding to the HHC. That's a fair bit of increased taxation for a Govt who isn't increasing taxation.

BoJack Horseman

Dave! wrote: »

If we're paying Irish Water now, then will there be a corresponding reduction in tax?

There might be.
The budget will tell all.

However, if there isn't, the €1.2bn currently spent on water, just gets spent elsewhere.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There might be.
The budget will tell all.

However, if there isn't, the €1.2bn currently spent on water, just gets spent elsewhere.

+1 it is all speculation pre-budget, but I'd imagine we will see the vast majority reallocated unfortunately.

meglome

Dave! wrote: »

If we're paying Irish Water now, then will there be a corresponding reduction in tax? Otherwise we're paying twice, I would have thought.

Sure the bills were paid using large amounts of borrowed money. Dumping it on future generations isn't 'paying twice'. It's paying for it on the never never.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the-never-never

shedweller

meglome wrote: »

Sure the bills were paid using large amounts of borrowed money. Dumping it on future generations isn't 'paying twice'. It's paying for it on the never never.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the-never-never

Thats always the way its done though isnt it? Nothing new and nothing ever learned.

Rightwing

It's reassuring to know that with this latest quango our money won't be giving towards bonuses.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-gets-in-hot-water-for-claiming-bonuses-for-staff-are-not-bonuses-30645490.html

Irish Water has become embroiled in a new controversy after bizarrely claiming its staffare not going to be paid bonuses – just “performance related awards”. :rolleyes:

meglome

shedweller wrote: »

Thats always the way its done though isnt it? Nothing new and nothing ever learned.

It makes sense for governments to borrow money where required. What doesn't make sense is the level we're borrowing it at.

Rightwing wrote: »

It's reassuring to know that with this latest quango our money won't be giving towards bonuses.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-gets-in-hot-water-for-claiming-bonuses-for-staff-are-not-bonuses-30645490.html

Irish Water has become embroiled in a new controversy after bizarrely claiming its staffare not going to be paid bonuses – just “performance related awards”. :rolleyes:

In my days in the software industry I got a bonus and a pay rise depending on how well I did. No idea if that's the situation here but then again neither do you.

Rightwing

meglome wrote: »

It makes sense for governments to borrow money where required. What doesn't make sense is the level we're borrowing it at.



In my days in the software industry I got a bonus and a pay rise depending on how well I did. No idea if that's the situation here but then again neither do you.

I suspect there will be generous bonuses dished out if water comes out of the tap. The quality of the water of course will be irrelevant.

dubbeat

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Metered charges is the best way because it discourages wasting water and promotes water conservation. This will help control demand which will limit the cost of providing water over the long term compared to the current situation. Demand for water should decrease with people being more sensible with their use of it, repairing leaks and harvesting rainwater for non-potable uses which means less treatment and storage capacity required, less chemicals needed for treatment and less energy costs for pumping it around the network.

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

Oh my god. The slogan swallowing drivel is staggering. We already have been paying for water via our taxes for decades.

Water charges are a DOUBLE tax demanded by the IMF as terms of our bailout. If you REALLY want to see water charges spiral wait a year or two and bask in the glorious incompetency of our newly spawned inept state agency.

This isn't good economic practice, it's a racket!

shedweller

dubbeat wrote: »

Oh my god. The slogan swallowing drivel is staggering. We already have been paying for water via our taxes for decades.

Water charges are a DOUBLE tax demanded by the IMF as terms of our bailout. If you REALLY want to see water charges spiral wait a year or two and bask in the glorious incompetency of our newly spawned inept state agency.

This isn't good economic practice, it's a racket!

They are a double tax but whatcha gonna do? Banks need bailing out and by god we are going to bail them out.
Its the perfect tax vehicle actually because people need water to live.

hatrickpatrick

shedweller wrote: »

Its the perfect tax vehicle actually because people need water to live.

You've pretty much summed up in one line what I've been struggling to sum up. With something as fundamentally necessary as water, people shouldn't pay one cent more for it than is absolutely unavoidably necessary. This is why expensive perks for IW staff (that gym for instance) and a €200k/year salary for CEOs is so outrageous. IW should be run with a view to spending as little, and therefore charging as little, as is humanly possible - this clearly is not happening.

Jolly Red Giant

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Metered charges is the best way because it discourages wasting water and promotes water conservation. This will help control demand which will limit the cost of providing water over the long term compared to the current situation. Demand for water should decrease with people being more sensible with their use of it, repairing leaks and harvesting rainwater for non-potable uses which means less treatment and storage capacity required, less chemicals needed for treatment and less energy costs for pumping it around the network.

Non-metered charges would just see the cost of providing water continue to spiral because people want to get their moneys worth and so would be less concerned about reducing usage.

Metered charges pave the way for privatisation.

When the bin tax was introduced it was clear that the strategy had nothing to do with environmental concerns - it was to facilitate the privatisation of the bin collection service. This has proven to be a disaster for the environment because of massive amounts of illegal dumping (primarily by cowboy contractors) that cost the councils millions each year to clean up. At the same time waivers were slowly eliminated.

The same applies with the current efforts to impose water charges. It has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with facilitating the future privatisation of the water supply. There is no need for it. If you want to have a water conservation policy then have building regulations that build in grey water recycling, rainwater collection and water usage systems into new builds and provide large grants to retrofit existing houses. then to should be a major programme of repair to the main infrastructure. These measure would pay for themselves within 5-10 years from savings in the cost of water supply.

You want to stop the disaster that would be water privatisation - then boycott the water charge - can't pay, won't pay.

FreudianSlippers

dubbeat wrote: »

Oh my god. The slogan swallowing drivel is staggering. We already have been paying for water via our taxes for decades.

As has been stated on this forum about a billion times now, although we did pay for water via tax to the local authority, this money is likely to be reallocated elsewhere in the budget or, potentially, we will see a reduction in tax.

Water charges are a DOUBLE tax demanded by the IMF as terms of our bailout. If you REALLY want to see water charges spiral wait a year or two and bask in the glorious incompetency of our newly spawned inept state agency.

shedweller wrote: »

They are a double tax but whatcha gonna do? Banks need bailing out and by god we are going to bail them out.
Its the perfect tax vehicle actually because people need water to live.

What banks need to be bailed out exactly? Last I checked, both BoI and AIB were doing quite well.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You've pretty much summed up in one line what I've been struggling to sum up. With something as fundamentally necessary as water, people shouldn't pay one cent more for it than is absolutely unavoidably necessary. This is why expensive perks for IW staff (that gym for instance) and a €200k/year salary for CEOs is so outrageous. IW should be run with a view to spending as little, and therefore charging as little, as is humanly possible - this clearly is not happening.

I'm just wondering what CEO you would suggest could be found to run a company of this size for less than that salary?

Just pick some Joe of the street and give him minimum wage to run a utility? :rolleyes: I'd love to live in this fantasy world.

Happyman42

We could supply water to every man woman child and business if FG had carried out it's election promises, reform.
The lack of productivity and waste in Local Authorities is abysmal in my opinion. Fixing that would ensure that our existing taxes (with a small rise maybe) would be adequate to operate utilities. It is too late now as FG/Lab are already spinning and promising to get themselves elected again.
I do not believe the spin that the creation of IW was necessary and it is already looking like another inefficient and bumbling state company. Instead of making the supply of water cheaper it will only make it more expensive to supply.

BoJack Horseman

Happyman42 wrote: »

We could supply water to every man woman child and business if FG had carried out it's election promises, reform.
The lack of productivity and waste in Local Authorities is abysmal in my opinion. Fixing that would ensure that our existing taxes (with a small rise maybe) would be adequate to operate utilities. It is too late now as FG/Lab are already spinning and promising to get themselves elected again.
I do not believe the spin that the creation of IW was necessary and it is already looking like another inefficient and bumbling state company. Instead of making the supply of water cheaper it will only make it more expensive to supply.

Most of what irks you there was at the behest of the trades unions.

The gov negotiated what they could via HR & CP deals, the trade off for industrial peace being deemed worth the modest reforms negotiated.

The overstaffed reality of IW is from the unions prohibiting redundancies to create efficiencies.

Happyman42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Most of what irks you there was at the behest of the trades unions.

The gov negotiated what they could via HR & CP deals, the trade off for industrial peace being deemed worth the modest reforms negotiated.

The overstaffed reality of IW is from the unions prohibiting redundancies to create efficiencies.

Which is; we can't do what we promised so lets make the people pay even more than they are paying already.

Rightwing

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is; we can't do what we promised so lets make the people pay even more than they are paying already.

You are right, but they could hardly reduce council numbers by 50%+ (and they'd still be overstaffed imo).

The unions need to be broken.

Geuze

Local councils have reduced employment by 25%, far more than in health or civil service.

Happyman42

Rightwing wrote: »

You are right, but they could hardly reduce council numbers by 50%+ (and they'd still be overstaffed imo).

The unions need to be broken.

All that was needed was a decent attempt to increase efficiencies and productivity. But no...simpler to set up a new money grab.

meglome

Happyman42 wrote: »

All that was needed was a decent attempt to increase efficiencies and productivity. But no...simpler to set up a new money grab.

Okay I know this is pointless but anyway.

Do you accept that the local councils running our water system has led to a very poor system with leaks all over?
Do you understand that most countries in the civilised world have central water utilities?
Do you understand that most countries in the civilised world charge for water?
Why do you think Ireland should be different to those other countries?

micosoft

Rightwing wrote: »

You are right, but they could hardly reduce council numbers by 50%+ (and they'd still be overstaffed imo).

The unions need to be broken.

As has been repeatedly pointed out. And I mean repeatedly.

- Most of the information on the water grid is held inside the heads of the council staff that have maintained it.

- Irish Water are invested 10's of millions on implementing IT Systems (not just consultancy) such as GIS and Asset Management to record and locate the entirety of a water system. This is best practice every other Utility uses (ESB etc) and will significantly drive down the cost of maintaining the water system and improved service delivery.

- In order to get that information from the Council employees they needed them to transfer to IW and over the next few years transfer that knowledge.

-Over 50% of IW staff are over 50. They will all retire within the next 15 years.

-That gives enough time to transition, reduce headcount by 50% and not completely collapse the water system by demanding insane immediate reductions in headcount.

The approach of IW is immensely sensible and the best approach to transitioning from a fragmented and inefficient local authority based system to a modern centralised utility. There are far too many people who know nothing about what it takes to realistically run utilities and/or not bothered looking into the background of the decisions and then making sweeping statements based on assumptions or complete misunderstanding of the actual facts.

Esel

PPF, PPS, PPB, PPG, PPD, PPCW.

Pay per flush, per shower, per bath, per garden, per drink, per car wash.

Or, PPCM - pay per cubic metre? Oh, wait...

Holy water may still be free, but the 'suggested' donation is set to increase. Those special hand waves are too cheap for what they are.

Reduce, reuse, recycle. Piss (plus a brick) in the cistern, reduce the retail price of a pint (mainly water); buy Mi-Wadi instead of Club Orange. Use less salt, sweat less. Make showers golden. Boil eggs in the kettle. Eat raw eggs. Electric-shave your legs. Recycle rain, and the outflow from your bath/shower (power shower, bad now...). Yellow = mellow, brown = down (or even into the brown bin/compost).

To answer the OP: by the users. We are where we are, there is no going back. Get with the program. People who can't pay won't pay.









This thread will not be complete until Alastair posts. Popcorn is salty, seat is comfortable. Film after the ads.

ezra_pound

Happyman42 wrote: »

We could supply water to every man woman child and business if FG had carried out it's election promises, reform.
The lack of productivity and waste in Local Authorities is abysmal in my opinion. Fixing that would ensure that our existing taxes (with a small rise maybe) would be adequate to operate utilities. It is too late now as FG/Lab are already spinning and promising to get themselves elected again.
I do not believe the spin that the creation of IW was necessary and it is already looking like another inefficient and bumbling state company. Instead of making the supply of water cheaper it will only make it more expensive to supply.

What homes and businesses have we been unable to supply with water? We're not in Arizona.

Happyman42

ezra_pound wrote: »

What homes and businesses have we been unable to supply with water? We're not in Arizona.

Excuse me, for the pedantic out there I'll amend my for sentence,


We could supply water to every man woman child and business, using the existing model, if FG had carried out it's election promises, reform.


Seems this morning, if the latest polls are anything to go by, that the electorate are beginning to see that.

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

We could supply water to every man woman child and business, using the existing model, if FG had carried out it's election promises, reform.


Seems this morning, if the latest polls are anything to go by, that the electorate are beginning to see that.

The government parties are showing an increase (+2) in the latest polls this morning.

Happyman42

meglome wrote: »

Okay I know this is pointless but anyway.

Do you accept that the local councils running our water system has led to a very poor system with leaks all over? Yes
Do you understand that most countries in the civilised world have central water utilities? Yes
Do you understand that most countries in the civilised world charge for water? Yes
Why do you think Ireland should be different to those other countries? Where did I say we should be?

My point is that we could have done this a different way without the need for this quango. It will not bring better efficiency, it is overspending already and I see nothing in it's activity so far that gives me any confidence that it will be a 'better' way of doing it.
It would have been much simpler to look at creating ordinary levels of productivity in our local authorities and give them the ability to fix the problems and roll out a new way of distributing and treating water and waste.
What we have is an expensive new quango that we are going to have to pay and we are STILL going to have to pay for the lack of productivity in the existing LA's.
I hate the phrase, but it is applicable here, 'An Irish solution to an (simple) Irish problem'

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

The government parties are showing an increase (+2) in the latest polls this morning.

...and?

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

It would have been much simpler to look at creating ordinary levels of productivity in our local authorities and give them the ability to fix the problems and roll out a new way of distributing and treating water and waste.

You think?

Care to provide some suggestions on how you would do this?

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

...and?

You are citing this morning's polls as evidence that the electorate are beginning to see that the existing model for supplying water would be sufficient is FG hadn't failed to reform.

But the polls don't see any change whatsoever in FG support (they actually show LAB increases), so its hard to see how you get you conclusions from the polling figures.

Rightwing

micosoft wrote: »

As has been repeatedly pointed out. And I mean repeatedly.

- Most of the information on the water grid is held inside the heads of the council staff that have maintained it.

- Irish Water are invested 10's of millions on implementing IT Systems (not just consultancy) such as GIS and Asset Management to record and locate the entirety of a water system. This is best practice every other Utility uses (ESB etc) and will significantly drive down the cost of maintaining the water system and improved service delivery.

- In order to get that information from the Council employees they needed them to transfer to IW and over the next few years transfer that knowledge.

-Over 50% of IW staff are over 50. They will all retire within the next 15 years.

-That gives enough time to transition, reduce headcount by 50% and not completely collapse the water system by demanding insane immediate reductions in headcount.

The approach of IW is immensely sensible and the best approach to transitioning from a fragmented and inefficient local authority based system to a modern centralised utility. There are far too many people who know nothing about what it takes to realistically run utilities and/or not bothered looking into the background of the decisions and then making sweeping statements based on assumptions or complete misunderstanding of the actual facts.

I think we can all agree that it's a fair assumption to say the councils neglected their roles very badly indeed when it came to managing our water. Alas, I see no reason to doubt this will change.

Happyman42

seamus wrote: »

You think?

Care to provide some suggestions on how you would do this?

I work in the private sector, but my work takes me into contact with a number of different levels in the local authorities across 2 counties. I also come into contact and work with entirely different sections in my voluntary work and it is my opinion (and I am not alone) that there is incredible levels of waste (accidental and willful) of money and labour, right across the sections.
Root and branch reform from management down has long been required.
But it won't happen, as well as paying for new levels and quangos, (created because we would rather kick dealing with that waste and inefficiency down the road) we will still be paying for the LA waste.

Rightwing

Happyman42 wrote: »

I work in the private sector, but my work takes me into contact with a number of different levels in the local authorities across 2 counties. I also come into contact and work with entirely different sections in my voluntary work and it is my opinion (and I am not alone) that there is incredible levels of waste (accidental and willful) of money and labour, right across the sections.
Root and branch reform from management down has long been required.
But it won't happen, as well as paying for new levels and quangos, (created because we would rather kick dealing with that waste and inefficiency down the road) we will still be paying for the LA waste.

An understatement if anything.

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

You are citing this morning's polls as evidence that the electorate are beginning to see that the existing model for supplying water would be sufficient is FG hadn't failed to reform.

But the polls don't see any change whatsoever in FG support (they actually show LAB increases), so its hard to see how you get you conclusions from the polling figures.

The party offering an alternative are up 5%. The party (FF) offering to just amend how IW operate and charge are down 5%.
Labour's bounce of 2% can be attributed to Joan Burton and the change of leadership, their figures since joining government are abysmal.

meglome

Happyman42 wrote: »

The party offering an alternative are up 5%. The party (FF) offering to just amend how IW operate and charge are down 5%.
Labour's bounce of 2% can be attributed to Joan Burton and the change of leadership, their figures since joining government are abysmal.

What alternative is being offered?

seamus

Happyman42 wrote: »

I work in the private sector, but my work takes me into contact with a number of different levels in the local authorities across 2 counties. I also come into contact and work with entirely different sections in my voluntary work and it is my opinion (and I am not alone) that there is incredible levels of waste (accidental and willful) of money and labour, right across the sections.
Root and branch reform from management down has long been required.
But it won't happen, as well as paying for new levels and quangos, (created because we would rather kick dealing with that waste and inefficiency down the road) we will still be paying for the LA waste.

I disagree with none of that, but it doesn't really answer my question.

How would root and branch reform of the entire public sector be simpler than setting up Irish Water?

Do you think it would be cheaper and faster? How quickly do you think root and branch PS reform could deliver better water infrastructure for the entire country and exchequer savings at the same time?

Phoebas

meglome wrote: »

What alternative is being offered?

The current SF proposal includes a privatisation element - I don't know if very many of the people who are supporting SF on this are aware of that.

micosoft

Happyman42 wrote: »

Excuse me, for the pedantic out there I'll amend my for sentence,


We could supply water to every man woman child and business, using the existing model, if FG had carried out it's election promises, reform.


Seems this morning, if the latest polls are anything to go by, that the electorate are beginning to see that.

Sigh... It's not being pedantic. Language means something. And what a contradiction in one sentence. The setting up of Irish Water IS the reform. Your approach is not reform. It's to retain the exact same system. You can't get further from reform. It's the opposite of reform. You then magically expect Enda to get this existing system (of twenty something councils) to suddenly "work harder" or something....
Please explain in real terms how the existing system could be "reformed" through internal process improvement (that's not reform) or accept what every other comparable country has accepted. A single utility looking after water.

As an aside the Fine Gael Election promise WAS to setup Irish Water.

Electorate in mid term shift towards opposition shocker. Regardless of who is in power after the election Irish Water will continue. In fact, Sinn Fein are looking to privatise it!