Little CuChulainn wrote: » Privatisation of the bin service seems to have gone pretty well.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Privatisation goes wrong when the government gives too much free reign to the company.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Eircom is a prime example. The government stupidly sold the network as well as the operator. That meant they had no control over where phone lines were placed. The new owner prioritised, and still does, profitable areas and so people in rural areas were not given any infrastructure upgrades.
Uriel. wrote: » Very true. And Lenin will rise again too.
end of the road wrote: » which private waste company do you work for?
end of the road wrote: » but has it in general? in my case i signed up with a company after the stupid rules on burning rubbish were brought in meaning i couldn't burn my rubbish on my land, in fairness the company are very good, local lads i think, but i could be the lucky one.
Uriel. wrote: » ah yes, this typical sh1te from you. "oh you don't agree with "x", you must be part of the establishment so".
end of the road wrote: » would have been much simpler to say "i don't work for one"
end of the road wrote: » privatization isn't done to benefit the public, its made out that it will so it will get public support but give it a while and well you know the rest
Bob24 wrote: » Quite possibly, but at this stage have you seen many people suggesting a privatisation? (Yes I know, one national utility is easier to privatise ... But it also makes economical sense for the public in the long term compared to local authorities). People paying for the resources they use is not the same as privatisation. As far as water is concerned, I am very much in favour of the charging people for what they use (and to fix a network we should be ashamed of as a developed country), but also very much against letting a private company manage the distribution network!
Little CuChulainn wrote: » No it wouldn't. People who resort to assumptions about a posters private life don't just stop. They try and bring it up constantly afterwards. It's just a lazy argument.
end of the road wrote: » again, it would have been much simpler for him to say "i don't work for one"
hatrickpatrick wrote: » What about paying people €200k to do something which local authorities could easily have done without a massive increase in staff?
Bob24 wrote: » I don't know about that ... Local authorities don't exactly have a great track record with delivering a good water service. I think it is not a bad thing to have an entity with a centralised vision and which (due to its size and uniqueness) will inevitably be subject to more scrutiny.
Daith wrote: » Aren't most of the staff taken from the local authorities anyway? Isn't the main man of Irish Water the one responsible for the Poolbeg Incinerator fiasco? Not that what you're saying is wrong but it still boils down to the people working there.
Bob24 wrote: » And one thing we will most likely agree about: whoever is running IW should be monitored on a regular based and be made accountable to the public for urgently fixing the largest issues (boil water notices, etc) and improving the quality of service and reducing leaks in the mid-term. If they don't deliver I will agree irish water didn't make sense ... But I am personally hopeful public pressure will force them to do so.
Bob24 wrote: » And one thing we will most likely agree about: whoever is running IW should be monitored on a regular based and be made accountable to the public
Tony EH wrote: » Once IW becomes fully privatised,
Bob24 wrote: » I stopped reading you post there. No one has talked about privatisation, everything you are saying is speculation.
No Pants wrote: » Well, that's not going to be happening. It's more likely that this will end up like the HSE, a huge bureaucracy that'll deflect attention from the minister. Any time anything unpleasant becomes public, the minister can issue one of the following stock statements: a) I have directed the issue towards Irish Water management for comment. b) I have requested that a report on the matter be commissioned. c) It would be improper for me to comment on a matter that is still under investigation. As for the regulator, he/she never met a price rise they didn't like.
Tony EH wrote: » Pressure from whom? Once IW becomes fully privatised, they won't give a shit about pressure from anyone. They'll have free reign to do pretty much as they wish. Future governmental bodies can just put up their hands and say it isn't their problem, which will leave the payer in...um...hot water. Or, not as the case may be.
Tony EH wrote: » Which is why political bodies like FG and FF love the privatisation racket. It allows them to take their hands off the wheel and it ends up as nobody being accountable. Watch this space...
flutered wrote: » when iw was set up, it was made untouchable, it is not answerable to the ombdusman, plus it cannot be asked questions under the freedom of information act, with perhaps two of the proven most wasteful civil servants,it has been irelands misfortune to undo, the amounts that they have mismanaged pls their handshakes would make some quite a difference to a normal countrys budget.
Anatom wrote: » There'll be no privatisation until the national water infrastructure is fixed and, given the level of under-investment (or non-investment really) over the past few decades, that infrastructure (the only asset which could realistically be privatised) won't be suitable for sale for at least fifteen years, even if there's a political appetite for it..
Daith wrote: » DCC spent over a 130 million alone on the water supply and waste management last year. I don't doubt that our water infrastructure needs more money but non-investment is not correct at all. Which is why I get pissed off when people say "Don't you think you should be paying for water?". Yes I have been paying for water. I mightn't have been paying enough for what is needed but I have been paying.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/09db0d78cf62f598a20c8cba8bae71e5.svg)
