Water charges revisited?

dense

unit 1 wrote: »

Paul Murphy spooked sf, sf spooked ff, ff desperation to get back in spooked rhyme and reason, and now we are where we are.
The next strong government will introduce charges in some form or shape, and I feel this in inevitable. Its even possible, and terrifying that it might be ff, who brought us from prosperity in 1997 to bankruptcy in 2007, a mere 10 years to create the greatest financial disaster in the history of the state. Their answer to water charges, MORE FREE STUFF. Its like 1977 all over again.

There's no way scrapping €270m that wasn't going to be collected can be compared to what happened in 1977 and its repercussions.



It would be full circle if FF did introduce them though!

oceanman

unit 1 wrote: »

Paul Murphy spooked sf, sf spooked ff, ff desperation to get back in spooked rhyme and reason, and now we are where we are.
The next strong government will introduce charges in some form or shape, and I feel this in inevitable. Its even possible, and terrifying that it might be ff, who brought us from prosperity in 1997 to bankruptcy in 2007, a mere 10 years to create the greatest financial disaster in the history of the state. Their answer to water charges, MORE FREE STUFF. Its like 1977 all over again.

you will be a long time waiting for the next strong government, or any other type government to bring back water charges, no government would touch it with a barge pole now. fg had one chance to get it right but instead they completely screwed it up.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

That is just a nonsense post.

If Paul Murphy had been in power for the last thirty years, Aer Lingus would still be in state ownership, it would be losing hundreds of millions every year, and it would cost €1,000 to fly to London return on one of the three flights a day to the UK.

As I said, that's what Murphy's vision is, keep it in public ownership, its not FG and the EU's.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

As I said, that's what Murphy's vision is, keep it in public ownership, its not FG and the EU's.

You miss the point, Paul Murphy would keep everything in public ownership, from banks and taxi companies to restaurants and airlines.

For the rest of the rational world, each case should be examined on its merits. There is no reason for Irish Water to be privatised.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

You miss the point, Paul Murphy would keep everything in public ownership, from banks and taxi companies to restaurants and airlines.

For the rest of the rational world, each case should be examined on its merits. There is no reason for Irish Water to be privatised.

I think Eurostat would disagree.

And I think they had expected that such a move was going to be assured. I'd say strong hints had been dropped, going by what Fergus O Dowd said.


It was too susceptible to government interference, too reliant on government subsidy and too much the same as what it was supposed to be replacing, doing the same thing but with charges which had been watered down to pointless by the very government which was crrating and controlling it. Sounds like a monster!

These are the reasons it should be privatised.

But the political will for that is not there right now. It's been put on the long finger. But there is hope as long as it's not wound down. If it's wound down privatisation goes with it.

blanch152

The model of Irish Water as a public utility raising revenue and borrowing on its own bat outside of government revenues isn't unique. Dublin Port is an example of it working well:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dublin-port-will-ramp-investment-up-to-1bn-37147053.html

It is not the only one. TCD is another example:

https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/trinity-unveils-plans-for-e3-institute-in-engineering-energy-and-environment/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/trinity-college-dublin-planning-125bn-tech-campus-35800990.html

These organisations are successfully borrowing off the books and investing in much-needed infrastructure. The misguided protests and populist politicians like Paul Murphy and Pearse Doherty have a lot to answer for.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

The model of Irish Water as a public utility raising revenue and borrowing on its own bat outside of government revenues isn't unique. Dublin Port is an example of it working well:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dublin-port-will-ramp-investment-up-to-1bn-37147053.html

It is not the only one. TCD is another example:

https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/trinity-unveils-plans-for-e3-institute-in-engineering-energy-and-environment/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/trinity-college-dublin-planning-125bn-tech-campus-35800990.html

These organisations are successfully borrowing off the books and investing in much-needed infrastructure. The misguided protests and populist politicians like Paul Murphy and Pearse Doherty have a lot to answer for.

They're not exactly what the EC is talking about when it promotes the benefits liberalisation can offer to consumers are they??

Some essential services — energy, telecommunications, transport, water and post — are still controlled by public authorities rather than private companies in some countries.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

They're not exactly what the EC is talking about when it promotes the benefits liberalisation can offer to consumers are they??

That isn't related to the point I was making. However, it is interesting that some people want to go back to the time when installing a phone line took six months under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't related to the point I was making.

The examples had nothing to do with liberalisation and the advantages for consumer.

blanch152 wrote: »

However, it is interesting that some people want to go back to the time when installing a phone line took six months under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

What people want to go back to that?



You're making that very case yourself by saying you want IW to always be state owned and operated and not being able see a single advantage if IW was to be privatised.



I'm saying that's why it used to take 6 months to get a phone line installed, and so are you, because p+t was a state run and controlled monopoly.

You're saying that's why Aer Lingus charged a thousand euro to London.



And I'm agreeing.


Your own argument is arguing against itself.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

The examples had nothing to do with liberalisation and the advantages for consumer.







What people want to go back to that?



You're making that very case yourself by saying you want IW to always be state owned and operated and not being able see a single advantage if IW was to be privatised.



I'm saying that's why it used to take 6 months to get a phone line installed, and so are you, because p+t was a state run and controlled monopoly.

You're saying that's why Aer Lingus charged a thousand euro to London.



And I'm agreeing.


Your own argument is arguing against itself.

What I am saying is that each case must be looked at on its individual merits.

Some parts of the EU Commission want everything privatised but that is not an agreed EU policy. Some members of the Irish Dail (the Paul Murphys) want everything nationalised but that is not an agreed Irish government policy.

I am happy with the current situation where we decide on a case-by-case basis. In relation to Irish Water, I don't believe there has ever been a case made by an Irish political party or government that it should be privatised, and I happen to agree with that.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

In relation to Irish Water, I don't believe there has ever been a case made by an Irish political party or government that it should be privatised, and I happen to agree with that.

I gather that much, but I'm trying to understand why people are taking the lead from politicians and agreeing with their current claimed default position on this, as opposed to putting the case against privatising it forward.

I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for wanting to keep it like Aer Lingus or p+t.

Nor can I think of any other newly-minted, customer-focused utility service being announced nowadays along with constant promises of keeping it in public ownership forever, happening anywhere, other than in a communist country, certainly not from the best boys in the EU free market class, us.

It's downright economic madness for any party to be making such forever promises about IW. The government (for that read any government) needs shot of it, and all that hassle and money and conservation grants, the sooner the better.

And I dont believe these assurances about never privatising it are at all credible, for those reasons.

Let's say an FG government was to recommend privatisation, what would your own objection to it be?

Is there a fundamental problem with privatising Irish Water or liberalising water services that the EU simply isn't telling people about?



There are no conditions attached to their enthusiasm as far as I see, we'd all do well from such a move.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The model of Irish Water as a public utility raising revenue and borrowing on its own bat outside of government revenues isn't unique. Dublin Port is an example of it working well:

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/dublin-port-will-ramp-investment-up-to-1bn-37147053.html

It is not the only one. TCD is another example:

https://www.tcd.ie/news_events/articles/trinity-unveils-plans-for-e3-institute-in-engineering-energy-and-environment/

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/trinity-college-dublin-planning-125bn-tech-campus-35800990.html

These organisations are successfully borrowing off the books and investing in much-needed infrastructure. The misguided protests and populist politicians like Paul Murphy and Pearse Doherty have a lot to answer for.

Do you recall this?

Cronyism manifestly ignored
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/cronyism-manifestly-ignored-1.1206270

I wouldn't be using Dublin Port as a model to support anything. Again, it's not down to the idea, but rather the quality of the politicians and their friends who orchestrate it.

You really need to get over the Paul Murphy thing. He's only important to yourself.

crossman47

dense wrote: »

I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for wanting to keep it like Aer Lingus or p+t.

Yes there is. Similar to electricity generation, water is essential for living and so should remain in the control of the state.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

I gather that much, but I'm trying to understand why people are taking the lead from politicians and agreeing with their current claimed default position on this, as opposed to putting the case against privatising it forward.

I haven't seen any legitimate reasons for wanting to keep it like Aer Lingus or p+t.

Nor can I think of any other newly-minted, customer-focused utility service being announced nowadays along with constant promises of keeping it in public ownership forever, happening anywhere, other than in a communist country, certainly not from the best boys in the EU free market class, us.

It's downright economic madness for any party to be making such forever promises about IW. The government (for that read any government) needs shot of it, and all that hassle and money and conservation grants, the sooner the better.

And I dont believe these assurances about never privatising it are at all credible, for those reasons.

Let's say an FG government was to recommend privatisation, what would your own objection to it be?

Is there a fundamental problem with privatising Irish Water or liberalising water services that the EU simply isn't telling people about?



There are no conditions attached to their enthusiasm as far as I see, we'd all do well from such a move.

There are always arguments for and against privatisation.

To what extent is there a market failure?
To what extent is Government intervention needed?
To what extent is there a public policy goal deficit?

Take national security for example. Theoretically, you could outsource all your law enforcement. However, you lose control. Those in charge of law enforcement could just take over your country. So there are public policy goals - maintenance of democratic control over law enforcement - that are a strong argument against privatisation.

Take telecommunications for example. Access to telecommunications isn't always provided by the market and government sometimes has to intervene. The National Broadband Strategy is an example of this while the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was a previous iteration. Technological change over the last century has meant that the need for government ownership and control has waxed and waned in the area of telecommunications.

Take hairdressing services for example. There is no need for the Government to get involved at all. No market failure and no public policy interest.

As you can see from the three examples, there is a spectrum of options ranging from full nationalisation to full privatisation. Where a particular entity sits on that spectrum depends on your view of what it does, what it should do, what market failures there are, what public policy issues there are. Some of that is factual, some of that is opinion.

Water is a vital commodity, so there is a public policy issue in ensuring safe and secure access to water. We have seen how dispersed and multiple provider provision through local authorities has been a complete failure over the last century. As a consequence, for me, it is simple - Irish Water should be owned by the State.

Now, in the future, if someone invented a machine that could be plugged into your solar panel and make drinking water out of air for less than 1c a litre, that public policy imperative may change, but I cannot really see how it is likely.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you recall this?



I wouldn't be using Dublin Port as a model to support anything. Again, it's not down to the idea, but rather the quality of the politicians and their friends who orchestrate it.

You really need to get over the Paul Murphy thing. He's only important to yourself.

Well, you need to understand first how the governance of state companies works to get a real understanding of how important or not the appointment of Joe Burke was.

Glad you agree that Paul Murphy is unimportant. That doesn't mean I can't use his views as an exemplar of something.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, you need to understand first how the governance of state companies works to get a real understanding of how important or not the appointment of Joe Burke was.

Glad you agree that Paul Murphy is unimportant. That doesn't mean I can't use his views as an exemplar of something.

I understand we should not excuse away cronyism for any perceived greater good. That's what has us with the quality of FF/FG politicians we are stuck with and a good measure of the reasons why IW failed despite any dismissive arrogance by it's supporters.

I suppose so. We can all find someone we disagree with to be used in such a manner. As long as you understand he speaks for very few people and certainly not for the majority of people who protested IW. He's more credible than the man with two pints in fairness.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Water is a vital commodity, so there is a public policy issue in ensuring safe and secure access to water.

Whilst I respect anyone who supports the Right2Water movement, why is this vital commodity bit always wheeled out?


Do you not think that electricity is a vital commodity too?

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Whilst I respect anyone who supports the Right2Water movement, why is this vital commodity bit always wheeled out?


Do you not think that electricity is a vital commodity too?

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

A massive twist to suggest I support the Right2Water movement. I don't believe there was ever any intention to privatise water, and neither do I believe it necessary to amend the Constitution and I fully support water charges, so I don't know how you made that connection, unless you are only having a bit of fun instead of serious debate.

So I think we can leave it there.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

A massive twist to suggest I support the Right2Water movement. I don't believe there was ever any intention to privatise water, and neither do I believe it necessary to amend the Constitution and I fully support water charges, so I don't know how you made that connection, unless you are only having a bit of fun instead of serious debate.

So I think we can leave it there.

The evidence may well suggest privatisation could have been a possibility perhaps when you look at it.
Even the failure to pass the market test could be seen as a EU attempt to force it into private hands to let it be able to borrow.
Even if it wasn't intentional from the start, the scenario in the end looks like it was sort of being forced on the govt by outside influences!

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, you need to understand first how the governance of state companies works to get a real understanding of how important or not the appointment of Joe Burke was.

What does the poster need to understand about corporate governance?

You may yourself be confusing corporate governance with the rather loose CRO rules concerning directorships.

Both can be adhered to and observed, even if mates with nothing to bring to the table are awarded directorships.


https://slumleaks.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/who-is-francis-coleman-frank-sheehy/

dense

Edward M wrote: »

The evidence may well suggest privatisation could have been a possibility perhaps when you look at it.
Even the failure to pass the market test could be seen as a EU attempt to force it into private hands to let it be able to borrow.
Even if it wasn't intentional from the start, the scenario in the end looks like it was sort of being forced on the govt by outside influences!

Yes.

The outside influences being the free market EU cheerleaders and the IMF, because cash being advanced was dependent on the creation of IW.


Had it passed the free market test you would have had a market to regulate, and all the fun that that brings to the consumer regarding competition and opening the market effectively to outfits providing the same thing, water, under a different brand, just like electricity and with a price to pay for the privilege.



Heaven knows what the EC thought of the package that it been forwarded in an attempt to pass the test, because not one aspect was complying with their expectations by the time it came to being assessed.


So yes it was built into its DNA.
It was even crucial once that it passed this free market test, until I think it's creators realised they'd been had, being left with something no one really knows what to do with now.



The Right2Water people want it kept in public ownership but don't realise the repercussions of keeping it.


The government wants people to vote to keep it in public ownership so that they can claim the public wants IW to continue existing.



Clever moves require clever thinking.

crossman47

dense wrote: »

Whilst I respect anyone who supports the Right2Water movement, why is this vital commodity bit always wheeled out?


Do you not think that electricity is a vital commodity too?

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

You're missing the point. The generation of electricity has not been privatised.

Edward M

crossman47 wrote: »

You're missing the point. The generation of electricity has not been privatised.

It has. There are many private electric generation companies here.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/japanese-buy-300m-irish-wind-farm-portfolio-1.3172596?mode=amp

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Yes.

The outside influences being the free market EU cheerleaders and the IMF, because cash being advanced was dependent on the creation of IW.


Had it passed the free market test you would have had a market to regulate, and all the fun that that brings to the consumer regarding competition and opening the market effectively to outfits providing the same thing, water, under a different brand, just like electricity and with a price to pay for the privilege.



Heaven knows what the EC thought of the package that it been forwarded in an attempt to pass the test, because not one aspect was complying with their expectations by the time it came to being assessed.


So yes it was built into its DNA.
It was even crucial once that it passed this free market test, until I think it's creators realised they'd been had, being left with something no one really knows what to do with now.



The Right2Water people want it kept in public ownership but don't realise the repercussions of keeping it.


The government wants people to vote to keep it in public ownership so that they can claim the public wants IW to continue existing.



Clever moves require clever thinking.

The problem with that is that you assume passing the market test equate to privatisation and competition. Our universities are and remain in State ownership, and they passed the market test last January:

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/methods/nationalaccounts/Assessment_of_Classification_of_Universities_in_Ireland_according_to_ESA_2010.pdf

BarryD2

dense wrote: »

Whilst I respect anyone who supports the Right2Water movement, why is this vital commodity bit always wheeled out?


Do you not think that electricity is a vital commodity too?

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

It's wheeled out because it's a convenient catchphrase to engage lazy thinkers and to promote a political agenda to get some people bums on seats. Electricity is vital as you say, communications are vital, food is vital, clothing is vital shelter is vital and so on. All things people accept the need to pay usage charges for.

And lots of rural people are paying water charges by usage which makes us think about we use and what it's costing. It's right and proper that if you live e.g in leafy Foxrock and have a large garden of shrubs and plants, that you factor in the cost of running a sprinkler daily on your precious plot. It's right and proper that if you want two or three power showers a day, then you factor in the cost.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

It has. There are many private electric generation companies here.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/japanese-buy-300m-irish-wind-farm-portfolio-1.3172596?mode=amp

Yes, but the grid remains in State ownership.

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but the grid remains in State ownership.

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/

True enough.
But these farms aren't generating at a loss or break even margin.
They do make a profit and it affects the price of supply of electricity to the consumer.

Edward M

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's wheeled out because it's a convenient catchphrase to engage lazy thinkers and to promote a political agenda to get some people bums on seats. Electricity is vital as you say, communications are vital, food is vital, clothing is vital shelter is vital and so on. All things people accept the need to pay usage charges for.

And lots of rural people are paying water charges by usage which makes us think about we use and what it's costing. It's right and proper that if you live e.g in leafy Foxrock and have a large garden of shrubs and plants, that you factor in the cost of running a sprinkler daily on your precious plot. It's right and proper that if you want two or three power showers a day, then you factor in the cost.

I'd be for water charges myself.
But nothing is being wheeled out conveniently to get bums on seats.
We were fed a drip about the necessity of charges based on sound reasoning, like the need for investment in the infrastructure and the lack of money to do it. Then this modern company Irish Water was set up in what looked like the most expensive fashion possible with all the perks for its employees that could nearly be thrown at them, while every other worker and average citizen were virtually at the end of their tether.
Then came the well founded enough claims of cronyism with meter contracts and cut price company sales by nama.
The chance of privatisation of the service is real enough, it would be sold to us citizens as opening the market up to competition and there by giving us choice and saving us money.
But in reality it would just be putting money in the pockets of other wealthy investors in the guise of being for our benefit.
If the total truth were told instead of the rhetoric of this is of benefit to nobody but the consumer it might endear the govt to us more.
Sure, somebody has to fix the problems with the water, but it should have been handled much better by the govt, more transparently and honestly!

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I'd be for water charges myself.
But nothing is being wheeled out conveniently to get bums on seats.
We were fed a drip about the necessity of charges based on sound reasoning, like the need for investment in the infrastructure and the lack of money to do it. Then this modern company Irish Water was set up in what looked like the most expensive fashion possible with all the perks for its employees that could nearly be thrown at them, while every other worker and average citizen were virtually at the end of their tether.
Then came the well founded enough claims of cronyism with meter contracts and cut price company sales by nama.
The chance of privatisation of the service is real enough, it would be sold to us citizens as opening the market up to competition and there by giving us choice and saving us money.
But in reality it would just be putting money in the pockets of other wealthy investors in the guise of being for our benefit.
If the total truth were told instead of the rhetoric of this is of benefit to nobody but the consumer it might endear the govt to us more.
Sure, somebody has to fix the problems with the water, but it should have been handled much better by the govt, more transparently and honestly!

To be fair to the employees, Irish Water was set up on the same basis as the other state utility companies, rewards and remuneration on the same basis. There was an awful lot of misconception around that issue.

People in An Post, Eirgrid, DAA etc. all get paid on a similar basis. It wasn't fair to single out the Irish Water employees. That was just a convenient soft target for the politicians of the left. Notably, they didn't criticise the high packages of others in State bodies represented by their friends in unions.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair to the employees, Irish Water was set up on the same basis as the other state utility companies, rewards and remuneration on the same basis. There was an awful lot of misconception around that issue.

People in An Post, Eirgrid, DAA etc. all get paid on a similar basis. It wasn't fair to single out the Irish Water employees. That was just a convenient soft target for the politicians of the left. Notably, they didn't criticise the high packages of others in State bodies represented by their friends in unions.

Is this common across the CS?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-water-staff-share-3m-bonus-despite-overly-high-costs-at-utility-35607221.html