Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water Charges Protest.

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Taxburden carrier wrote: »
    Maybe we need to have a closer look at our expenditure.

    Here's an idea to reduce expenditure:

    We could create a semi-state utility company for water provision (y'know, like ESB).

    It could replace the inefficient model of having 30-something separate Local Authorities (whose operations are divided using arbitrary lines on a map) duplicating the same service.

    Over time and with decent management the cost of provision should be capable of being reduced substantially through efficiencies. If one starts from the perspective that "we" already pay, then "we" will be paying less, so that can only be a good thing. (See income tax decreases in the last budget for example.)

    Also, by having a semi-state utility company rather than the local authorities, the badly needed investment for infrastructure can be acquired without it being part of Govt borrowing and adding to Govt debt. (History has clearly shown water infrastructure isn't a sexy enough proposition when competing with schools, hospitals or roads for funding.)

    Such a structure also lends itself to greater transparency and accountability, as it is an entity with a single purpose and its performance, value for money etc can be more easily identified than by trying to figure out what exactly 30+ local authorities have been up to.

    All sounds pretty reasonable to me.


  • Options
    #63
    Taxburden carrier
    Registered Users Posts: 553 ✭✭✭Taxburden carrier


    All sounds pretty reasonable to me.[/QUOTE]
    Take the politicians, their backers, quangos and public sector unions out of the equation and it just might work :)


  • Options
    #64
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    Taxburden carrier wrote: »
    All sounds pretty reasonable to me.
    Take the politicians, their backers, quangos and public sector unions out of the equation and it just might work :)

    Politicians - already involved in the current setup. If anything less involved once the new model is established.

    Their backers - depending on your level of paranoia in this area (illuminati/lizard men?) these people, whoever you suspect they actually are, will always be involved too.

    Public sector unions - do the workers in the local authorities not have unions? So no change there really.

    Quangos - which quangos are you concerned about, specifically? Or do you actually simply mean the quango that's being set up, and inadvertently used the plural? "Because quangos" isn't really a reason for or against anything until you can articulate what the problem is.


  • Options
    #65
    O Riain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭O Riain


    barneystinson wrote: »
    Here's an idea to reduce expenditure:

    We could create a semi-state utility company for water provision (y'know, like ESB).

    It could replace the inefficient model of having 30-something separate Local Authorities (whose operations are divided using arbitrary lines on a map) duplicating the same service.

    Over time and with decent management the cost of provision should be capable of being reduced substantially through efficiencies. If one starts from the perspective that "we" already pay, then "we" will be paying less, so that can only be a good thing. (See income tax decreases in the last budget for example.)

    Also, by having a semi-state utility company rather than the local authorities, the badly needed investment for infrastructure can be acquired without it being part of Govt borrowing and adding to Govt debt. (History has clearly shown water infrastructure isn't a sexy enough proposition when competing with schools, hospitals or roads for funding.)

    Such a structure also lends itself to greater transparency and accountability, as it is an entity with a single purpose and its performance, value for money etc can be more easily identified than by trying to figure out what exactly 30+ local authorities have been up to.

    All sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    This is how it is in the UK and Thames have very good infrastructure in the south east area.

    It is worth noting that my annual water bill is around €720 for a household of 4.

    Anyone who thinks this will remain a relatively cheap service and a semi state body is genuinely fooling themselves.


  • Options
    #66
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    O Riain wrote: »
    This is how it is in the UK and Thames have very good infrastructure in the south east area.

    It is worth noting that my annual water bill is around €720 for a household of 4.

    Anyone who thinks this will remain a relatively cheap service and a semi state body is genuinely fooling themselves.

    But this the point - it already costs "us" what it costs us - I've heard a figure of €1.2bn.

    So if IW can do it for 900m then it costs "us" €300m less - how can this not be a good thing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    O Riain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭O Riain


    barneystinson wrote: »
    But this the point - it already costs "us" what it costs us - I've heard a figure of €1.2bn.

    So if IW can do it for 900m then it costs "us" €300m less - how can this not be a good thing?

    Look, it is inevitable that it will become a private company and when it does it will deal with profit. That's when it will cost us more. You're talking about money savings with are possible if the company was actually set up right (it wasn't) and if we could trust the government to keep it as a semi state body, which they won't.

    €720 a year to a private company. That's what you are facing.


  • Options
    #68
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    O Riain wrote: »
    Look, it is inevitable that it will become a private company and when it does it will deal with profit. That's when it will cost us more. You're talking about money savings with are possible if the company was actually set up right (it wasn't) and if we could trust the government to keep it as a semi state body, which they won't.

    This attitude baffles me. You're anti-Irish Water, not because a semi state water utility would be a bad thing - you seem to acknowledge it would save money if done right - but because you don't trust the Govt not to privatise it. Why not cross that bridge if/when we come to it, but until then provide for water infrastructure in the most efficient way.


  • Options
    #69
    O Riain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭O Riain


    barneystinson wrote: »
    This attitude baffles me. You're anti-Irish Water, not because a semi state water utility would be a bad thing - you seem to acknowledge it would save money if done right - but because you don't trust the Govt not to privatise it. Why not cross that bridge if/when we come to it, but until then provide for water infrastructure in the most efficient way.

    Funnilly enough, I was actually for water charges initially. I pay for them here in the UK and understand the need to do so.
    Then I saw the absolute shambles that was the setting up of Irish water and I changed my mind entirely.

    The timing was also bad, its just one austerity measure too much for the people of Ireland. Especially at the moment considering the recovery has only been felt by the rich.


  • Options
    #70
    danjo-xx
    Registered Users Posts: 5,393 ✭✭✭danjo-xx


    Now we have until the end of the year to sign up, it gone beyond a joke.
    Irish Water has changed its rules to allow people to register with them until the end of 2015 without penalty. http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/water-charges-registration-date-hated-5284833

    Cant help wondering will a snap election be called before the end of year.


  • Options
    #71
    The Bowling Alley
    Registered Users Posts: 370 ✭✭The Bowling Alley


    danjo-xx wrote: »
    Now we have until the end of the year to sign up, it gone beyond a joke.



    Cant help wondering will a snap election be called before the end of year.

    Once again proving how much of a lie their initial sign up figures were.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement