***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***

BoJack Horseman

€15k per annum?

Can that be so?

Banjo String

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

€15k per annum?

Can that be so?

Seems to be the going rate.

The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment has hired a director of Irish Water – the semi-State company his department oversees – as his personal driver, The Irish Times has learned.

The appointment of Hilary Quinlan, then a Fine Gaelcouncillor in Waterford, to the board of Irish Water in November 2013 was approved by Phil Hogan, then minister for the environment, and Pat Rabbitte, then minister for communications. Mr Quinlan is paid a €15,000 annual fee for the position.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-director-hired-as-personal-driver-by-minister-1.1945863

_Kaiser_

Poor FG - it's all falling apart...

Communications Minister Alex White has said that the Government has been "behind the curve" on Irish Water and "bit off too much too quickly".

Minister White was speaking amid mounting speculation over a potential extension of the flat rate and ahead of a national protest against the charge this weekend.

He said the Cabinet's Economic Management Council will discuss Irish Water tomorrow.

... so expect another sop thrown to the masses to try and dilute the protests next weekend.

Think that ship has sailed though - don't think anything less than the complete dismantling of IW will be acceptable at this stage.

BoJack Horseman

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

don't think anything less than the complete dismantling of IW will be acceptable at this stage.

Maybe.... Maybe not.

The only party calling for its abolition is the socialists.

While the axing of IW remains (politically) a fringe demand, the gov will probably hold on.

Guy:Incognito

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Poor FG - it's all falling apart...



.

Think that ship has sailed though - don't think anything less than the complete dismantling of IW will be acceptable at this stage.

So people can use it as a stick to beat the government and say how much money was spent then abandoned?

It's a case where whatever is done people are going to moan. Disband it, it's a waste, do nothing and they are doing it wrong, fix the issues and it's morning about waste and what should have been done.

Everyone's an expert. Just like if the next government is made up of independents, everyone is great at having an idea. Once the reality of not being able to run the government based on 15 lads whos sole idea coming in is "Abolish water tax" and another load who want to "end austerity" then 3 or four other groups of individuals elected because they don't agree with a certain issue. Suddenly one of them has to run the health service and all his spouting to his constituents about all that needs to be done is put doctors on 40k a year and the health service will be great disappears and the reality of running a massive industry hits home.

Guy:Incognito

Tony EH wrote: »

If it had been set up correctly with just a fair metering system and people ONLY had to pay for what they use, there would have been far less outcry.

It's the WAY it's been set up in Ireland that's the main issue for the majority of people. People don't want to have their water in the hands of a for profit quango, complete with perks and outrageous bonuses, that's being ripened for privatisation and run by the likes of John Tierney and Denis O'Brien.

If it was a simple case of the govt. installing a metering system in people's homes and charging a fair price, most people wouldn't really bat an eyelid.

But, of course, this being Ireland and being run by a shower of cünts, that was never going to happen, was it.

People are RIGHTFULLY angry about Irish Water because from its very inception it's been a farce based on lies, misinformation and greed.

I disagree. I see very little of the general public complaining about irish water. The ones that do, their complaints seem to be based around Denis o brien. Latching on to the "private company" line without knowing anything about it.The biggest group seem to be the ones that say outright that it's wrong to pay for water because it's a god given right apparently or everyone has a right to water ( with the Un convention being cited) without any insight or reading of the thing.

Tbh most of them don't seem to have a clue and are cobbling together bits of half truths because they fit in with agenda of not paying for water and applying it to their beliefs.

It's a protest run on headlines for a large part. The fact that a story connected to the headline might not actually support their views is irrelevant. Catchy headlines win the day.



It's funny how the general public can be derided and called idiots when they vote in FF or FG governments but they are suddenly enlightened and great at standing up for what's right when theres some support for what certain people want.

Let's be honest, if it wasn't costinf them actually money n a bill to be paid, the vast majority wouldn't give a **** about what happens with the water supply as long as it comes out of the tap once it's turned.
They don't want to pay for it and the reasons to oppose it are irrelevant as long as they can be connected.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So people can use it as a stick to beat the government and say how much money was spent then abandoned?

It's a case where whatever is done people are going to moan. Disband it, it's a waste, do nothing and they are doing it wrong, fix the issues and it's morning about waste and what should have been done.

Everyone's an expert. Just like if the next government is made up of independents, everyone is great at having an idea. Once the reality of not being able to run the government based on 15 lads whos sole idea coming in is "Abolish water tax" and another load who want to "end austerity" then 3 or four other groups of individuals elected because they don't agree with a certain issue. Suddenly one of them has to run the health service and all his spouting to his constituents about all that needs to be done is put doctors on 40k a year and the health service will be great disappears and the reality of running a massive industry hits home.

There is nothing of substance to Irish Water at this stage it appears its dissolution will probably achieve savings because it has been an unmitigated disaster from inception to current form.

How anyone can still advocate that anything that it has achieved to date was and is worth the money we have put in to it is pretty incredible.

Far from it being a topical issue, they have turned it into a nuclear weapon. The time has come to call it day on it. And get back to the drawing board. The whole thing demonstrates nothing but complete bottom of the barrel utter stupidity. I mean it is literally a shining example of how not to run a business. This thing will be written about in communications text books to be mulled over by people that may actually have half a brain.



Get rid of it, and restore the infrastructure into defined public hands.

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

Get rid of it, and restore the infrastructure into defined public hands.

So perpetuate the failed status quo forevermore?

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I disagree. I see very little of the general public complaining about irish water. The ones that do, their complaints seem to be based around Denis o brien. Latching on to the "private company" line without knowing anything about it.The biggest group seem to be the ones that say outright that it's wrong to pay for water because it's a god given right apparently or everyone has a right to water ( with the Un convention being cited) without any insight or reading of the thing.

Tbh most of them don't seem to have a clue and are cobbling together bits of half truths because they fit in with agenda of not paying for water and applying it to their beliefs.

It's a protest run on headlines for a large part. The fact that a story connected to the headline might not actually support their views is irrelevant. Catchy headlines win the day.



It's funny how the general public can be derided and called idiots when they vote in FF or FG governments but they are suddenly enlightened and great at standing up for what's right when theres some support for what certain people want.

Let's be honest, if it wasn't costinf them actually money n a bill to be paid, the vast majority wouldn't give a **** about what happens with the water supply as long as it comes out of the tap once it's turned.
They don't want to pay for it and the reasons to oppose it are irrelevant as long as they can be connected.

Complete nonsense.

'Headlines'

You dont even have to scrape the surface to see the incompetence, the utter contempt for voters and the abysmal spending of MY and YOURS National Pension reserve fund.

How can you even bother to legitimise it.

Im sitting here shaking my head as to anyone with some sanity can give credence to this organisation.

Guy:Incognito

listermint wrote: »

There is nothing of substance to Irish Water at this stage it appears its dissolution will probably achieve savings because it has been an unmitigated disaster from inception to current form.

How anyone can still advocate that anything that it has achieved to date was and is worth the money we have put in to it is pretty incredible.

Far from it being a topical issue, they have turned it into a nuclear weapon. The time has come to call it day on it. And get back to the drawing board. The whole thing demonstrates nothing but complete bottom of the barrel utter stupidity. I mean it is literally a shining example of how not to run a business. This thing will be written about in communications text books to be mulled over by people that may actually have half a brain.



Get rid of it, and restore the infrastructure into defined public hands.

The infrastructure that people say is in bits, maintained by bloated and inefficient councils with no interest? What is so great about it that warrants it continuing to be run direcrly by civil servants?

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So perpetuate the failed status quo forevermore?

What failed status quo??

The only failed part was that money that was meant to be for the infrastructure was pushed into other mismanaged slushy funds. FAS, HSA amongst them.

The infrastructure can and was being managed on tight budgets by existing councils. But they were devoid of funding. Address the spending and the qwangoes like you said you would FG which will free up cash to go where its meant to go.

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

abysmal spending of MY and YOURS National Pension reserve fund.

Just to note, the now almost exhausted NPRF is just for public servants.

Its not for everyone.

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

Address the spending

What tax increase or service cut elsewhere would you desire to do this?

Guy:Incognito

listermint wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

'Headlines'

You dont even have to scrape the surface to see the incompetence, the utter contempt for voters and the abysmal spending of MY and YOURS National Pension reserve fund.

How can you even bother to legitimise it.

Im sitting here shaking my head as to anyone with some sanity can give credence to this organisation.

How many people are protesting based on water being a human right? It's a headline taken from the Un that doesn't back up the position that it's wrong to meter and charge people from first world countries for clean water pipe to their homes once you read past the headline.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The infrastructure that people say is in bits, maintained by bloated and inefficient councils with no interest? What is so great about it that warrants it continuing to be run direcrly by civil servants?

Capitalism does not apply to all quarters, Even an avid free marketeer will tell you that.

Populist nonsense that private sectors can fix all the ills yet maintain some form of return for their investors. Facts is they would cost cut the bollix out of stuff and charge as much as they can for maximum return.

Yes, I personally would love our water infrastructure to be in private hands. Especially the way natural resources are being snapped up and hunted globally.

Makes complete sense. :rolleyes:

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many people are protesting based on water being a human right? It's a headline taken from the Un that doesn't back up the position that it's wrong to meter and charge people from first world countries for clean water pipe to their homes once you read past the headline.

I dont know,


Do you ?

Have you asked anyone or are you just making this crap up. That people are protesting due to a few snap headlines.

Have you even been following this story since the start of the year ?


Il bite. Outline all the great things Irish Water has achieved so far to warrant your unabated admiration..............

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What tax increase or service cut elsewhere would you desire to do this?

Your post count perhaps, we could tax them.

PropJoe10

I'm quite sure this has been asked before, but does anyone have any idea or insight into why they didnt just introduce a standing charge for water, similar to the property tax?

- They would've started making money on this straight away which could've been put directly into the water system infrastructure.
- They would've avoided the senseless spending on "consulting fees", water meters, wages for Irish Water staff, not to mention the negative publicity around bonuses and pay structure
- They would've avoided alot of the unnecessary backlash against the charges. I think most fair minded people would say that they wouldnt mind paying a fiver a week for a decent water supply. I certainly wouldnt.

If they had introduced a scheme for people to pay a fiver a week by whatever means they chose, this ridiculous situation probably would've been completed avoided. How long is it going to take for them to start making money after all the money they've poured into Irish Water already? Years, I would say. The spending has been absolutely criminal. Has it just been another "jobs for the boys" situation or why exactly would the standing charge not have been considered?

Just wanted to get some thoughts on this. Cheers.

Guy:Incognito

listermint wrote: »

Capitalism does not apply to all quarters, Even an avid free marketeer will tell you that.

Populist nonsense that private sectors can fix all the ills yet maintain some form of return for their investors. Facts is they would cost cut the bollix out of stuff and charge as much as they can for maximum return.

Yes, I personally would love our water infrastructure to be in private hands. Especially the way natural resources are being snapped up and hunted globally.

Makes complete sense. :rolleyes:

Who said anything about private hands? It's no more private than esb, bus Eireann or Irish rail. It's set up the exact same way. Where's the protests about those?

In fact, if you asked the general public they'd probably want those privatised and they'll be shown figures like dublin bus getting subsidised by 60m and while that makes a nice headline it doesn't show that the frequency of busses would be cut when or routes cut altogether on routes that are loss making.

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

Your post count perhaps, we could tax them.

Pretty feeble attempt at being clever.

You can answer the question if you have the wit to do so.

emo72

The water needs to be privatised because it's a replacement income for petroleum companies.

The Goldman Sachs document is there if you want to Google it.

And that's why this is happening.

listermint

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who said anything about private hands? It's no more private than esb, bus Eireann or Irish rail. It's set up the exact same way. Where's the protests about those?

In fact, if you asked the general public they'd probably want those privatised and they'll be shown figures like dublin bus getting subsidised by 60m and while that makes a nice headline it doesn't show that the frequency of busses would be cut when or routes cut altogether on routes that are loss making.

Now i know you are spouting nonsense for the sake of it

listermint

emo72 wrote: »

The water needs to be privatised because it's a replacement income for petroleum companies.

The Goldman Sachs document is there if you want to Google it.

And that's why this is happening.

No sure we are all conspiracy theorists. Loons Leftys shinners oh and socialists. Sure i want everything for free.



Forest for the Trees some people in here.

BoJack Horseman

emo72 wrote: »

The water needs to be privatised because it's a replacement income for petroleum companies.

The Goldman Sachs document is there if you want to Google it.

And that's why this is happening.

True..... IW is ripe for plucking.

Which should be food for thought for those thinking of voting for Sinn Fein, the only party who say they will pay for water though privatisation.

Guy:Incognito

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm quite sure this has been asked before, but does anyone have any idea or insight into why they didnt just introduce a standing charge for water, similar to the property tax?

- They would've started making money on this straight away which could've been put directly into the water system infrastructure.
- They would've avoided the senseless spending on "consulting fees", water meters, wages for Irish Water staff, not to mention the negative publicity around bonuses and pay structure
- They would've avoided alot of the unnecessary backlash against the charges. I think most fair minded people would say that they wouldnt mind paying a fiver a week for a decent water supply. I certainly wouldnt.

If they had introduced a scheme for people to pay a fiver a week by whatever means they chose, this ridiculous situation probably would've been completed avoided. How long is it going to take for them to start making money after all the money they've poured into Irish Water already? Years, I would say. The spending has been absolutely criminal. Has it just been another "jobs for the boys" situation or why exactly would the standing charge not have been considered?

Just wanted to get some thoughts on this. Cheers.

A flat rate does nothing to address waste of water. If anything it increases it because people will see that they can get 10,000 litres of water for €100 or they can have 1,000,000 litres for the same €100. (random figures used for illustration). If there was a flat rate for electricy, do you not think that lots of people wouldn't bother turning lights off or anything else that uses electricity.

Metering is the fairest system because everyone pays for what they use.low usage users are not subsidising high usage users.

There's no incentive to bother having leaks fixed, sure your not paying for it.

Leroy42

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I'm quite sure this has been asked before, but does anyone have any idea or insight into why they didnt just introduce a standing charge for water, similar to the property tax?

- They would've started making money on this straight away which could've been put directly into the water system infrastructure.
- They would've avoided the senseless spending on "consulting fees", water meters, wages for Irish Water staff, not to mention the negative publicity around bonuses and pay structure
- They would've avoided alot of the unnecessary backlash against the charges. I think most fair minded people would say that they wouldnt mind paying a fiver a week for a decent water supply. I certainly wouldnt.

If they had introduced a scheme for people to pay a fiver a week by whatever means they chose, this ridiculous situation probably would've been completed avoided. How long is it going to take for them to start making money after all the money they've poured into Irish Water already? Years, I would say. The spending has been absolutely criminal. Has it just been another "jobs for the boys" situation or why exactly would the standing charge not have been considered?

Just wanted to get some thoughts on this. Cheers.

A much simplier solution but not exactly fair. People would protest that the less well off are paying the same as the wealthy, so more % of their income. It would also be said that those not using much water were paying the same as those with little regard for it.

Of course the counter to this is to charge for usage, but that has met with resistance as well. In this things you cannot keep everyone happy.

However, what you can do if be clear as to the purpose, be seen to be avoiding unnecesary cots, deliver on costs reductions so as to minimise the consumer cost. If IW had laid out what their plans for savings, how they were going to reduce the waste from having so many different authorities, how a centralised system would lead to better service, then it would have shown something to Joe Public,

instead, what we seen to have got is a business whose primary concern seems to be generating revenue. All the money spent on consultants, IT, staff etc seems to be directed solely at generating revenue

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Pretty feeble attempt at being clever.

You can answer the question if you have the wit to do so.

BoJack,

You have been in this thread long enough to be have been shown countless examples of overspend, mismanagement and failed promises.

So no, i will not bother responding to your thrown out comment because you've had all the answers already, its clear you are here to come across as some form of natural voice of reason. A beacon of FG light if you will. But is quite clear and will be abundantly clear on Saturday what a lonely soul you are.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

A much simplier solution but not exactly fair. People would protest that the less well off are paying the same as the wealthy, so more % of their income. It would also be said that those not using much water were paying the same as those with little regard for it.

Of course the counter to this is to charge for usage, but that has met with resistance as well. In this things you cannot keep everyone happy.

However, what you can do if be clear as to the purpose, be seen to be avoiding unnecesary cots, deliver on costs reductions so as to minimise the consumer cost. If IW had laid out what their plans for savings, how they were going to reduce the waste from having so many different authorities, how a centralised system would lead to better service, then it would have shown something to Joe Public,

instead, what we seen to have got is a business whose primary concern seems to be generating revenue. All the money spent on consultants, IT, staff etc seems to be directed solely at generating revenue

This Exactly!!

All day long.


Just shows how spineless incompetent and you can argue purely stupid those in charge of this really are/where.

BoJack Horseman

listermint wrote: »

BoJack,

You have been in this thread long enough to be have been shown countless examples of overspend, mismanagement and failed promises.

So no, i will not bother responding to your thrown out comment because you've had all the answers already, its clear you are here to come across as some form of natural voice of reason. A beacon of FG light if you will. But is quite clear and will be abundantly clear on Saturday what a lonely soul you are.

So, to surmise.

You want more money spent.

You don't how how to pay for it, other than the intangible "waste".

Pathetic stuff

listermint

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, to surmise.

You want more mo

Yes give me more money, Take from the rich, give to the poor. More Social services more pension money less tax on the less well off. Yay big business out.


Have i satirised your argument enough ? :rolleyes: