IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

Daith

BoatMad wrote: »

The key reason for meters is to change public perception, that water is an unlimited resource that can be consumed without regard to the costs of its provision.

Which the Government have shot themselves in the foot with by capping water for a few years.

What they should have done is cap water, have people pay water charges and get used to it, then introduce meters which would bring water conservation and cheaper bills.

BoatMad

gandalf wrote: »

It depends on what preparatory work your "mate" did before coming to that quote. If it was a finger in the air effort then yes you would expect there to be a large play in the actual amount the job costs but given BG had completed over 50% of the surveying work before they submitted the skewed quote then I would have expected them to have quite a clear idea on the level of work involved and the costs associated with it.

The fact they were so far out indicates they either fabricated the costs at a lower level, which indicates fraud or they were completely and utterly incompetent.

Im not defending IW, I would prefer to see it created as a private company with free reign over staff,not the mess that was created with side deals on staff and feather needing LAs.

Nor was the unseeing rush to set it up a good idea, and in my view was a key factor in thing alike this poor estimate.

The estimate was a budget figure requested by the Dept. and was provided before the full extent of the installation was known. Im not surprised it was 20% percent out .

PS just because IW could have been private, does not mean the infrastructure itself would be private.

BoatMad

Daith wrote: »

Which the Government have shot themselves in the foot with by capping water for a few years.

What they should have done is cap water, have people pay water charges and get used to it, then introduce meters which would bring water conservation and cheaper bills.

Thats a debatable point. Clearly the original intention was a "consumer pays" principle. I mean any investigation of other jurisdictions, would show water metering is common.

but your argument is a kinda, shoulda, coulda, maybe. More then likely a long draw out meter installation process, would have taken years and cost far more.

personally I feel it had to be done one way or the other.

shinzon

BoatMad wrote: »

Ultimately one way or the other , you and I are paying for water, every other utility is metered,I see no reason why water shouldn't be. ( I grew up on a metered group scheme).

in the context of repairing and upgrading the infrastructure the 500-600 million would only make a small dent in that .

The key reason for meters is to change public perception, that water is an unlimited resource that can be consumed without regard to the costs of its provision.

Come back to me after the 10th of December and well see whats what on that score, the government is running scared rumours there backbenchers want to call a general election earlier then 2016, Enda Kenny is now a pariah in his own party, one government u turn already through protesting, charges capped for now which renders metering useless, any future government knows water charges will not be tolerated in any way shape or form so whatever form the next government takes they know Irish water has to go otherwise they'll be more mobilisations and protests and they'll be able to get nothing done

Win win as far as I see it

Shin

Daith

BoatMad wrote: »

but your argument is a kinda, shoulda, coulda, maybe. More then likely a long draw out meter installation process, would have taken years and cost far more.

It's not my argument. It's basically now what has happened.

Irish Water were too busy telling everyone that we are consumers and not enough telling people how badly our infrastructure actually is.

TheChizler

Daith wrote: »

Which the Government have shot themselves in the foot with by capping water for a few years.

What they should have done is cap water, have people pay water charges and get used to it, then introduce meters which would bring water conservation and cheaper bills.

Ideally they'd provide an opt-in for paying a metered bill for those of us who have calculated that this cap would cost more than if it was based on actual usage. I already would be very conservative with water at home, but if people are going to all be paying the same for it, I think I might subconsciously feel that I want my money's worth and use that bit more.

Sobko

BoatMad wrote: »

The key reason for meters is to change public perception, that water is an unlimited resource that can be consumed without regard to the costs of its provision.

There is a myth being perpetrated by government that the majority of people are wasteful with water, outside washing their cars, cleaning their patios etc. When was the last time anyone witnessed such actions by the majority of people. Another little nugget is that people keep their taps running to stop them freezing in winter. Pure nonsense.

The fact is the local authorities have received hundreds of millions of euros during the boom and failed to upgrade the current water infrastructure. The majority of water is lost through the public infrastructure before it even hits the kitchen sink.

The "New - New" legislation now means people won't be metered until 2019 so its not about conservation of water but a money collecting exercise while wasting money on installing meters before fixing pipes. The technology exists to establish where these leaks are occurring. Installing meters outside houses might establish some but how will it establish leaks on the majority of the pipe runs located on roads? The answer is it won't.

Also what happened to the Free allowance?

Daith

TheChizler wrote: »

Ideally they'd provide an opt-in for paying a metered bill for those of us who have calculated that this cap would cost more than if it was based on actual usage. I already would be very conservative with water at home, but if people are going to all be paying the same for it, I think I might subconsciously feel that I want my money's worth and use that bit more.

Isn't this what happens in the UK? Or some part? Everyone paid capped charges but you could get a meter and pay less?

listermint

BoatMad wrote: »

Like I said , Im all in favour of smaller public service, teachers, nurses, guards are all paid too much by european or UK norms, The middle management group is too big, pension entitlements are way too generous.

And yes in certain areas, there is a culture of " swinging the lead"
etc etc etc.

But th efact is these people have legally binding contracts. Furthermore they have protection from compulsory redundancy by the fact that the whole Union setup in ireland is almost totally a public service union.

Someone said here, you have to shoot the nearest crocodile, not the largest, dreaming about super-efficient public servants is just dreaming about shooting the largest crocodile, when your leg is being gnawed off by the closest one.

The key is to look for achievable reforms, and then to balance tax take with deliverable services, that requires a "grown up " electorate that seems balance between tax intake and service delivery.

I look at left wingers and I see simply the same old "FF" message dressed up in a new coat. ( ps I see the same thing in all parties )

This post is mostly complete Crap.

Here is exactly what FG were elected in on 'Change' and no it wasnt to clean up FF mess that was not the mantra. The mandate was heavy reform. They used the word reform so much that it was going out of fashion. So they were voted in and yes that includes by that same Civil Sector Unionised workforce.

So you are telling me that if FG were not smart about this from the start. placing the individual as the performer and efficiency as the reformer and front line as the star players in an efficient team. Do you honestly think that with a slick marketing directed campaign a few weeks after taking up government that most of the work force would not have been behind it ?

Dont be cynical with them, explain in detail what they wanted to achieve and openly how they wanted to achieve it.

There isnt enough middle management that could have gone against it.


FG missed the boat because they are a tired party with a complete lack of talent.

They are woefully under resourced in the cop on stakes and have not got a young intelligent and outside the box thinker amongst them.


Dreadful organisation. Absolutely dreadful. Especially when they were putting the likes of Sherlock out as the young new tech wiz blood.

It demonstrates how bad they actually are.

Chucky the tree

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

People like Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar and etc etc and all the commentators in the media with their weekly salaries have not been touched by the recession. I laugh to hear Marion Finucane moan week in week out about the recession as if it has come near her. There are plenty fo us who do not light the stove anymore until after 6 pm no matter how cold it is. Plenty of us who haven't been to the dentist in 5 years or longer because we cannot afford it. Plenty of us who measure the cost of every car journey and make it count by doing everything possible on that barely afforded amount of petrol.

Let's be honest, there is a tiny tiny % of people who have been so poor that they haven't been able to afford a dentist appointment in 5 years, arguably non-existent actually.

Tinkersbell

BoatMad wrote: »

The key reason for meters is to change public perception, that water is an unlimited resource that can be consumed without regard to the costs of its provision.

Of course, water won't be metered until 2019 at the earliest now, if at all.
Water meters are FG's e-voting machines.....

BoatMad

listermint wrote: »

This post is mostly complete Crap.

Here is exactly what FG were elected in on 'Change' and no it wasnt to clean up FF mess that was not the mantra. The mandate was heavy reform. They used the word reform so much that it was going out of fashion. So they were voted in and yes that includes by that same Civil Sector Unionised workforce.

So you are telling me that if FG were not smart about this from the start. placing the individual as the performer and efficiency as the reformer and front line as the star players in an efficient team. Do you honestly think that with a slick marketing directed campaign a few weeks after taking up government that most of the work force would not have been behind it ?

Dont be cynical with them, explain in detail what they wanted to achieve and openly how they wanted to achieve it.

There isnt enough middle management that could have gone against it.


FG missed the boat because they are a tired party with a complete lack of talent.

They are woefully under resourced in the cop on stakes and have not got a young intelligent and outside the box thinker amongst them.


Dreadful organisation. Absolutely dreadful. Especially when they were putting the likes of Sherlock out as the young new tech wiz blood.

It demonstrates how bad they actually are.

Its always the same mantra from the likes of people like you. Reform the public service,etc etc.

But You and others are not prepared for the two years of industrial militancy that would shut this country down, while the Gov, broke up the public service, chopped the unions in half and then re-assembled the mess.

Thats not even dealing with the fact that they ( FG) ended up in collation with a party wholes very existence depends on the public service unions.

It was said to me by a senior Labour party official some years ago, " its all very well talking about reform, cutting public service salaries etc, as people die on trollies, because the staff are on strike, Irish people have no stomach for that fight")

as for "slick" what do you think an election is.!!!

The issues here are we have a public service that is too expensive for the tax base, How you balance service delivery expectations, with tax income, is not something the electorate ever have the interest in tackling.

What you get is the constant mantra that " too much middle management" etc. Thats actually not the issue, most of the staff costs are paid to ordinary front line public servants. Thats where the issue is, but none has the stomach to take that on.

BoatMad

Tinkersbell wrote: »

Of course, water won't be metered until 2019 at the earliest now, if at all.
Water meters are FG's e-voting machines.....

you will be getting a water metered bill from 1st quarter next year, Personally Im keen to see if I can beat my flat charge, not hopeful though

Its never not useful to know , how much of a resource you are consuming.

BoatMad

Daith wrote: »

Isn't this what happens in the UK? Or some part? Everyone paid capped charges but you could get a meter and pay less?

Have you been under a rock, Thats what will happen with IW bills, you have the option to pay the metered charge if its less than the flat ( capped) charge .

Daith

BoatMad wrote: »

Have you been under a rock, Thats what will happen with IW bills, you have the option to pay the metered charge if its less than the flat ( capped) charge .

Except it's the customers choice to get a meter or not in my example. Jeez.

BoatMad

shinzon wrote: »

Come back to me after the 10th of December and well see whats what on that score, the government is running scared rumours there backbenchers want to call a general election earlier then 2016, Enda Kenny is now a pariah in his own party, one government u turn already through protesting, charges capped for now which renders metering useless, any future government knows water charges will not be tolerated in any way shape or form so whatever form the next government takes they know Irish water has to go otherwise they'll be more mobilisations and protests and they'll be able to get nothing done

Win win as far as I see it

Shin

we shall see, I think , the ragtags that think they can transfer IW issues into a general pro-left ( anti USC etc ) are barking up the wrong tree. There is no mood for a general upset of the status-quo. We shall all have to wait until the 10th

Water metering isn't redundant, if your metered usage is less then the flat charge , you can elect to pay that .


FG or Lab will call no election until after the next budget.

are gov u-turns bad, I thought the point was , we were making the Gov listen, they listened, now the u-turn is bad!.....

Id lay money IW will be here in ten year time

BoatMad

Daith wrote: »

Except it's the customers choice to get a meter or not in my example. Jeez.

why is that relevant, if you want to play a flat charge you pay it, if you want to pay a metered charge you pay it.

TheChizler

BoatMad wrote: »

you will be getting a water metered bill from 1st quarter next year, Personally Im keen to see if I can beat my flat charge, not hopeful though

Its never not useful to know , how much of a resource you are consuming.

Oh! Well that's good so. The way I was hearing "complete u-turn" for the most recent announcement I was under the impression that they had all but scrapped the meters until 2019.

shinzon

BoatMad wrote: »

Id lay money IW will be here in ten year time

Youll lose money on that bet and how did you make out from my post that I thought the u turn is bad, it wasn't it was the first victory against the government by the protestors it showed the government running scared after the 10th they'll have no way back

Shin

emo72

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Let's be honest, there is a tiny tiny % of people who have been so poor that they haven't been able to afford a dentist appointment in 5 years, arguably non-existent actually.

I haven't been to a dentist in years. I lie when I was in Toronto once my brother brought me to his dentist and he offered to do the job for free.

Dentists are an unaffordable luxury for me. I bet there's thousands like me.

Sobko

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats not even dealing with the fact that they ( FG) ended up in collation with a party wholes very existence depends on the public service unions.

You do realise FG had the numbers to go it alone (with a few independents). It was they who chose to involve Labour as they had no real interest in keeping their promise of reform.

Red Pepper

Sobko wrote: »

You do realise FG had the numbers to go it alone (with a few independents). It was they who chose to involve Labour as they had no real interest in keeping their promise of reform.

Yeah and with the massive majority and no credible opposition, they billed themselves as the government to reshape and reform Irish politics and governance. What a massive disappointment.

They have credible opposition now, the people.

Red Pepper

emo72 wrote: »

I haven't been to a dentist in years. I lie when I was in Toronto once my brother brought me to his dentist and he offered to do the job for free.

Dentists are an unaffordable luxury for me. I bet there's thousands like me.

I hate dentists. I don't visit them unless there is a problem.

Daith

BoatMad wrote: »

why is that relevant, if you want to play a flat charge you pay it, if you want to pay a metered charge you pay it.

Cos some people apparently don't want meters. You know all that protesting? So they get a choice of paying a higher capped charge or conserve and play less.

shinzon

Daith wrote: »

Cos some people apparently don't want meters. You know all that protesting? So they get a choice of paying a higher capped charge or conserve and play less.

Or just not pay the charge let them lien it against the property and still have the water, swings and roundabouts tbh, most people cant afford to move anyways so not going to make much difference if they do.

And ill repeat it again we do not get water for free we pay through taxation, a progressive taxation system would more then cover the cost of the infrastructure if implemented correctly and everyone pays something

Shin

BoatMad

Daith wrote: »

Cos some people apparently don't want meters. You know all that protesting? So they get a choice of paying a higher capped charge or conserve and play less.

funnily 50% are already installed, i saw loads go in in greystones recently. Sure a couple in Tallaght and Driminagh might take a while to install. so what.

Water meters will be installed , thats clear.

BoatMad

And ill repeat it again we do not get water for free we pay through taxation, a progressive taxation system would more then cover the cost of the infrastructure if implemented correctly and everyone pays something

everyone wants the other guy to pay progressive taxes, they themselves don't want to pay.

shinzon

BoatMad wrote: »

everyone wants the other guy to pay progressive taxes, they themselves don't want to pay.

way to twist what I said under a progressive taxation system everyone pays something the further up the food chain you go the more you pay the vulnerable don't not pay they pay what they can afford which is the way it should be

Shin

BoatMad

Red Pepper wrote: »

Yeah and with the massive majority and no credible opposition, they billed themselves as the government to reshape and reform Irish politics and governance. What a massive disappointment.

They have credible opposition now, the people.

we can only answer that after a GE. We shall see. good growth in the economy, more people working, that will soften the cough.

Has there been any Gov that wasn't a " massive disappointment", the fact is we elect governments to give the very things they can't.

look at Obama, theres a "massive disappointment" too, its a worldwide issue. the electorate will always fall out with its government sooner or later, because governments cannot balance all the competing demands.

BoatMad

shinzon wrote: »

Youll lose money on that bet and how did you make out from my post that I thought the u turn is bad, it wasn't it was the first victory against the government by the protestors it showed the government running scared after the 10th they'll have no way back

Shin

I don't see a Gov running scared, if they were doing that they would have dismantled the whole edifice, They make some compromises. reasonable ones. I don't see anything running scared ( ps back benchers are always scared)

I think the 10th will achieve nothing extra.