Civil Rights and Utility Bills

Logo

Listening to RTE radio 1, Claire Byrne show today the guest (Brid Smith?) compared anti-Irish Water demonstrations (court case involving Joan Burton) to the campaign for same sex marriage. Can you compare a campaign for personal civil rights to a protest against paying for a utility bill? I do realise that the principles might be similar but it was in bad taste to equate water charge protesters with LGBT rights. Given that RTE is funded by the tax payer, I feel insulted by the remark and that it is unacceptable to compare LGBT rights with the cost to provide a quality water system.

OU812

File a complaint then - BAI

Logo

Just posted for opinions but thanks, will do.

Vic_08

A civil right is nothing if it can be ignored or rescinded based on a judgement about it's use.

Defending the right to protest something you find meaningless is just as important as anything else, if someone, specifically the government of the day is allowed decide that any particular cause is not worthy then there is nothing stopping them from also deciding YOUR cause is equally unworthy.

bmwguy

Give it up OP I am sure there will be something new to offend you next week.

I enjoy reading message boards and contributing but the constant barrage of snowflakes being offended about everything is denying me my rights to enjoy the internet free from people taking offence.

You, by taking offence, offend me so to speak. Generation perpetually offended please grow up or go for a walk, go for a pint or just go away.

Rumpy Pumpy

Brid is like a buzzing background noise. Don't focus on it or pay any attention to it, and you'll suddenly stop noticing it.

Rumpy Pumpy

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Brid is like a buzzing background noise. Don't focus on it or pay any attention to it, and you'll suddenly stop noticing it.

I believe that's called the Fine Gael 2016 Election Strategy.

Like it or not, her views, and those of her colleagues on the left, represent a substantial proportion of the national electorate.

If we stick our fingers in our ears, disaffection with "establishment politics" will only rise.

odyssey06

Surely they were making a general point about the right to openly protest against government policy?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I believe that's called the Fine Gael 2016 Election Strategy.

Like it or not, her views, and those of her colleagues on the left, represent a substantial proportion of the national electorate.

If we stick our fingers in our ears, disaffection with "establishment politics" will only rise.

Your idea of a "substantial proportion" and mine are very different. SF, AAA, (even allowing Lab as left) had 20ish percent.

Seth Brundle

Logo wrote: »

Listening to RTE radio 1, Claire Byrne show today the guest (Brid Smith?) compared anti-Irish Water demonstrations (court case involving Joan Burton) to the campaign for same sex marriage. Can you compare a campaign for personal civil rights to a protest against paying for a utility bill? I do realise that the principles might be similar but it was in bad taste to equate water charge protesters with LGBT rights. Given that RTE is funded by the tax payer, I feel insulted by the remark and that it is unacceptable to compare LGBT rights with the cost to provide a quality water system.

In fairness Smith came across as a bit of a donkey especially when she thought nothing of being libellous.

Yourself isit

bmwguy wrote: »

Give it up OP I am sure there will be something new to offend you next week.

I enjoy reading message boards and contributing but the constant barrage of snowflakes being offended about everything is denying me my rights to enjoy the internet free from people taking offence.

You, by taking offence, offend me so to speak. Generation perpetually offended please grow up or go for a walk, go for a pint or just go away.

You seem offended

odyssey06

William Poor Semicircle wrote: »

Your idea of a "substantial proportion" and mine are very different. SF, AAA, (even allowing Lab as left) had 20ish percent.

I detest SF but that counts as a substantial proportion in my book. 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 people agreed with them. It certainly wasn't 1 in 20.
Hell I agreed with them on water charges - and nothing else, so on this one issue they may well have spoken for the majority of the electorate.

All those FG and Labour voters and seats lost... and for what? It wasn't even good politics.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

odyssey06 wrote: »

I detest SF but that counts as a substantial proportion in my book. 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 people agreed with them. It certainly wasn't 1 in 20.
Hell I agreed with them on water charges - and nothing else, so on this one issue they may well have spoken for the majority of the electorate.

All those FG and Labour voters and seats lost... and for what? It wasn't even good politics.

You've lost me there. My point was SF + AAA + Lab only achieved 20%. You cannot consider 20% substantial.

Rumpy Pumpy

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I believe that's called the Fine Gael 2016 Election Strategy.

Like it or not, her views, and those of her colleagues on the left, represent a substantial proportion of the national electorate.

If we stick our fingers in our ears, disaffection with "establishment politics" will only rise.

Brid and her colleagues in the alphabet soup of parties on the loony left represent about 3% of the electorate. Turns out megaphone diplomacy, advocating the nationalisation of industry and agriculture, and the 'someone else should pay for it' stuff doesn't sit well with John and Josephine Q. Taxpayer.

odyssey06

William Poor Semicircle wrote: »

You've lost me there. My point was SF + AAA + Lab only achieved 20%. You cannot consider 20% substantial.

I consider 1 in 5 of the population to be substansial. It's hardly a token presence.

If a company's revenue increased by 20%, that would be a substantial increase.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

odyssey06 wrote: »

I consider 1 in 5 of the population to be substansial. It's hardly a token presence.

If a company's revenue increased by 20%, that would be a substantial increase.

Poor analogy. 20% is in relation to a total ballot result, not an increment or increase. 1 in 5 will never win anything of merit.

odyssey06

William Poor Semicircle wrote: »

Poor analogy. 20% is in relation to a total ballot result, not an increment or increase. 1 in 5 will never win anything of merit.

They won this battle didn't they? Or do we still have residential water charges?
UKIP's vote was about 1 in 5 too wasn't it?
Sometimes you don't need to win a majority of seats to get your vote heard, or get your way.
If 20% feel very strongly about an issue, and 80% do not, that can be a majority in its own way.

Fine, you don't think 1 in 5 is substantial. I and others do so don't be surprised by its usage.

padd b1975

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I believe that's called the Fine Gael 2016 Election Strategy.

Like it or not, her views, and those of her colleagues on the left, represent a substantial proportion of the national electorate.

If we stick our fingers in our ears, disaffection with "establishment politics" will only rise.

Currently running at about 2% in the polls.
They'd be lucky to get a couple of seats if that was an election result.

riffmongous

William Poor Semicircle wrote: »

Poor analogy. 20% is in relation to a total ballot result, not an increment or increase. 1 in 5 will never win anything of merit.

But what is substantial then, 30%?

Rumpy Pumpy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Currently running at about 2% in the polls.
They'd be lucky to get a couple of seats if that was an election result.

Adrian Kavanagh predicts one seat for the 'whatever they are called this week' group based on recent polls.
Richey BB to hold his seat in DL.

https://adriankavanaghelections.org/category/opinion-polls/

Donal55

William Poor Semicircle wrote: »

Poor analogy. 20% is in relation to a total ballot result, not an increment or increase. 1 in 5 will never win anything of merit.

Correct. But that 20% was enough to force FF to change tack and so it does have influence.

arayess

Donal55 wrote: »

Correct. But that 20% was enough to force FF to change tack and so it does have influence.

you'd be mad to think that those 20% had the monopoly on the water charges protest.

I was on every major march and I think once I gave a shin fein lad my number 3.
There were people from all walks of life protesting...FF changed their tune cos at a rural level their TDs were being hammered by loyal supporters over it

Donal55

arayess wrote: »

you'd be mad to think that those 20% had the monopoly on the water charges protest.

I was on every major march and I think once I gave a shin fein lad my number 3.
There were people from all walks of life protesting...FF changed there tune cos at a rural level their TDs were being hammered by loyal supporters over it

Likewise. However from my neck of the woods(rural), most of the TDs of FF/Fg ilk were espousing the merits of water charges due to the fact the locals were on group schemes or private wells.

Regardless of the % it was Murphy and his shower, including Ogle, who were at the forefront.

tabby aspreme

Having 5 litres of water a day is a civil right , having 500 for free is a luxury

odyssey06

The Labour Party 2011 general election manifesto states:
"Labour does not favour water charges, which do not address the immediate needs of those who currently receive intermittent or poor water supplies."

Labour received 19.4% of the vote.

odyssey06

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Having 5 litres of water a day is a civil right , having 500 for free is a luxury

We can argue about litres but to add to your point, if you deprive people of access to water, they tend to focus on that rather than concerning themselves about abstract civil rights...

Guy:Incognito

Vic_08 wrote: »

A civil right is nothing if it can be ignored or rescinded based on a judgement about it's use.

Defending the right to protest something you find meaningless is just as important as anything else, if someone, specifically the government of the day is allowed decide that any particular cause is not worthy then there is nothing stopping them from also deciding YOUR cause is equally unworthy.

Nobody is stopped protesting. If Paul Murphy and his mates had stood on the path outside the place with their placards and chanted or whatever, they'd have been let stand their for weeks if they wanted. It's the definition of peaceful protest that's the issue. Shouting "peaceful protest" doesn't make it so.

William Poor Semicircle

William Poor Semicircle wrote: »

Your idea of a "substantial proportion" and mine are very different. SF, AAA, (even allowing Lab as left) had 20ish percent.

1. Actually, the figure is 25% if you EXCLUDE the Labour Party, as I do. 1 in 4 Dail TDs who were returned in 2016 would have been classed as being on the much-maligned 'hard left'.

2. A majority of Dail TDs elected in 2016 opposed water charges, which is what the OP refers to.

Arcade_Tryer

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Having 5 litres of water a day is a civil right , having 500 for free is a luxury

Yeah, that's fair. I'm a supporter of the anti-austerity movement as a whole; it's just a shame that it was the water charges movement which managed to gain momentum. Paying for utilities is good. Cuts to public services are bad.

Ronaldinho

Logo wrote: »

Listening to RTE radio 1, Claire Byrne show today the guest (Brid Smith?) compared anti-Irish Water demonstrations (court case involving Joan Burton) to the campaign for same sex marriage. Can you compare a campaign for personal civil rights to a protest against paying for a utility bill? I do realise that the principles might be similar but it was in bad taste to equate water charge protesters with LGBT rights. Given that RTE is funded by the tax payer, I feel insulted by the remark and that it is unacceptable to compare LGBT rights with the cost to provide a quality water system.

I totally get where you're coming from. Personally think that they're comparable in the sense that they are/were quite 'trendy' or populist views.

Arcade_Tryer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Paying for utilities is good.

As a general rule, like?

Even if it results in a real net loss in income to someone on the breadline, even if they are careful of their water usage?

I'm not opposed to water charges. But I would qualify that statement by saying that those who are the poorest should not suffer a real net loss in wages, so long as they are not using an above-average amount of water for their household's needs.

I was able to afford to pay my water bills on time. But I was living in a converted house divided into 3 flats; where my downstairs neighbour was an accountant, and I work in a similar role; but the other flat housed a family of Jordanian refugees (2 adults, 3 children) crammed into a 2-bedroom apartment, totally unsuitable for their needs.

I'm sorry if I'm taking your post too literally, but there simply must be greater acknowledgement for ability to pay than was provided for under the last regime.

Arcade_Tryer

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As a general rule, like?

Even if it results in a real net loss in income to someone on the breadline, even if they are careful of their water usage?

I'm not opposed to water charges. But I would qualify that statement by saying that those who are the poorest should not suffer a real net loss in wages, so long as they are not using an above-average amount of water for their household's needs.

I was able to afford to pay my water bills on time. But I was living in a converted house divided into 3 flats; where my downstairs neighbour was an accountant, and I work in a similar role; but the other flat housed a family of Jordanian refugees (2 adults, 3 children) crammed into a 2-bedroom apartment, totally unsuitable for their needs.

I'm sorry if I'm taking your post too literally, but there simply must be greater acknowledgement for ability to pay than was provided for under the last regime.

Sorry, that statement was meant in the context of the post I was quoting whereby there would be an initial daily allowance to cover the necessities like showers/dish-washing/washing machine/cooking etc. But any excess should be paid for. Many rural households are already doing so in fact.

Arcade_Tryer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Sorry, that statement was meant in the context of the post I was quoting whereby there would be an initial daily allowance to cover the necessities like showers/dish-washing/washing machine/cooking etc. But any excess should be paid for. Many rural households are already doing so in fact.

I agree.

Any regime which ignores excessive usage is simply indefensible.

Annasopra

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

1. Actually, the figure is 25% if you EXCLUDE the Labour Party, as I do. 1 in 4 Dail TDs who were returned in 2016 would have been classed as being on the much-maligned 'hard left'.

2. A majority of Dail TDs elected in 2016 opposed water charges, which is what the OP refers to.

are you saying SF are far left?

bmwguy

Yourself isit wrote: »

You seem offended

I'm offended by you presuming how I feel

But offended mostly by the OP taking offence

Galwayguy35

Brid Smith and her friends on the hard left will always seize on an opportunity to come on the airwaves to tell their voters they shouldn't have to pay for anything.

Now that the whole anti water charges thing is finished bin charges will be the next big issue.

She's a clueless fool, I just put the tele on mute when she comes on now.

Samaris

The water situation was just frustrating.

Thing is, it needed to be done. It -needs- to be done. Ireland's water network is appalling. There are people living in the midlands and west-midlands who have pretty much never had decent, potable water.

There is an issue that money was being paid by the taxpayers to the government for general utilities throughout the 90s and that absolutely should have covered water, but it didn't. Yeah, that sucks but it doesn't change that our water supplies are not fit for purpose.

Because it's not been updated properly and because water treatment in Ireland has not taken into account (until the EU yelled at us twice and then fined us) peculiarly Irish groundwater conditions (lots and lots and LOTS of bogland = organic components in the water + chlorine for cleaning the water = trihalomethane formation = cancer risk), our network is now in critical need of help.

But Irish Water was set up and run appallingly. The water meters part of it was stupid and indefensible and I don't care how many of the damned things had been bought on the cheap and now HAD to be installed. The semi-privatised state of it made people rightfully suspicious and the complete lack of listening that the government were doing was high-handed and arrogant.

But we need some sort of Irish Water system. And that will need a lot of money, even before we see the benefits. But the government absolutely poisoned the well on it and now we're still in the same position as we were ten years ago, with rotting lead, copper and zinc pipes leaching into the water supply, THM formation potential still well above where it should be and thousands of people in the west/north/midlands still unable to rely on their tapwater.

And now there's a new issue, which is, as ever, changing weather patterns. This is resulting in drought problems at certain times of the year and flooding at others. Both of these issues heavily impact the water supply. Low water levels means higher concentrations of heavy metals and other material that doesn't evaporate in the water remaining and flooding means pollution. This will have to be dealt with robustly as well and that needs a dedicated service, but that was rolled out so lousily that we'll meet that problem only as and when we run into it and have to apply emergency ad hoc solutions that will cost the taxpayer time after time.

Yourself isit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Yeah, that's fair. I'm a supporter of the anti-austerity movement as a whole; it's just a shame that it was the water charges movement which managed to gain momentum. Paying for utilities is good. Cuts to public services are bad.

I think ireland's left is basically a populist anti tax movement, it has more in common with the tea party than Marx.

Seth Brundle

Yourself isit wrote: »

I think ireland's left is basically a populist anti tax movement, it has more in common with the tea party than Marx.

Ireland's left are against wealth taxes which speaks volumes.

Arcade_Tryer

kbannon wrote: »

Ireland's left are against wealth taxes which speaks volumes.

Not sure about that. Source?

They are against property taxes and inheritance taxes to an extent though which is very worrying.

Yourself isit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Not sure about that. Source?

They are against property taxes and inheritance taxes to an extent though which is very worrying.

Well that's all wealth tax. Taxing wealth that is just lying around in back accounts is probably impossible.

suicide_circus

Samaris wrote: »

The water situation was just frustrating.

Thing is, it needed to be done. It -needs- to be done. Ireland's water network is appalling. There are people living in the midlands and west-midlands who have pretty much never had decent, potable water.

There is an issue that money was being paid by the taxpayers to the government for general utilities throughout the 90s and that absolutely should have covered water, but it didn't. Yeah, that sucks but it doesn't change that our water supplies are not fit for purpose.

Because it's not been updated properly and because water treatment in Ireland has not taken into account (until the EU yelled at us twice and then fined us) peculiarly Irish groundwater conditions (lots and lots and LOTS of bogland = organic components in the water + chlorine for cleaning the water = trihalomethane formation = cancer risk), our network is now in critical need of help.

But Irish Water was set up and run appallingly. The water meters part of it was stupid and indefensible and I don't care how many of the damned things had been bought on the cheap and now HAD to be installed. The semi-privatised state of it made people rightfully suspicious and the complete lack of listening that the government were doing was high-handed and arrogant.

But we need some sort of Irish Water system. And that will need a lot of money, even before we see the benefits. But the government absolutely poisoned the well on it and now we're still in the same position as we were ten years ago, with rotting lead, copper and zinc pipes leaching into the water supply, THM formation potential still well above where it should be and thousands of people in the west/north/midlands still unable to rely on their tapwater.

And now there's a new issue, which is, as ever, changing weather patterns. This is resulting in drought problems at certain times of the year and flooding at others. Both of these issues heavily impact the water supply. Low water levels means higher concentrations of heavy metals and other material that doesn't evaporate in the water remaining and flooding means pollution. This will have to be dealt with robustly as well and that needs a dedicated service, but that was rolled out so lousily that we'll meet that problem only as and when we run into it and have to apply emergency ad hoc solutions that will cost the taxpayer time after time.

We've basically just kicked the can down the road. It will happen and it would have been nice to grasp the nettle while we still had a bit of breathing space but a combination of shocking strategy and mismanagement, anti austerity sentiment, a large cohort of people who don't want to pay for anything and the threat of privatisation meant the plug had to be pulled. Again, it was a real shame that such a display of grassroots people power was directed at such an unworthy cause as not wanting to pay for water by usage - standard best practice the world over.

Galwayguy35

suicide_circus wrote: »

We've basically just kicked the can down the road. It will happen and it would have been nice to grasp the nettle while we still had a bit of breathing space but a combination of shocking strategy and mismanagement, anti austerity sentiment, a large cohort of people who don't want to pay for anything and the threat of privatisation meant the plug had to be pulled. Again, it was a real shame that such a display of grassroots people power was directed at such an unworthy cause as not wanting to pay for water by usage - standard best practice the world over.

Oh they want it to be paid for all right, just as long as it's through taxation, the left don't even want people to be charged for excessive usage.

It's ok as long as someone else foots the bill.

The Government should have stood their ground on water charges, if we use the stuff we should pay for it.

Arcade_Tryer

nearly_40 wrote: »

every single political party in the state is left wing , some just happen to be more so than others , in one way its a good thing as it seperates the practical left from the idealogical ( paul murphy ) looney left

we are a deeply statist people however

FG is not a left wing party.

CatFromHue

I for one look forward to the global anti water pride marches

Seth Brundle

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Not sure about that. Source?

They are against property taxes and inheritance taxes to an extent though which is very worrying.

You first ask for a source and then confirm my point??

Samaris

suicide_circus wrote: »

We've basically just kicked the can down the road. It will happen and it would have been nice to grasp the nettle while we still had a bit of breathing space but a combination of shocking strategy and mismanagement, anti austerity sentiment, a large cohort of people who don't want to pay for anything and the threat of privatisation meant the plug had to be pulled. Again, it was a real shame that such a display of grassroots people power was directed at such an unworthy cause as not wanting to pay for water by usage - standard best practice the world over.

I do suspect we'd have complained but paid it if it was rolled out sensibly and not had all the catches like privatisation. That really made people suspicious and not unjustifiably.

The timing was very unfortunate, people were sick to the back teeth of austerity. I personally believe austerity was necessary and it worked, but I know people struggled (hell, I emigrated). Water charges was met with the level of fury of the tax on children's shoes, mostly because it seemed to be yet another burden when money just wasn't stretching as was. So I have some sympathy for the anger, and the roll-out was just shockingly bad, but dammit, we need it and we need it done properly.

It was a shame that that was what became the grassroots cause, yeah. It's poisoned the idea for a generation, but it will have to be introduced before the next comes along. And it needs to be State-owned, private companies should not control such an essential resource as water.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

are you saying SF are far left?

I said they have been classed as such.

CatFromHue

Samaris wrote: »

I do suspect we'd have complained but paid it if it was rolled out sensibly and not had all the catches like privatisation. That really made people suspicious and not unjustifiably.

The timing was very unfortunate, people were sick to the back teeth of austerity. I personally believe austerity was necessary and it worked, but I know people struggled (hell, I emigrated). Water charges was met with the level of fury of the tax on children's shoes, mostly because it seemed to be yet another burden when money just wasn't stretching as was. So I have some sympathy for the anger, and the roll-out was just shockingly bad, but dammit, we need it and we need it done properly.

It was a shame that that was what became the grassroots cause, yeah. It's poisoned the idea for a generation, but it will have to be introduced before the next comes along. And it needs to be State-owned, private companies should not control such an essential resource as water.

The banks just finished off an already sinking ship. Our public finances were so bad, we were running massive deficits, in the years prior to the bail out that we were doomed.

The majority of the money borrowed in the bail out was used to keep the country going due to the terrible state of our public finances.

The banks have been scapegoated, I never thought I'd say that, to cover up the real problem.

It's politically favourable for SF, AAA/PBP, Independents to keep this myth going as then they can be nice and populist or maybe they're just too stupid to actually see what happened.

What they're actually doing though is recreating the policies that created austerity in the first place while also giving out about austerity!

I defo agree with you on the roll out of IW, it's almost as if FG and FF didn't want to do it as then they wouldn't be populist!

jimmycrackcorm

I look forward to Brid Smith's fight about bin charges. I wonder if the protesters will have to frog march bin men to collect the bins that they refuse to pay for.

Galwayguy35

CatFromHue wrote: »

The banks just finished off an already sinking ship. Our public finances were so bad, we were running massive deficits, in the years prior to the bail out that we were doomed.

The majority of the money borrowed in the bail out was used to keep the country going due to the terrible state of our public finances.

The banks have been scapegoated, I never thought I'd say that, to cover up the real problem.

It's politically favourable for SF, AAA/PBP, Independents to keep this myth going as then they can be nice and populist or maybe they're just too stupid to actually see what happened.

What they're actually doing though is recreating the policies that created austerity in the first place while also giving out about austerity!

I defo agree with you on the roll out of IW, it's almost as if FG and FF didn't want to do it as then they wouldn't be populist!

The looney left will always be able to tell people what they want to hear because they know they will never be in Government, SF on the other hand seem to be doing well in every election so one would imagine they will soon run out of excuses not to use their mandate and go into government.