Opposition Stage Collective Dáil Walkout as Gov Guillotines Water Services Bill 2013

Larbre34

JRant wrote: »

I'm talking about it from an economic point of view. When a company has a surplus of stock what usually happens is that they have a sale (i.e. Drop their price) to offload this stock.

Also why on earth should people be penalised for using less of this valuable resource? This makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

It smacks of the golden circle all over again. O'brien's 'Sierra' group hovering around in the backround waiting to cream as much of this scheme as they can get their hands on.

So called 'Public Goods' have a different economic profile to private merchandise and cant be compared. The public private partnership model, such as on motorways guarantees income to a concessionaire in return for them taking on all the cost and time of design build and operation. And like on Motorways, if the level of usage drops, the private utility will be compensated up to the guaranteed usage value, either by lump payments from the state or an allowance to increase charges.

Incidentally, the cost for Sierra and their sub-contractors to install the meters is NOT included in that €50million, which was purely for professional services. The astronomical cost of meter installation will be a later chapter in this tragedy.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

How is greater than expected consumer conservation of water underperformance by Irish Water? If water metering leads to much more water being conserved then that would be a positive outcome!

A business, generally, rates how it performs based on the profit it makes or does not make. In tracking this they set forecasts, based on projected turnover. If Irish Water find they are underperforming, (which means not creating the expected profit) they may be given free reign to hike up fees to increase their profit margin.

On your other unrelated point, yes water conservation is a good thing. Maybe with all the water saved, they'll lower the cost to the public from time to time

Larbre34 wrote: »

So called 'Public Goods' have a different economic profile to private merchandise and cant be compared.

I would argue there are less and less differences by the day. What would be the difference between a semi-state Irish Water and, as I bet it will eventually become, a Private Irish Water to you and I? Do we see any noticeable profit in out pockets? Are we asked to vote in any kind of AGM? Do we get a say in the appointment of the board who runs it? Are other taxes lowered to compensate for this new tax, as some of our tax was always going towards water supply/maintenance?

It's a new tax. The environment/Water is the excuse. The government gives no more of a flying **** towards water conservation as they do 'Ear to the ground' losing money in regards the Broadcast tax or 'Little house on the prairie' in regards to your home tax, (I can't think of any apt analogy for the home tax as its simply a mugging).

If, every cent gleaned from this goes 100% back into the system in an effort to reduce charges on a fluctuating basis, where practical, if after one or two weeks of Sun we don't have a water shortage in a country with as much rain as Ireland gets...I might turn around on the whole thing, but that ain't gonna happen.
In about ten or fifteen years, we'll sell it off after the tax payer fund the infrastructure.

Cookie_Monster

Phoebas wrote: »

Irish Water need the capacity to produce water based on expected usage. If the actual usage is lower than expected the costs of producing the water remains the same, but revenue from the water will be down.

So the actual cost of producing the water doesn't change but the proportional per unit cost goes up.

cost will not be the same. There's a variable costs to produce and fixed costs to cover. given that they plan to fix all the leaks you are looking at a usage decrease of 40% that needs to be planned for regardless. So costs should drop dramatically once leaks are fixed and revenue per unit actually used will become far higher.

Phoebas

JRant wrote: »

Thats not what you said originally though.

It is.

JRant wrote: »

Either way it's not relevant as profit is a function of revenue - costs. If the cost remains the same but the revenue decreases, this leads to a reduction in profit or a loss.

And a loss to a wholly state owned water company = a loss to the taxpayer.

Phoebas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

cost will not be the same. There's a variable costs to produce and fixed costs to cover. given that they plan to fix all the leaks you are looking at a usage decrease of 40% that needs to be planned for regardless. So costs should drop dramatically once leaks are fixed and revenue per unit actually used will become far higher.

The is no 'revenue per unit' for water that spills out of leaky pipes

Irish Water will have to produce an amount of water to cover the expected usage and there is a cost to that regardless of if it is used or not. Obviously over time, if usage is lower than expected, they can start reducing their capacity and in doing so reduce the overall cost.
But if there is a circumstance where they produce much more than there is demand for (which could easily happen in the initial years), that cost needs to be made up somewhere. As its a state company, it can either be made up from consumers or by taxpayers.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Why the hell would you want to entice people to use more of a valuable resource than was necessary? - that doesn't make any sense at all.

Haven't Oil companies have been doing this for years.

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

A business, generally, rates how it performs based on the profit it makes or does not make. In tracking this they set forecasts, based on projected turnover. If Irish Water find they are underperforming, (which means not creating the expected profit) they may be given free reign to hike up fees to increase their profit margin.

Its crazy to judge Irish Water on the amount of water they can flog us like it was a private venture.
If they can encourage people to conserve and lower the overall cost of producing and treating water in the state then that would be a good performance, not an under-performance.

Phoebas

Banjo String wrote: »

Haven't Oil companies have been doing this for years.

You want Irish Water to operate like an oil company.
That's crazy!

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

You want Irish Water to operate like an oil company.
That's crazy!

I do?

I was merely contradicting your statement that

Why the hell would you want to entice people to use more of a valuable resource than was necessary?

Oil is a valuable resource is it not?

Phoebas wrote: »

that doesn't make any sense at all.

It makes sense from a business point of view. Irish Water will operate as a business I presume? Achieve profits and what not?

Yeah?

Fr. Ned

This is fast turning into the biggest quango the state has ever seen.

There will be NO benefit to the Irish people, I can guarantee you that in 10 years there will be the same wastage, the same undrinkable water in some places and the same fat cats leeching off us for doing SFA!

When will Ireland wake up and fight this?

Phoebas

Banjo String wrote: »

Oil is a valuable resource is it not?

It is. That's why people try to use as little of the stuff as possible.

I can't imagine why you would expect a state body to encourage us to use more a valuable resource than we needed.

raymon

Just watching Barry Cowen on RTE condemning Irish Water's budget . What a poor public speaker.

Surely Sinn Fein or Independents could get someone with credibility to condemn these Fianna Fail / government water taxes instead of the FF clowns that signed us up for these in the first place.

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Enda's latest quango spends €50 million of our money on consultants in 1 year.

Headed by a serial waster of our tax euro in every position he has worked in, from Galway city council to Fingal county council to Dublin city council/
This guy is on €200,000 PA plus expenses.

€50,000,000.00 on consultants in one year!!!!

The people of Ireland better wake up and wake up fast.

No, no they didn't. The Irish Independent made that up. It is not 50m on consultants.

And his salary is reasonable. Who do you want running our water system? You?


Irish Water paid €50m to setup the IT systems for monitoring, managing, asset managing the Water network + HR, Finance and all the other things major multi billion euro organisations need to function. It includes the costs of:

• Software licences
• Implementation Engineers, Project Managers, testers, systems architects and yes, consultants who have implemented these systems in other countries.

This was all planned and budgeted for as part of the setup of Irish Water and is a once off charge.
It compares favourably to costs incurred by the ESB when setting up their Grid Management system and far less then what many commercial entities spend on IT (banks spending on IT is eye watering).

This is a bull**** story created by a bull**** paper (the indo) and fanned by bull**** politicians (Shane Ross and FF). The irony is that these are the exact same people who would pillorise the management of Irish Water if they didn't have the figures supplied by these systems to hand when they are shouted at appear at Dail committees. Another non story but one that a lot of people seem to lap up...

micosoft

Phoebas wrote: »

It is. That's why people try to use as little of the stuff as possible.

I can't imagine why you would expect a state body to encourage us to use more a valuable resource than we needed.

Look. It's a simple as this.

A water and sewerage system is primarily a fixed cost. There is only a small aspect to it that is variable. In fact, I'd say the variability within the existing system is probably less then 10%

On the other hand, capacity is added in large capex projects (for the sake of this say, in blocks of 20,000 households) minimum. With long lead times (construction etc). So the critical thing is to avoid adding capacity given it's so hard to take it out.

Let's say it costs €1 billion to run a system to supply water and take wastewater from 1.5 million households.

Now let's say each house uses 100 cubic litres per day at 1c a cubic litre (€365 per year).

If they all reduce their usage by say 25%. It still costs €1 billion to run the water system. There is little or no variable element. The exact same number of pipes need to be maintained. Less volume going through treatment facilities but they are fixed installations. I would posit that it's less then 10% of the running cost of those facilities (chemicals, removing of slurry etc).

Therefore you have to increase unit cost to 1.2c per litre to meet the fixed costs.... or it loses money.



Now this is all very hypothetical as it would appear that demand for water is increasing because the NUMBER of households and businesses are increasing. Why else are they talking about piping water from the Shannon?

In all likelihood, we will need to build additional water capacity which means even with people reducing individual household demand, overall demand still goes up. So in all likelihood, water rates going up because of an overall drop in demand is highly unlikely. So really, the strategy is to put a brake on the overall capacity of the network by reducing existing demand to make way for the expansion of new households and businesses increasing demand.

And by the way, you already pay similar charges in a different way - look at your ESB and Gas bills and the size of the fixed charge paying for the grid that gives you electricity/gas. Sometimes worth more then the commodity itself especially during summer when you might not use gas.

Perhaps they should have separated out the network charge then, but it really makes no odds as it's unlikely we will have independent water producers feeding into a grid.

Another bull**** scaremongering story from a media who are seriously failing the state with very disingenuous stories.

Phoebas

Agree with that. Except that hopefully as people try to conserve water when the bills start hitting doorsteps and as they find and fix leaks (metering is going to greatly help them locate leaks) there may be a real decrease in usage in the short term.

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

No, no they didn't. The Irish Independent made that up. It is not 50m on consultants.

And his salary is reasonable. Who do you want running our water system? You?


Irish Water paid €50m to setup the IT systems for monitoring, managing, asset managing the Water network + HR, Finance and all the other things major multi billion euro organisations need to function. It includes the costs of:

• Software licences
• Implementation Engineers, Project Managers, testers, systems architects and yes, consultants who have implemented these systems in other countries.

This was all planned and budgeted for as part of the setup of Irish Water and is a once off charge.
It compares favourably to costs incurred by the ESB when setting up their Grid Management system and far less then what many commercial entities spend on IT (banks spending on IT is eye watering).

If this is the case, why are they before the PAC next week?

The story didn't come from the independent, it came from the waster's radio interview.

You have checked his record in the councils he was involved with I presume?

How much did Fingal spend on a 'superdump' under his watch?

What about the waste he has overseen regarding the failed incinerator project?

Fortunately for me I work in the private sector, with my own company so I have a sense of responsibility for the funds in my company account unlike these serial wasters who claim to be civil 'servants'!
I would never, ever become one of these leeches who know that even when they screw up and waste my money there are no sanctions.
It takes a certain mindset and a sense of entitlement to become involved in the civil 'service' in Ireland, thankfully I'm not of that mindset.

micosoft

Phoebas wrote: »

Agree with that. Except that hopefully as people try to conserve water when the bills start hitting doorsteps and as they find and fix leaks (metering is going to greatly help them locate leaks) there may be a real decrease in usage in the short term.

Hopefully, but we are going to be paying more for our water in real terms because we under invested since, well, since the British left. Take one example - there is a massive project to replace the Victorian pipe that supplies nearly 50% of Dublins water. There was a serious risk of it collapsing (you could drive a car though it, it was that big). This risk sat there for decades with rumblings about it every so often - we were incredibly lucky it never gave out (or gratitude to the Victorians for their build quality).

Unfortunately Irish Water will now get blamed for "increasing" charges when in actual fact it is making up for decades of underinvestment which was never tenable. At least the money is now "ring fenced" for water projects.

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

If this is the case, why are they before the PAC next week?

The story didn't come from the independent, it came from the waster's radio interview.

You have checked his record in the councils he was involved with I presume?

How much did Fingal spend on a 'superdump' under his watch?

What about the waste he has overseen regarding the failed incinerator project?

Fortunately for me I work in the private sector, with my own company so I have a sense of responsibility for the funds in my company account unlike these serial wasters who claim to be civil 'servants'!
I would never, ever become one of these leeches who know that even when they screw up and waste my money there are no sanctions.
It takes a certain mindset and a sense of entitlement to become involved in the civil 'service' in Ireland, thankfully I'm not of that mindset.

They are before the PAC to make certain politicians feel self important perhaps? I don't see a smoking gun here. It's all very reasonably explained. Private sector companies make 50m + investments all the time in IT. The amount being discussed is very reasonable systems fee for a brand new utility - ESB, Eircom, Vodafone, Bord Gais will have all spent this and more albeit spread out over longer time periods as they aren't brand new.

Not sure who you are talking about re waster? Final Superdump and Incinerator really have nothing to do with this topic.

My understanding is Ross got the info from an Irish Indo journo. Either which was it doesn't matter - both as bad as each other. The story reported in the independent was shoddy even by their low standards with not an attempt to ask Irish Water for a breakdown, or wait a day or so, so that they could respond.

I've had the privilege of working in the private sector (including a high potential startup that exited at 100m+), semi state, non-profit and banking/finance sector. And you know what - I've realised that in all of these sectors you have terrible people and fantastic people, and an even bigger proportion of meh people. We have a problem in this country with received wisdom. You are simply parroting the received wisdom - civil servants bad - private sector efficient, when this is patently not always true. I challenge you to explain how you could setup a water system more effectively? Tweak it perhaps. or ignore political reality. TBH it reflects on your lack of experience with sectors/businesses beyond your own (very) narrow world then anything else.

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

They are before the PAC to make certain politicians feel self important perhaps? I don't see a smoking gun here. It's all very reasonably explained. Private sector companies make 50m + investments all the time in IT. The amount being discussed is very reasonable systems fee for a brand new utility - ESB, Eircom, Vodafone, Bord Gais will have all spent this and more albeit spread out over longer time periods as they aren't brand new.

Not sure who you are talking about re waster? Final Superdump and Incinerator really have nothing to do with this topic.

My understanding is Ross got the info from an Irish Indo journo. Either which was it doesn't matter - both as bad as each other. The story reported in the independent was shoddy even by their low standards with not an attempt to ask Irish Water for a breakdown, or wait a day or so, so that they could respond.

I've had the privilege of working in the private sector (including a high potential startup that exited at 100m+), semi state, non-profit and banking/finance sector. And you know what - I've realised that in all of these sectors you have terrible people and fantastic people, and an even bigger proportion of meh people. We have a problem in this country with received wisdom. You are simply parroting the received wisdom - civil servants bad - private sector efficient, when this is patently not always true. I challenge you to explain how you could setup a water system more effectively? Tweak it perhaps. or ignore political reality. TBH it reflects on your lack of experience with sectors/businesses beyond your own (very) narrow world then anything else.

The fact is that the 'Irish water' quango is being set up at taxpayers expense in order that it'll be eventually privatised.
They want us to conserve water, yet they tell us that charges will increase if this quango isn't profitable enough in order to make it more attractive to any potential buyer.
Maybe friend of FG, 'tax non dom' O'Brien will be the buyer???

You'll have to excuse me for being a tad cynical regarding the motives of this FG government and their mudguard partners.

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

The fact is that the 'Irish water' quango is being set up at taxpayers expense in order that it'll be eventually privatised.

That's not a fact - its just your opinion.

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

That's not a fact - its just your opinion.

Mark this post then and come back to me in 10 years.

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Mark this post then and come back to me in 10 years.

So its not a fact, its a prediction then.

Fr. Ned

BTW, considering we have been paying for water all along through our taxes, can we expect a corresponding reduction in our general taxation now that we'll be funding this quango separately?

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

BTW, considering we have been paying for water all along through our taxes, can we expect a corresponding reduction in our general taxation now that we'll be funding this quango separately?

Did you not notice the massive reduction in the tax take since the start of the recession?

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

Did you not notice the massive reduction in the tax take since the start of the recession?

That's a no then.

I didn't notice the massive reduction in our PS/CS wage bill either, so much for benchmarking eh?

Cookie_Monster

Phoebas wrote: »

The is no 'revenue per unit' for water that spills out of leaky pipes

exactly, the revenue per unit for 40% of production is zero, the other 60% is whatever they decide, say 10, so an average r.p.u. of 6. If leakage is reduced to 20% then average r.p.u becomes 8.

Phoebas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

exactly, the revenue per unit for 40% of production is zero, the other 60% is whatever they decide, say 10, so an average r.p.u. of 6. If leakage is reduced to 20% then average r.p.u becomes 8.

Sure. If they can decrease production from savings from fixing leaks, the revenue per unit of produced water increases, but not the revenue per unit of water actually used .

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Mark this post then and come back to me in 10 years.

Mark my post - come back to me in 10 years time when we have a properly funded Water Supply company delivering safe clean water to all at a reasonable rate, while maintaining and upgrading the network to deal with the long term population growth in Ireland while minimising this growth by ensuring water conservation by billing based on the polluter pays principle.

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

Mark my post - come back to me in 10 years time when we have a properly funded Water Supply company delivering safe clean water to all at a reasonable rate, while maintaining and upgrading the network to deal with the long term population growth in Ireland while minimising this growth by ensuring water conservation by billing based on the polluter pays principle.

Dream on mate.....
This is the Republic of Ireland.:rolleyes:

Fr. Ned

micosoft wrote: »

Mark my post - come back to me in 10 years time when we have a properly funded Water Supply company delivering safe clean water to all at a reasonable rate, while maintaining and upgrading the network to deal with the long term population growth in Ireland while minimising this growth by ensuring water conservation by billing based on the polluter pays principle.

BTW, how does charging more if people don't use enough water square with the 'polluter pays' principle?

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

BTW, how does charging more if people don't use enough water square with the 'polluter pays' principle?

It would be useful if you actually read the posts that contradict your posts. I've already addressed this. It's highly unlikely to occur because even with individual household consumption going down overall consumption is going up due to population increase etc. So the chances are the above scenario will never play out.

Even in this scenario, it's been explained that a water distribution system is largely a fixed cost (small variable element). Even if overall demand went down it would still cost roughly the same amount to maintain it. Therefore people would have to pay more. It's not rocket science. It's also highly unlikely as every projection is that demand will go up - hence plans to bring water from the Shannon to supply Dublins needs.

micosoft

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Dream on mate.....
This is the Republic of Ireland.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the evidence suggests otherwise. We've setup plenty of successful semi-state organisations.

Good loser

Fr. Ned wrote: »

BTW, considering we have been paying for water all along through our taxes, can we expect a corresponding reduction in our general taxation now that we'll be funding this quango separately?

I've been providing and paying for my own water for years - as have hundreds and thousands others. And paying for yours through general taxation. At least that inequity should end with the new system.

For Reals

Irish Water are asking that they be allowed raise their charges if water demand falls below projected usage. That's a fact.
How does that carry with the water conservation angle?
They were instructed to use Bord Gais staff as consultants, they chose not to, $50m. Does this sound like the frugal socially aware, taxpayer champions who will keep costs at a set rate, y'know, just to be nice?

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

Irish Water are asking that they be allowed raise their charges if water demand falls below projected usage. That's a fact.
How does that carry with the water conservation angle?

Is it a fact? Its been reported that the CER are considering this, but did Irish Water ask the CER to consider it?

For Reals wrote: »

They were instructed to use Bord Gais staff as consultants, they chose not to, $50m. Does this sound like the frugal socially aware, taxpayer champions who will keep costs at a set rate, y'know, just to be nice?

Really? Who instructed them to do that?

emo72

Phoebas wrote: »

Is it a fact? Its been reported that the CER are considering this, but did Irish Water ask the CER to consider it?


Really? Who instructed them to do that?

Irish Water Consultancy Group.

emo72

For a bit more depth. From today's independent....

"The document was drawn up by the IWCG, an inter agency group made up of the department of the environment, bord gais and local authority employee unions."

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Is it a fact? Its been reported that the CER are considering this, but did Irish Water ask the CER to consider it?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-will-be-allowed-raise-prices-every-year-29798831.html

To be fair, I'm sure Irish Water are aghast and would have nothing to do with it

Phoebas wrote: »

Really? Who instructed them to do that?

Seemingly the government...demanded....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spent-50m-despite-order-to-use-bord-gais-expertise-29910029.html

Why so quick to defend them or err on the side that they are simply great chaps?

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-will-be-allowed-raise-prices-every-year-29798831.html

To be fair, I'm sure Irish Water are aghast and would have nothing to do with it



Seemingly the government...demanded....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-spent-50m-despite-order-to-use-bord-gais-expertise-29910029.html

Why so quick to defend them or err on the side that they are simply great chaps?

Not trying to defend them, nor did I say they were 'great chaps' or anything like it. just trying to get at the actual facts.


So your first 'fact' isn't a fact at all - its just your opinion.

On the second question, they weren't instructed to exclusively use BG consultants and they did use some BG consultants. It seems that the CER were happy enough with their external spend, but maybe they have a case to answer. I'll hold my fire till they appear at the committees.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Not trying to defend them, nor did I say they were 'great chaps' or anything like it. just trying to get at the actual facts.


So your first 'fact' isn't a fact at all - its just your opinion.

On the second question, they weren't instructed to exclusively use BG consultants and they did use some BG consultants. It seems that the CER were happy enough with their external spend, but maybe they have a case to answer. I'll hold my fire till they appear at the committees.

Well apologises for assuming Irish Water requested it, but its not an opinion, its on the table. Did I request it? Maybe it was you? And again, not 'exclusively' you say, do you have proof?
Your opinions aside, neither outcome bodes well for the taxpayer.

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

Well apologises for assuming Irish Water requested it, but its not an opinion, its on the table. Did I request it? Maybe it was you? And again, not 'exclusively' you say, do you have proof?
Your opinions aside, neither outcome bodes well for the taxpayer.

Where did you get the idea that Irish Water requested the price increase? You stated it as a fact earlier on; now you can't make up your mind if its an assumption you came to yourself or something else.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that Irish Water requested the price increase? You stated it as a fact earlier on; now you can't make up your mind if its an assumption you came to yourself or something else.

Its being considered that they are free to raise the fees should they deem it necessary to increase profit, should water consumption not meet predicted targets. That's a fact. How's that? I never said they requested a price increase.
You're sidelining the fact that its on the cards.

Also, they were told to use Bord Gais consultants and your only concern is, says who? followed up by, 'exclusively?'

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

Its being considered that they are free to raise the fees should they deem it necessary to increase profit, should water consumption not meet predicted targets. That's a fact. How's that? I never said they requested a price increase.

Lie!

For Reals wrote: »

Irish Water are asking that they be allowed raise their charges if water demand falls below projected usage. That's a fact.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Lie!

You proved I wasn't in the same post.

I had said they requested that they be able to raise fees under the circumstance they see a loss of profits, not that they requested a price increase.

All your pedantry aside, don't call me a liar, especially when I'm fully aware all my previous posts are here for all to see as a matter of record.

Sierra Oscar

ESRI professor says unnecessary staff could cost Irish Water €2bn

Irish Water overstaffing will cost up to €2bn, says expert

The way the new utility company Irish Water is being staffed involves waste of up to €2 billion and will add to the level of water charges for Irish households and businesses in years to come, according to one of Ireland’s leading economists.

Prof John FitzGerald of the Economic and Social Research Institute said the new utility probably needs about 1,700 staff but instead is going to have to pay for more than 4,000, who will provide services to it by way of 34 local authorities.

This is an absolute farce. The opposition warned the government that Irish Water would be plagued with difficulties and mistakes if they rushed the legislation through the Dáil without proper debate.

The opposition were right on this one by the looks of it.

_Kaiser_

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is an absolute farce. The opposition warned the government that Irish Water would be plagued with difficulties and mistakes if they rushed the legislation through the Dáil without proper debate.

The opposition were right on this one by the looks of it.

Unfortunately Kenny and his arrogant band of merry men will push it through regardless and then it'll be too late to change anything - "oh it'd cost to much to terminate contracts" etc

Anyone who thinks FG are ANY better than their predecessors really needs to wake up. The big loser here is the ordinary taxpayer/voter of course but when has it been any different?

nuac

This legislation could indeed have done with more debate and teasing out in either Dáil or Senate

Larbre34

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, what we are looking at here is HSE 2: The Revenge.

Not one household in Ireland should pay these charges when they arrive. When the compliance level is less than 10%, the whole exercise will fail. It would probably bring down the Government, but thats frankly no harm.

Phoebas

Larbre34 wrote: »

Not one household in Ireland should pay these charges when they arrive. When the compliance level is less than 10%, the whole exercise will fail. It would probably bring down the Government, but thats frankly no harm.

There isn't a chance in hell of this happening.


The fact that the LA staff were being retained was well known and the projected staff numbers and costs were also known. All that's new is Fitzgerald's analysis that if we approached it differently the staff numbers could be lower.
Would the opposition have come to this analysis last year if there was more debate in the Dail, and if so, why didn't they come to it in absence of Dail debate? If they don't get debate time in the Dail, do they just put the bill back on the shelf?

Larbre34

Phoebas wrote: »

There isn't a chance in hell of this happening.


The fact that the LA staff were being retained was well known and the projected staff numbers and costs were also known. All that's new is Fitzgerald's analysis that if we approached it differently the staff numbers could be lower.
Would the opposition have come to this analysis last year if there was more debate in the Dail, and if so, why didn't they come to it in absence of Dail debate? If they don't get debate time in the Dail, do they just put the bill back on the shelf?

Theres a big difference between what the Opposition missed in the details of the legislation due to ignorance or ineptitude and what people are prepared to put up with when the thing is operating in practice. Lets face it, most vociferous Dáil opposition is after the fact and is media led.

The LPT was linked to Revenue so people were handcuffed into paying one way or the other. These Water (establishment and consultants) charges are entirely different, and have no such linkage to be collected in other ways. Why would people pay them to contribute to this shambles? This is a real chance for people to act together and against whats going on at Govt level, and if the operation has no revenue, where can it go but to fail.