Water meter protests

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Privatisation of the bin service seems to have gone pretty well.

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.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Privatisation goes wrong when the government gives too much free reign to the company.

definitely, such as the UK energy sector

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.

its an example of privatize to get a cash injection, it never lasts and ends in failure.

That's easy.

Greyhound.


:pac:

Uriel. wrote: »

ah yes, this typical sh1te from you. "oh you don't agree with "x", you must be part of the establishment so".

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

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!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What about paying people €200k to do something which local authorities could easily have done without a massive increase in staff?

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.

Also, I notice the no-sayers tend to only give a few supposingly shocking figures which have no significance compared to the spendings involved to maintain and improve our water service (billions of euros). I am yet to read an argument against what is being done based on the whole picture and what is better in terms of delivering a good public service. I guess it is easier for many journalists to make quick money by just sending a couple of FOI Requests to Irish Water and printing whatever they think might create a scandal. An in depth analysis of they their capital investment plan and what they should actually deliver with the money they are spending (good or bad) is not as good a money maker I guess.

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: »

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.

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 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...

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

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.

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...