Water meter protests

But still won't reduce the tax taken from people that goes into water at present.

A double "tap".

Lemlin wrote: »

You'll find the majority of anti water tax protestors the same. Akin to the likes of Sinn Fein, they'll blurt out supposed "facts" but if you actually try to interrogate what they are saying they have little left to back it up.

Sadly after saying it enough times they managed to get people to use their misleading terminology.

It really is should be called a water charge rather than a water tax (ironically, while it will obviously be an additional expense for households, it actually is the opposite of a tax as it will reduce the amount of tax money spent into our water distribution network)

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that the best you could do? Couldn't address any of his points at all?

Why should I?

Anatom has written that there will be "...no privatisation until..."

Meaning that there will be privatisation.

Essentially Ireland's water supply is being privatised.

However, just because the mention of privatisation "annoys" him, doesn't mean anything.

Anybody who thinks that privatisation of our water supply isn't what this is all about is sticking their heads in the sand.

Lemlin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that the best you could do? Couldn't address any of his points at all?

You'll find the majority of anti water tax protestors the same. Akin to the likes of Sinn Fein, they'll blurt out supposed "facts" but if you actually try to interrogate what they are saying they have little left to back it up.

Uriel.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that the best you could do?

Yes it is.

Little CuChulainn

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh poor you.

Is that the best you could do? Couldn't address any of his points at all?

Anatom wrote: »

This privatisation thing really annoys me.

Oh poor you.

Daith wrote: »

Who's in charge of Irish Water?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-irish-water-chief-faces-pac-over-96m-poolbeg-bill-29933890.html

Indeed!

Anatom wrote: »

Well, Poolbeg was more of a political football than anything else, but you're right - the local authorities don't appear to have the management skills (or I've seen zero evidence of it) to run this properly.

Who's in charge of Irish Water?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/now-irish-water-chief-faces-pac-over-96m-poolbeg-bill-29933890.html

Daith wrote: »

Ok but that's not the taxpayers fault is it? It was local council ineptitude just like the Poolbeg Incinerator fiasco.

Well, Poolbeg was more of a political football than anything else, but you're right - the local authorities don't appear to have the management skills (or I've seen zero evidence of it) to run this properly.

The taxpayer is the well the government always runs to when they run out of water. Twas ever thus..

Anatom wrote: »

They did, you're right. But the infrastructure still doesn't work.

Ok but that's not the taxpayers fault is it? It was local council ineptitude just like the Poolbeg Incinerator fiasco.

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.

They did, you're right. But the infrastructure still doesn't work. Look at the problems Dublin itself has had in the last few months alone!! One of the first things Irish Water has done is to stop one of DCC's projects because it was too expensive. Irish Water is going to do it more cheaply and effectively (I can't remember the details, but it had to do with a pipe DCC wanted to lay out into the Irish Sea which has now been cancelled..).

I agree with you - we should be paying for our water. With Irish Water set up, at least we'll know that that money will be going to them, and not into some generic, catch-all local authority budget with different needs - assuming they got it from the Minister in the first place...

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..

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.

This privatisation thing really annoys me. Its a handy stone to throw into the works when people feel they have lost their argument. 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.

Anyone who'd taken the time to read the Capital Investment Plan that Irish Water put out would realise very quickly that fixing that infrastructure - fixing, not developing or expanding, just fixing - will take at least ten years. The focus from Irish Water at the moment is to fix the most important and risky areas first - boil water notice areas, high-leakage areas etc. - and until that happens there'll be no sale.

The other thing that annoys me is the Denis O'Brien "connection" - there is none. He owns one of the four contracting companies that are putting meters in. Nothing else.

The rest of the speculation is just rubbish and detracts from the real debate.

Getting back to the point of this thread - the protests - I have no problem with protests at all. Some people feel very strongly about not wanting to be metered. That's their opinion and I support their right not to have a meter if that's what they prefer. However, I think the majority of them will change their minds once they see their neighbours' metered bills coming in at a lower amount than their assessed one next year...

However, what really gets me is the abuse that the protestors give to the lads working on the metering. Some of it is simply disgusting and it is mostly done by people who don't even live in the area they're protesting in!! Stick to outside your own gate, or lobby your TD - he/she is paid to take representations - contractors doing their job aren't.

Oh, and Irish Water is subject to FOI requests. It always has been.

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.

I am absolutely sure you are wrong about them not being subject to the freedom of information act. Most of what has been recently published in the press about budgets was provided to journalists through FOI requests made directly to Irish Water - and in some cases journalist did specify this clearly in the articles.

Having different opinions is OK ... stating wrong facts is not really helping the debate :-/

end of the road

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...

same with mrs thatcher burn/rot in hell, all though her little foreign friends and removing workers rights had a part to play

flutered

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.

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.

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.

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...

Bob24 wrote: »

I stopped reading you post there.

No one has talked about privatisation, everything you are saying is speculation.

You're dreaming.

Tony EH wrote: »

Once IW becomes fully privatised,

I stopped reading you post there.

No one has talked about privatisation, everything you are saying is speculation.

Even if a privatisation was to happen, it would not be immediately and it would most likely not include the network infrastructure (our electricity and gas networks are still managed by state owned companies and there is no sign of change there). The network part would keep investing.

Also, I doubt a spinoff of production, customer management and billing would be allowed if they weren't a few other companies interested in entering the market. I don't see this happening anytime soon, but again it would not impact network improvements anyway.

No Pants

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

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.

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.

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.

AlanS181824

The water metre guys are still digging away in front of my house :P

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.

As far as I understand, the staff there is about 1/3 from Bord Gais (mostly BG Energy, they got some type of deal to join IW), 1/3 from government bodies (mostly LAs I guess), and 1/3 from the private sector.

I am not very well documented about the background of their senior management to be honest, but would be interested.

In any case even of some of them are the same people, I still think they will have more pressure to deliver and provide more data to be accountable. LAs are probably able to get away with a lot of things because they are too small and not monitored properly. If I get it right irish water will have a duty to monitor the work/issues and report to the regulator.

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: »

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.

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.