**ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER RELATED** Part 2 - MOD WARNING IN OP

Larbre34

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Maybe they're all member of the Hy.R.A. ???!!!!! Gettit? Do ya? Do you see what I did....??

Little CuChulainn

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

moxin wrote: »

Yes they did. With a photo of a Brussels riot on the front page!!

Headline
"Water protests infiltrated by dissidents as meters on hold" That there is labeling a million people as part of the H2O IRA.

And they mentioned that a "Garda inspector was badly attacked" according to their mysterious source. First report of that, even the Gardai themselves never reported that yet!

The use of the word infiltrated is pretty clearly an indication that the dissidents make up a small proportion. That's why they infiltrate instead of just take over. And where did the million come from? 150k attended the last major protest.

The Gardaí rarely report on injuries to members. There are 1000 members injured every year. How many reports have you seen from the Gardaí reporting injuries in the last year? The representative organisations release that info for the most part.

Irish Steve

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

zerks wrote: »

I've said it before,streamline the water divisions of the LA's,we don't need one for each county & they are doing the groundworks anyway.Ringfence finance for water and cut out the middle man (IW).
As it stands,IW are only a billing service dressed up to look something more than what they are.Of course being Ireland,things have been done arseways & a quango has been set up rather than sitting down & doing the right thing which might actually be value for money.

tinkering round the edge of the problem.

Water has to be out of political control and influence, AND out of the "OLD" semi state mentality and culture.

IW as presently managed and structured is not it, if the semi state management was removed (it should never have been there in the first place), then IW as a vehicle is as good as any other, the company is not the problem, the people running it and the culture is the problem.

Nothing will be gained by leaving water with even a modified LA structure, we've seen how that has worked out, and the backlog of €10Bn in maintenance and infrastructure deficit is the visible result.

It needs new thinking, new concepts, fresh management that doesn't have 25 years of semi state mentality and culture attached as the baggage that will bring the organisation down again.

In many respects, I really do wonder if it might not be better to bring the government down, and get the IMF/Troika back to do the job they should have done the first time round, which is sort out the whole mess of political eliteism and the state and semi state services, and they'd be capable of doing the job without fear or favour, which none of the political classes of any colour or flavour have the balls to do.

Valetta

moxin wrote: »

Yes they did. With a photo of a Brussels riot on the front page!!

Headline
"Water protests infiltrated by dissidents as meters on hold" That there is labeling a million people as part of the H2O IRA.

And they mentioned that a "Garda inspector was badly attacked" according to their mysterious source. First report of that, even the Gardai themselves never reported that yet!

Where are you getting the one million figure from?

And there's no such thing as H2O IRA.

So your post is still rubbish.

Cantona's Collars

I agree with metered water charges

Barely There wrote: »

Can you explain how this is done without a separate charge for water-usage.

What exactly is being ring-fenced and who is determining the amount to ring-fence?
How often is the amount of ring-fenced funds determined and on what basis?

Funding has always been given to Councils.They try to use the funding based on what takes priority.Water has never been high on the list.Now with the LPT in play we should be seeing more funding available but of course that's not happened and I doubt it ever will.The govt. claim they have a value on what needs to be spent on water but have already wasted a large portion of it setting up an entity that really isn't needed just to serve vested interests.

Banjo String

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Valetta wrote: »

Where are you getting the one million figure from?

And there's no such thing as H2O IRA.

So your post is still rubbish.

More than a million haven't even engaged with Irish Water.

Valetta

Banjo String wrote: »

More than a million haven't even engaged with Irish Water.

Totally irrelevant to Moxin's post.

shinzon

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Heres Joan at it again, this time its been called a water support or water conservation charge wonder what itll be called next week, the fluffy bunny rose tinted spectacles charge.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1107/657521-irish-water/

Shin

moxin

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The use of the word infiltrated is pretty clearly an indication that the dissidents make up a small proportion. That's why they infiltrate instead of just take over. And where did the million come from? 150k attended the last major protest.

The Gardaí rarely report on injuries to members. There are 1000 members injured every year. How many reports have you seen from the Gardaí reporting injuries in the last year? The representative organisations release that info for the most part.

Valetta wrote: »

Where are you getting the one million figure from?

And there's no such thing as H2O IRA.

So your post is still rubbish.

So in the most high profile issue in this country for many years, there has not been one case of assault conviction on a Garda by the anti-water charge movement. Of course we all hear about alleged violent actions of the protesters with no evidence to back it up in the courts, an injunction was served based on alleged bad behaviour, no convictions of protesters in a court of law.

At least 800,000 households have not registered for the water charge, add more for total adults, well over a million. That's the protest movement and the Denis O'Brien owned Indo has labelled them as dissidents because he is having problems installing the water meters.

Tony EH

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Irish Steve wrote: »

tinkering round the edge of the problem.

Water has to be out of political control and influence, AND out of the "OLD" semi state mentality and culture.

IW as presently managed and structured is not it, if the semi state management was removed (it should never have been there in the first place), then IW as a vehicle is as good as any other, the company is not the problem, the people running it and the culture is the problem.

While the state is riddled with problems and cronyism is rife, the nations water supply must stay within the hands of the state.

Privatisation is far too risky for such an essential, life supporting, element as water.

We cannot allow something like our water to fall into the hands of a for profit business concern, who's only motive is financial gain.

The potential consequences would be disastrous for many people.

Irish Water would be an abomination, irrespective of whether it was set up by Fine Gael or a pure private business concern.

The supply of something as essential to life as water shouldn't be a "business".

Banjo String

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Valetta wrote: »

Totally irrelevant to Moxin's post.

You don't see the connection in the million figure, no?

Valetta

moxin wrote: »

So in the most high profile issue in this country for many years, there has not been one case of assault conviction on a Garda by the anti-water charge movement. Of course we all hear about alleged violent actions of the protesters with no evidence to back it up in the courts, an injunction was served based on alleged bad behaviour, no convictions of protesters in a court of law.

At least 800,000 households have not registered for the water charge, add more for total adults, well over a million. That's the protest movement and the Denis O'Brien owned Indo has labelled them as dissidents because he is having problems installing the water meters.

Absolutely not true.

I haven't registered and am not part of any protest movement.

I also haven;t been labelled as part of H2O IRA, whatever that is.

Geuze

zerks wrote: »

Funding has always been given to Councils.They try to use the funding based on what takes priority.Water has never been high on the list.Now with the LPT in play we should be seeing more funding available but of course that's not happened and I doubt it ever will.

Again, as had been said many times, the LPT does NOT mean that councils will have more income.

Central Govt grants to councils have been cut, and replaced with the LPT.

To repeat, the LPT does NOT mean any more income for councils, so don't expect any more services.

Barely There

zerks wrote: »

Funding has always been given to Councils.They try to use the funding based on what takes priority.Water has never been high on the list.Now with the LPT in play we should be seeing more funding available but of course that's not happened and I doubt it ever will.The govt. claim they have a value on what needs to be spent on water but have already wasted a large portion of it setting up an entity that really isn't needed just to serve vested interests.

So basically your solution is a slightly modified version of the current model?

Strange, as the rest of your posts seem to be constantly pointing out all that's wrong with the current political way of doing it.

moxin

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Valetta wrote: »

Absolutely not true.

I haven't registered and am not part of any protest movement.

I also haven;t been labelled as part of H2O IRA, whatever that is.

Oh, we have an alleged rebel here. Anyone who doesn't register is part of the anti-water charge movement, the act in itself is obvious. Why have you not registered then?

Daith

Tony EH wrote: »

While the state is riddled with problems and cronyism is rife, the nations water supply must stay within the hands of the state.

Then replace IW with a water tax. Or like the local property charge. Combine both if you want. Make it transparent. Have revenue collect payment.

We will still be paying more for water but without the need for IW as a separate entity. However the Government wants to get water debt of their books so we are now stuck with "IW is a separate entity except when it's going to cost us votes".

Barely There

Tony EH wrote: »

Privatisation is far too risky for such an essential, life supporting, element as water.

If FG were intent on the privatisation of IW, they've really gone about it the wrong way.
It's bloated, over-staffed to the tune of thousands with workers on very generous salaries and benefits. The current water-infrastructure requires billions of euros of investment over the next few years and the significant increases in water charges required to fund this would be political dynamite.

Possibly the most unattractive private investment ever.

Tony EH

I do not want to pay for water in any way

moxin wrote: »

At least 800,000 households have not registered for the water charge...

Valetta wrote: »

Absolutely not true.

I haven't registered and am not part of any protest movement.

I also haven;t been labelled as part of H2O IRA, whatever that is.

Ok...799,999 then.

:pac:

Irish Steve

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

Tony EH wrote: »

While the state is riddled with problems and cronyism is rife, the nations water supply must stay within the hands of the state.

Privatisation is far too risky for such an essential, life supporting, element as water.

We cannot allow something like our water to fall into the hands of a for profit business concern, who's only motive is financial gain.

The potential consequences would be disastrous for many people.

Irish Water would be an abomination, irrespective of whether it was set up by Fine Gael or a pure private business concern.

The supply of something as essential to life as water shouldn't be a "business".

IW correctly set up as a private semi state NOT for profit would be the best option in among a bad mix.

I have NEVER suggested that a shareholder driven for profit company was the way forward, it is NOT, but a private state owned company that does not have the semi state mentality and baggage would be about the best option given all the other issues that have been raised.

The corruption, brown envelopes, cronyism and sleeveeen eliteist semi state mentality management with their bonus, expenses and special allowances entitlement culture is the last thing that's needed, as we have seen from the mess that several managers at IW have walked away from with no accountability or responsibility. They should never have got in the door in the first place.

Tony EH

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Daith wrote: »

Then replace IW with a water tax. Or like the local property charge. Combine both if you want. Make it transparent. Have revenue collect payment.

Yes, as I've already said a number of times on the other threads.

Raise the tax, ring fence it like the USC charge. Fix the leaks. Roll back on the tax when that's done.

No need for Irish Water at all, in any way shape or form.

It's simply adding to the cost and completely unnecessary.

Tony EH

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Barely There wrote: »

If FG were intent on the privatisation of IW, they've really gone about it the wrong way.
It's bloated, over-staffed to the tune of thousands with workers on very generous salaries and benefits. The current water-infrastructure requires billions of euros of investment over the next few years and the significant increases in water charges required to fund this would be political dynamite.

Possibly the most unattractive private investment ever.

You can bet your life that the end game was/is privatisation. FG has gone about it this way to "ease" the Irish Water dildo in, that's all.

Tony EH

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Irish Steve wrote: »

IW correctly set up as a private semi state NOT for profit would be the best option in among a bad mix.

I have NEVER suggested that a shareholder driven for profit company was the way forward, it is NOT, but a private state owned company that does not have the semi state mentality and baggage would be about the best option given all the other issues that have been raised.

The corruption, brown envelopes, cronyism and sleeveeen eliteist semi state mentality management with their bonus, expenses and special allowances entitlement culture is the last thing that's needed, as we have seen from the mess that several managers at IW have walked away from with no accountability or responsibility. They should never have got in the door in the first place.

To be honest, Steve, that sounds like it would be virtually impossible to set up, given our political entities nature.

Daith

Barely There wrote: »

It's bloated, over-staffed to the tune of thousands with workers on very generous salaries and benefits. The current water-infrastructure requires billions of euros of investment over the next few years and the significant increases in water charges required to fund this would be political dynamite.

Possibly the most unattractive private investment ever.

It all depends what the SLA is to "fix" the infrastructure. Once people are used to paying water charges it won't be as big as an issue in years to come.

DamagedTrax

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Daith wrote: »

Then replace IW with a water tax. Or like the local property charge. Combine both if you want. Make it transparent. Have revenue collect payment.

We will still be paying more for water but without the need for IW as a separate entity. However the Government wants to get water debt of their books so we are now stuck with "IW is a separate entity except when it's going to cost us votes".

if the 'water tax' was done in a progressive way then im sure most people wouldnt have an issue with it.

if the 'water tax' money was spent in a transparent way, with all profits being returned into the water infrastructure then im sure most people wouldnt have an issue with it.

if the current model of having a person on over 1000,000pa pay the same as someone living on a minimum wage didnt exists, then im sure most people wouldnt have an issue with it.

if they were guaranteed that IW would remain in state hands, and by guaranteed i mean written into the constitution, then im sure most people wouldnt have an issue with it.


everyone knows that water treatment needs to be paid for somehow, we've always paid for it thru some form or another. the problem is that successive governments have let the infrastructure fall to ruin and now expect us to pay well over the odds to fix it, while their buddies get the cushy number...

...and most people have serious issues with that.

Irish Steve

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, as I've already said a number of times on the other threads.

Raise the tax, ring fence it like the USC charge. Fix the leaks. Roll back on the tax when that's done.

No need for Irish Water at all, in any way shape or form.

It's simply adding to the cost and completely unnecessary.

If it was that easy, they'd have forced it through a long time ago.

There are so many more complex issues, like the backlog of maintenance and missing infrastructure, the legacy of thousands (see the ESRI report) of duplicate posts in the LA's that need to be addressed, and can't be while they are state employees, the complex and expensive future requirements of compliance with EU directives on conservation, environmental impact and waste water quality, which they've been long fingering for over 10 years, and the requirement to ensure that as things change, the structure of water is changed with it to ensure ongoing supply, especially on the East coast, which is already a problem, and it's not going to go away.

Politicians can't and won't deal with it because there's no votes in it for them, so it's off their radar.

Local authorities have made a monumental mess of it because local politicians keep diverting scarce funds into "visible" vote winning short term projects so they can get re elected, and so the circle keeps going round.

Water HAS to be out of political control and influence in terms of the day to day decision making, but answerable to the state for the performance of its duties. It also needs to be off the books while the government of what ever flavour deals with the very big and important issue of the financial deficit that has to be brought back under control for the sake of all of our futures.

FG/Labour have made the most monumental shambles of what should have been easy, and a big part of that is their total failure to address the issues that they promised they would, the corruption etc and inappropriate structures that exist within the state sector. If they'd faced that down and dealt with it earlier in the term, then all of these issues would have been much less complicated, and could have been dealt with in the open, and with more consensus than they have been.

Now, they are in very deep trouble, and there is a valid and strong groundswell of aggrieved public opinion that has caught them totally unprepared and unable to respond, simply because they didn't do what they promised they would.

tayto lover

twowheelsgood wrote: »

I thought your view was that we should not simply ape what others do? It is certainly my view.

That IS my view BUT i'm not the poster who keeps harping on about other countries having water charges as you well know. Those posters are on your side of the argument.

tayto lover

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You shouldn't scoff. He gave the people what they wanted. Way above inflation increases for the pensioners every year. And bonanza time for Child Benefit. SSIA's out their ears. And they rewarded him.

Enda keeps taking money off the SAME people and they don't like it. So he will have to go.

FYP

Red Pepper

I do not want to pay for water in any way

If Enda Kenny was the CEO for a large company, he would have been fired months ago.

Tony EH

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Irish Steve wrote: »

If it was that easy, they'd have forced it through a long time ago.

But, it is that easy, IF the agenda was really about fixing the leaks and conservation, which, I think most honest people agree by now, it isn't.

As usual, ripoff Ireland kicked in and the charges got tangled up with lots of of other crap, until we end up with extreme bloat and jobs/perks/bonuses for the boys in an unnecessary billing company that Fine Gael and their buddies were hoping the Irish people would just simply accept.

My name is URL

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

Red Pepper wrote: »

If Enda Kenny was the CEO for a large company, he would have been fired months ago.

He wouldn't have got to that point in the first place as a primary school teacher from Ballygobackwards