Irish Water must stay on State balance sheet—Eurostat

Ash.J.Williams

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because we don't pay twice. It's like saying we shouldn't pay income tax because we pay VAT or we shouldn't pay motor tax because we pay tax on fuel.

there are people that shout it as the answer for everything to do with IW

hatrickpatrick

Graham wrote: »

What are you suggesting then. As far as I can see our choices as a Country to secure our water supply appear are:

1) Consumers pay Irish Water for water provision based on usage.
2) Increase general taxation to pay for water.
3) Cut public services to pay for water.
4) Consumers pay a private utility company for water provision based on usage.

The bit in bold is the fallacy. We have the option to cut public spending to pay for water. Alleging that this necessarily involves cuts to public services is, by extension, alleging that there is no waste, no government spending which does not end up benefitting the public.

We all, you included, know that such a claim is bollocks.

When considering those options, consider also that we need to incentivise water conservation.

Why?

Bits_n_Bobs

Uncle Ben wrote: »

You could sell it at a loss, like eh, Siteserv....

IBRC has been liquidated and have stopped giving low cost loans to our 'entrepreneurs' so who would be able to buy it

NorthStars

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

+1 I checked and found nothing of the sort.


You're misunderstanding - that estimated €479m is the 5% of motor tax receipts which is legislatively put aside to contribute to water taxes.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because we don't pay twice.

So, I pay my motor tax (on 3 vehicles, well over €1,000 pa) and that goes into the LGF, as does my LPT, on two properties.
Then, through general taxation I part fund the other subvention of IW.
On top of that, I'm expected to pay, although I won't be, another portion of my income which has already been taxed at source.

In your view, I'm only paying once for water?

FreudianSlippers

NorthStars wrote: »

So, I pay my motor tax (on 3 vehicles, well over €1,000 pa) and that goes into the LGF, as does my LPT, on two properties.
Then, through general taxation I part fund the other subvention of IW.
On top of that, I'm expected to pay, although I won't be, another portion of my income which has already been taxed at source.

In your view, I'm only paying once for water?

I wish I could find another way of saying only 5% of motor tax goes to water, but I just can't fathom a more simple way of stating that. The rest of your tax goes all sorts of places. We still don't have enough to cover water costs, so yes - you have to pay by use as well.

NorthStars

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I wish I could find another way of saying only 5% of motor tax goes to water, but I just can't fathom a more simple way of stating that. The rest of your tax goes all sorts of places. We still don't have enough to cover water costs, so yes - you have to pay by use as well.

So, you're agreeing that the government expect us to pay twice?
Or are you saying that they want us to pay once, but take it from lots of different sources?
If this is the case, can you work out the true amount people are expected to pay for water, considering the €240 or whatever it is in charges IW want directly obviously isn't the only source?

Jawgap

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I wish I could find another way of saying only 5% of motor tax goes to water, but I just can't fathom a more simple way of stating that. The rest of your tax goes all sorts of places. We still don't have enough to cover water costs, so yes - you have to pay by use as well.

If the logic that somehow people have paid for water and therefore should be excused further charges is true then either we need to seriously bump up the amount we pay in taxes or a whole host of other services we pay at point of use for (or are metered for) should be free including

• tolled motorways
• public transport
• A&E
• on-street car parking
• local authority leisure centres
• tickets for GAA, rugby and soccer matches (given the grant funding sports gets from various sources and towards various ends)

When BGE and the ESB were being subvented was anyone seriously arguing at the time that that we'd already paid for our gas and electricity and consequently shouldn't be billed for those utilities?

Water is a utility, it's not special, and it should be metered and charged for as such - and if you use less, you pay less. Better than writing a blank cheque for people to water gardens and wash cars with no consequences.

rubberdiddies

I never really understand the people who say we aren't paying for it twice. It's fact so there's no argument against the people that say we are.

If they want to truly bill people for water then by all means bill based on usage and remove/reduce the other taxes that go towards water.

The fact that this will never happen says a lot

NorthStars

rubberdiddies wrote: »

I never really understand the people who say we aren't paying for it twice. It's fact so there's no argument against the people that say we are.

If they want to truly bill people for water then by all means bill based on usage and remove/reduce the other taxes that go towards water.

The fact that this will never happen says a lot

As has already been admitted on thread, the increase in road tax (motor tax as it's known now) and VAT after 1977 was used to fund water provision.
It's not now though as it's been hived off to pay for something else, hence the new tax/charge.
Pity it's failing miserably though, isn't it?

What's also funny is how almost the exact amount we pay in LPT is being diverted to IW through the LGF in subvention.

A con job, by any standards.

FreudianSlippers

NorthStars wrote: »

As has already been admitted on thread, the increase in road tax (motor tax as it's known now) and VAT after 1977 was used to fund water provision.
It's not now though as it's been hived off to pay for something else, hence the new tax/charge.
Pity it's failing miserably though, isn't it?

What's also funny is how almost the exact amount we pay in LPT is being diverted to IW through the LGF in subvention.

A con job, by any standards.

It was not used to fund water provision. 5% of it went towards provision of water. By recent estimates, that 5% would be €479m of a provision cost of €1.2bn. You do see how that's not funding it right?

Or are you just going to continue to ignore all facts on this thread?

NorthStars

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It was not used to fund water provision. 5% of it went towards provision of water. By recent estimates, that 5% would be €479m of a provision cost of €1.2bn. You do see how that's not funding it right?

Or are you just going to continue to ignore all facts on this thread?

Where are you getting €1.2 billion from?

On Sunday, Michael McNicholas, the boss of Ervia claimed they needed €600 million pa for water services.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It was not used to fund water provision. 5% of it went towards provision of water. By recent estimates, that 5% would be €479m of a provision cost of €1.2bn. You do see how that's not funding it right?

Or are you just going to continue to ignore all facts on this thread?

It was taken for that purpose, what was done with it is the governments fault. We cant control what they do with the money. Bad Governance and reducing the money spent on Water Provision year on year since 2010 is FGs doing. not the electorate.

johnnyskeleton

Icepick wrote: »

This means less money for spongers in the next budget and increased effort on collections, yet Syriza Fein are celebrating this.

Icepick wrote: »

Bell end and his pals

MOD NOTE:

A higher standard is required and there has already been an on thread warning. Please increase the quality of your input rather than taking cheap digs at people. If you persist in lowering the tone you will be banned.

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

A higher standard is required and there has already been an on thread warning. Please increase the quality of your input rather than taking cheap digs at people. If you persist in lowering the tone you will be banned.

Mod:

Just to add as advice for some posters who may get a little lost, this is the politics (general) board, not the politics cafe so posts that contribute nothing to the thread, or are personal attacks, get deleted. So I'd recommend reviewing any quick fire, starter for 10 type responses. If there is no value to them nobody will see them and replies to same will also disappear.

Basically, this isn't going to become another IW battleground, the rules are much stricter here to cater for a higher standard of discussion which the forum regulars expect.

Several posts were deleted and the thread tidied up, thanks for your patience.

FreudianSlippers

NorthStars wrote: »

Where are you getting €1.2 billion from?

On Sunday, Michael McNicholas, the boss of Ervia claimed they needed €600 million pa for water services.

We're not seriously going back over that ground are we? €1.2bn was the cost of the provision of services from the LAs - it's commonly accepted at this point. Eriva didn't even exist when the 5% was taken from motor tax.

listermint wrote: »

It was taken for that purpose, what was done with it is the governments fault. We cant control what they do with the money.

No matter how you slice it, motor tax money is not coming anywhere near covering provision of water services.

Bad Governance and reducing the money spent on Water Provision year on year since 2010 is FGs doing. not the electorate.

Source required.

NorthStars

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We're not seriously going back over that ground are we? €1.2bn was the cost of the provision of services from the LAs - it's commonly accepted at this point. Eriva didn't even exist when the 5% was taken from motor tax.

So is the head man of the parent company of IW wrong with his figures?
The whole thing gets more worrying if that's the case.
€1.2 billion seems to be a popular figure around these parts.

NorthStars

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It was not used to fund water provision. 5% of it went towards provision of water. By recent estimates, that 5% would be €479m of a provision cost of €1.2bn. You do see how that's not funding it right?

Or are you just going to continue to ignore all facts on this thread?

Just checked there.
Motor tax receipts for 2014 were €1.159 billion.

NorthStars

Another interesting document here detailing some of the routes of subvention to IW.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CE4QFjAHahUKEwj0wtTLp_7GAhUKWtsKHVk_AeA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.budget.gov.ie%2FBudgets%2F2015%2FDocuments%2FWhite%2520Paper%25202015_final.pdf&ei=Tba3VbToEoq07QbZ_oSADg&usg=AFQjCNF71HdOB17k6C9ynf_5OwWDyHkIbQ

Jawgap

Motor tax doesn't fund IW - it goes into the LGF along with an exchequer contribution, and the subvention for IW is drawn from this....

The main receipts in the Fund are Motor Tax €1.167b in 2015 and Local Property Tax (LPT) €440m in 2015. Prior to advent of LPT in 2014, Household Charge receipts went into the Fund.

A payment from the Exchequer of some €233m is also included in the Fund for 2015 to cover the cost of payments of €28m to local authorities for VER for water workers, €43m for historic local authority water loans to Irish Water, €21m to cover the loss in revenue to Irish Water as a consequence of the final tariff regime and €141m for self-funding by local authorities of housing and roads.

A subvention payment of €399m will paid to Irish Water from the LG Fund in 2015.

In addition to the subvention in the Local Government Fund, an equity investment of €222m was paid by the Minister of Finance from the Central Fund to Irish Water in late 2014 and a provision for €96m for a working capital loan to Irish Water from the Central Fund, the total payments to Irish Water could amount to €717m for 2015.

Source: Local Government Fund briefing for the PAC meeting on 5 March 2015

Also a good chunk of the motor tax receipts (€246m in 2014) goes from the LGF to the exchequer for the central pot.

listermint

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Source required.

I don't need to source Google fine gael capital spending on water infrastructure. It's been seismically reduced year on year since 2010 but sure you know this as it has been discussed over and over .

You can find it yourself. I'm on a mobile device and I won't do leg work for something you are aware of.

NorthStars

It looks like Noonan and Co are going to just carry on as before.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eurostat-concerned-by-government-control-of-irish-water-1.2299714

Failing the MCT doesn't seem to bother them as much as it bothers Eurostat.

golfball37

I feel sorry for Kelly in the sense he was handed this mess, everyone else has already cashed in and exited the stage whilst he's been left holding the baby.
Even without the 100 bribe IW would have failed the test as the revenues are just not there.

The ruling when read really says unless you privatise suck it up.

Wanderer78

golfball37 wrote: »

The ruling when read really says unless you privatise suck it up.

....and for the love of god, dont privatise it

NorthStars

golfball37 wrote: »

I feel sorry for Kelly in the sense he was handed this mess, everyone else has already cashed in and exited the stage whilst he's been left holding the baby.
Even without the 100 bribe IW would have failed the test as the revenues are just not there.

The ruling when read really says unless you privatise suck it up.

In my opinion, the Irish state will retain ownership of the water infrastructure and the money gouging arm will be sold off.
When that happens expect bills into the thousands of euro's.
Mark my words.

bajer101

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but the Indo have published an article listing the 5 reasons Eurostat have given for why Irish Water needs to stay on the Govt's balance sheet.

“Considerable government control” over Irish Water, “in particular” over board appointments and operations, and the introduction of pricing caps.
· The fact that Irish Water “merely reorganises” the operation of the network from the local authorities, and that a “large majority” of Irish Water staff remain employees of city and county councils.
· The “significant and continuous funding” and support to the company in the form of operational grants and funding.
· The lack of “economically significant prices”, and in particular the cap.
· The fact that sales must cover at least 50pc of production costs. “This is further amplified by the high number of households not paying their bills,” Eurostat said."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/five-reasons-why-irish-water-failed-a-crucial-eu-test-31410448.html

NorthStars

bajer101 wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but the Indo have published an article listing the 5 reasons Eurostat have given for why Irish Water needs to stay on the Govt's balance sheet.

“Considerable government control” over Irish Water, “in particular” over board appointments and operations, and the introduction of pricing caps.
· The fact that Irish Water “merely reorganises” the operation of the network from the local authorities, and that a “large majority” of Irish Water staff remain employees of city and county councils.
· The “significant and continuous funding” and support to the company in the form of operational grants and funding.
· The lack of “economically significant prices”, and in particular the cap.
· The fact that sales must cover at least 50pc of production costs. “This is further amplified by the high number of households not paying their bills,” Eurostat said."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/five-reasons-why-irish-water-failed-a-crucial-eu-test-31410448.html

Eurostat see IW for what it is.
The 'grant' couldn't swing the figures enough.
The fact that it's mostly LA staff doing the same work they always did was well spotted.
The cronyism was well spotted too.
IW is now a standing joke for most people, the next time a cocky government like we have now tries to set up something the question "I hope you're not going to make an Irish Water of it?" will be asked.

Banjo String

bajer101 wrote: »

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but the Indo have published an article listing the 5 reasons Eurostat have given for why Irish Water needs to stay on the Govt's balance sheet.

“Considerable government control” over Irish Water, “in particular” over board appointments and operations, and the introduction of pricing caps. but when anyone pointed out Tierney and other failed county managers, we were told to wind our necks in and that they were the best for the job
· The fact that Irish Water “merely reorganises” the operation of the network from the local authorities, and that a “large majority” of Irish Water staff remain employees of city and county councils. this has also been pointed out to those in favour, it's the same people doing the same stuff as before, with irish water now an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in the middle
· The “significant and continuous funding” and support to the company in the form of operational grants and funding.pointed out that a bribe, payable to non customers/non payers and not even compulsory to spend on water conservation was madness, not so said the people supporting the quango
· The lack of “economically significant prices”, and in particular the cap.proof the low prices (and previously mentioned bribe) were an attempt at reeling folk in, and werent sustainable
· The fact that sales must cover at least 50pc of production costs. “This is further amplified by the high number of households not paying their bills,” Eurostat said." and get many tried to tell us that the eurostat would be based on projected revenue, regardless if it was collected or not

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/five-reasons-why-irish-water-failed-a-crucial-eu-test-31410448.html

What a complete shamble from beginning to end.

What the gov't have achieved since this started was, turn vast numbers of the public against the gardai, over water meters, redundant for the immediate future, many of which were being installed by a company, bought in dubious circumstances from a state owned bank, by a man who a tribunal previously found to have made corrupt payments to a FG minister in the past.

Lied, bullied, and then tried to bribe people to register with an entity, including making demand s for people's (including childrens) PPS numbers.

Then when it became clear the public weren't accepting another stealth tax, and another huge quango, pass bills that gave the company (among others) to forcibly garner wages and other forms of income.

This has all come back to bite them on the backside, and all I can say now is good luck trying to buy the next election with loads of giveaways and goodies.

Second term in office doubtful now. All because of their arrogance.

NorthStars

Banjo String wrote: »

What a complete shamble from beginning to end.

What the gov't have achieved since this started was, turn vast numbers of the public against the gardai, over water meters, redundant for the immediate future, many of which were being installed by a company, bought in dubious circumstances from a state owned bank, by a man who a tribunal previously found to have made corrupt payments to a FG minister in the past.

Lied, bullied, and then tried to bribe people to register with an entity, including making demand s for people's (including childrens) PPS numbers.

Then when it became clear the public weren't accepting another stealth tax, and another huge quango, pass bills that gave the company (among others) to forcibly garner wages and other forms of income.

This has all come back to bite them on the backside, and all I can say now is good luck trying to buy the next election with loads of giveaways and goodies.

Second term in office doubtful now. All because of their arrogance.

See the way FG set up this mess and then handed it over to a Labour politician?
I was just amazed at the time, what with the way Labour was and still is in the polls, that AK47 accepted it.
I suppose the lure of a ministerial pension was too much to resist.
He's set up for life no matter if he's re-elected or not in the GE.

bajer101

NorthStars wrote: »

Eurostat see IW for what it is.
The 'grant' couldn't swing the figures enough.
The fact that it's mostly LA staff doing the same work they always did was well spotted.
The cronyism was well spotted too.
IW is now a standing joke for most people, the next time a cocky government like we have now tries to set up something the question "I hope you're not going to make an Irish Water of it?" will be asked.

I think this may be the first time where a lot of the anti and pro side will agree. Most pro side I know agree that the cap and grant was a bad idea. How it all pans out will be interesting. For me it has always been about either being pro metered water charges vs water being provided free to all and funded from central funds. Everything else was just noise. I am very much pro metered charges and there is nothing in Eurostat's findings that alters that. If it makes the govt implement that properly, it will be a good thing. But even if all the findings were implemented tomorrow it wouldn't change the minds of the anti side - it would just reduce the noise and help us get back to the core issue of whether water should be funded by metered charges or paid for from central funds.

Jamie2k9

Have not followed the posts here but if the Goverment scrapped charges tomorrow, would it not work in their favor come next March, the opposition would have very little to come at them with and with a nice budged plenty of votes may come back.

There is the 100 or 200 million wasted but realistically that means nothing to the average person on the street, the 160 charge is more important.

bajer101

Banjo String wrote: »

What a complete shamble from beginning to end.

What the gov't have achieved since this started was, turn vast numbers of the public against the gardai, over water meters, redundant for the immediate future, many of which were being installed by a company, bought in dubious circumstances from a state owned bank, by a man who a tribunal previously found to have made corrupt payments to a FG minister in the past.

Lied, bullied, and then tried to bribe people to register with an entity, including making demand s for people's (including childrens) PPS numbers.

Then when it became clear the public weren't accepting another stealth tax, and another huge quango, pass bills that gave the company (among others) to forcibly garner wages and other forms of income.

This has all come back to bite them on the backside, and all I can say now is good luck trying to buy the next election with loads of giveaways and goodies.

Second term in office doubtful now. All because of their arrogance.

I don't agree that any of this has turned a lot of people against the Gardai. The people who are anti-Gardai over this are people who would be anti-Gardai anyway. I would argue that the anti side have been badly damaged by the extreme elements who "infiltrated" the largely peaceful protests and behaved violently and excessively. I would include Paul Murphy in that. A lot of people I know who would be anti charges weren't happy with how Murphy behaved when Joan Burton was blocked. I don't know anyone who thinks that the Gardai have behaved badly during this. Personally, I think the Gardai have played a blinder and have shown remarkable restraint.

Most people agree that IW was set up badly and I haven't seen many posts here supporting how it has been managed. But I think it really all does boil down to if you agree with metered charges or not. If your core argument is that you believe that water should be paid for central funds, then you should debate that point. So far, I have not read one single post that has made any sort of argument about why the previous model is better than a metered system. All I have seen is "whataboutery" and DOB etc.

F34

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Have not followed the posts here but if the Goverment scrapped charges tomorrow, would it not work in their favor come next March, the opposition would have very little to come at them with and with a nice budged plenty of votes may come back.

There is the 100 or 200 million wasted but realistically that means nothing to the average person on the street, the 160 charge is more important.

I think the sheer arrogance and the amount of broken promises will put a major dent in the Governments re-election chances. I always voted Fine Gale up to the last election and now feel life an utter fool for trusting anything they said I will never vote FG again and indeed am very unsure of who to vote for next time out. I will say the Social Democrats are making all the right noises for me and I would actually get out on the street to knock on doors to support them which is something I have never considered with any party until now.

Jawgap

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Have not followed the posts here but if the Goverment scrapped charges tomorrow, would it not work in their favor come next March, the opposition would have very little to come at them with and with a nice budged plenty of votes may come back.

There is the 100 or 200 million wasted but realistically that means nothing to the average person on the street, the 160 charge is more important.

The cost of unwinding Irish Water would be multiples of the figure suggested.

For a start, what do you do for all the people who paid their bills?

what about the staff? do you redeploy them or pay them off?

contracts and contractors would have to be bought out?

leases for equipment, premises etc would also have to be bought out?

Then there'd be the litigation that would likely run and run around all those items.

On the plus side, the consultants and legal advisers would probably make more unwinding it, than they did setting it up.

The IW 'brand' will likely disappear, but my guess is water charges ain't going anywhere but up after the next election.

Wanderer78

F34 wrote: »

I think the sheer arrogance and the amount of broken promises will put a major dent in the Governments re-election chances. I always voted Fine Gale up to the last election and now feel life an utter fool for trusting anything they said I will never vote FG again and indeed am very unsure of who to vote for next time out. I will say the Social Democrats are making all the right noises for me and I would actually get out on the street to knock on doors to support them which is something I have never considered with any party until now.

personally in limbo land regarding who to vote for next. come from a labour family but im slowly giving up on politics. im not sure anybody can sort it really

NorthStars

bajer101 wrote: »

I don't agree that any of this has turned a lot of people against the Gardai. The people who are anti-Gardai over this are people who would be anti-Gardai anyway. I would argue that the anti side have been badly damaged by the extreme elements who "infiltrated" the largely peaceful protests and behaved violently and excessively. I would include Paul Murphy in that. A lot of people I know who would be anti charges weren't happy with how Murphy behaved when Joan Burton was blocked. I don't know anyone who thinks that the Gardai have behaved badly during this. Personally, I think the Gardai have played a blinder and have shown remarkable restraint.

Most people agree that IW was set up badly and I haven't seen many posts here supporting how it has been managed. But I think it really all does boil down to if you agree with metered charges or not. If your core argument is that you believe that water should be paid for central funds, then you should debate that point. So far, I have not read one single post that has made any sort of argument about why the previous model is better than a metered system. All I have seen is "whataboutery" and DOB etc.

Why do you think we need metering at all?
It's not like there's a shortage of water coming from the sky over Ireland, is it?

The problem is the leakage and ageing infrastructure and no amount of meters will solve that, although they might line the pockets of certain people in the short and long term.

The infrastructure needs investment and if we need to borrow for that the best way is through the NTMA who can borrow at a far cheaper rate than IW ever will be able to.

It's totally arse about face, as is the norm in this country.

Jamie2k9

F34 wrote: »

I think the sheer arrogance and the amount of broken promises will put a major dent in the Governments re-election chances. I always voted Fine Gale up to the last election and now feel life an utter fool for trusting anything they said I will never vote FG again and indeed am very unsure of who to vote for next time out. I will say the Social Democrats are making all the right noises for me and I would actually get out on the street to knock on doors to support them which is something I have never considered with any party until now.

I agree not everybody will come back but it would be a plus and would easily halt the left by a major stretch. The real question is are they broken promises or did you fully read FG plans?

I could easily see FG+LAB+Social Democrats together or FG+LAB+Independents (select few non hard liners).

The current Goverment have a sizable majority and wouldn't need the same level of votes again to create one in the future.

Left are power hungry and would easily get into bed with anybody, water charges done and dusted before an election can only be a positive.

BTW I vote FG not because I like them but I will not vote FF, SF (to left, will be less off with them ) and Independents etc are wasted vote as they will never be in power. I would rather a FG minister/TD in my county where we would get some benefit than a useless person who would deliver SFA....

Wanderer78

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I agree not everybody will come back but it would be a plus and would easily halt the left by a major stretch. The real question is are they broken promises or did you fully read FG plans?

I could easily see FG+LAB+Social Democrats together or FG+LAB+Independents (select few non hard liners).

The current Goverment have a sizable majority and wouldn't need the same level of votes again to create one in the future.

Left are power hungry and would easily get into bed with anybody, water charges done and dusted before an election can only be a positive.

BTW I vote FG not because I like them but I will not vote FF, SF (to left, will be less off with them ) and Independents etc are wasted vote as they will never be in power. I would rather a FG minister/TD in my county where we would get some benefit than a useless person who would deliver SFA....

your comments are a very common one and a kinna worrying one. it seems like a lot of people do or will be voting in order to block certain parties from getting into power. i think theres something going badly wrong in politics if this is the case. its not giving me much confidence with our political system but i can see your point.

F34

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

F34 wrote: »

I think the sheer arrogance and the amount of broken promises will put a major dent in the Governments re-election chances. I always voted Fine Gale up to the last election and now feel life an utter fool for trusting anything they said I will never vote FG again and indeed am very unsure of who to vote for next time out. I will say the Social Democrats are making all the right noises for me and I would actually get out on the street to knock on doors to support them which is something I have never considered with any party until now.

I agree not everybody will come back but it would be a plus and would easily halt the left by a major stretch. The real question is are they broken promises or did you fully read FG plans?

I could easily see FG+LAB+Social Democrats together or FG+LAB+Independents (select few non hard liners).

The current Goverment have a sizable majority and wouldn't need the same level of votes again to create one in the future.

Left are power hungry and would easily get into bed with anybody, water charges done and dusted before an election can only be a positive.

BTW I vote FG not because I like them but I will not vote FF, SF (to left, will be less off with them ) and Independents etc are wasted vote as they will never be in power. I would rather a FG minister/TD in my county where we would get some benefit than a useless person who would deliver SFA....

i wanted this government to bring in new politics where we could trust what politicians said and that we would have political transparency and yes I was probably very naive in believing them but I wanted a brighter future for our country and for my children. What I feel we have gotten is FF 2.0 except they are not bright enough to hide it as well.

bajer101

NorthStars wrote: »

Why do you think we need metering at all?
It's not like there's a shortage of water coming from the sky over Ireland, is it?

The problem is the leakage and ageing infrastructure and no amount of meters will solve that, although they might line the pockets of certain people in the short and long term.

The infrastructure needs investment and if we need to borrow for that the best way is through the NTMA who can borrow at a far cheaper rate than IW ever will be able to.

It's totally arse about face, as is the norm in this country.

Is that a serious comment? If that is your understanding of how potable water is provided and how waste water is expelled, then I am very reluctant to engage further. This is a thread about Eurostat's ruling so I am not going to get into any of the points you think you are making as they are largely irrelevant.

Jawgap

NorthStars wrote: »

Why do you think we need metering at all?
It's not like there's a shortage of water coming from the sky over Ireland, is it?

The problem is the leakage and ageing infrastructure and no amount of meters will solve that, although they might line the pockets of certain people in the short and long term.

The infrastructure needs investment and if we need to borrow for that the best way is through the NTMA who can borrow at a far cheaper rate than IW ever will be able to.

It's totally arse about face, as is the norm in this country.

Sure it will.

The cost is in treating the water to make it potable.

Metering allows us to know how much is used. At the treatment plants they know how much was sent in to the system - it's relatively straightforward to determine waste, and from that to quantify the investment needed to improve resource efficiency.

Plus as long as we don't have metering and charging based on use people will continue to use potable water for things like gardens, car washing, toilet flushing, etc All things grey water can be used for.

Just because we're blessed with the stuff doesn't mean we have to waste it.

NorthStars

bajer101 wrote: »

Is that a serious comment? If that is your understanding of how potable water is provided and how waste water is expelled, then I am very reluctant to engage further. This is a thread about Eurostat's ruling so I am not going to get into any of the points you think you are making as they are largely irrelevant.

Well, if you don't want to read the rest of the post and discuss it, that's up to yourself.
Perhaps you missed the bit where I stated that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded and the cheapest way to fund this would be through loans taken by the NTMA at the lowest possible interest rate.
How much do you reckon it costs to provide water here, without capital investment in infrastructure? €1.2 billion pa? That seems to be the magic figure bandied about by a few.

Wanderer78

NorthStars wrote: »

Perhaps you missed the bit where I stated that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded and the cheapest way to fund this would be through loans taken by the NTMA at the lowest possible interest rate.
How much do you reckon it costs to provide water here, without capital investment in infrastructure? €1.2 billion pa? That seems to be the magic figure bandied about by a few.

wish ireland had a public banking system. sounds like it could be a lifesaver in these situations

Jawgap

NorthStars wrote: »

Well, if you don't want to read the rest of the post and discuss it, that's up to yourself.
Perhaps you missed the bit where I stated that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded and the cheapest way to fund this would be through loans taken by the NTMA at the lowest possible interest rate.
How much do you reckon it costs to provide water here, without capital investment in infrastructure? €1.2 billion pa? That seems to be the magic figure bandied about by a few.

Loans have to be repaid - even at low interest rates.

Staff have to be paid, running costs (including consumables have to be covered).

What's really needed is a strong pro-active regulator to 'ride' IW hard to generate efficiencies rather than rely solely on price increases to fund infrastructure development.

NorthStars

Wanderer78 wrote: »

wish ireland had a public banking system. sounds like it could be a lifesaver in these situations

What makes more sense here?
Letting IW borrow billions at a rate of somewhere north of 4% by all accounts or letting the NTMA borrow the money at less than 1%?

SpaceTime

The problem is no matter how much someone argues Irish water or water charges may be the right thing, they're politically suicidal policies and it's now going to spill into the general election.

This is the thing with democratic government, you can't ram things through and expect to get reelected.

The free market will decide and currency is votes, not Euros.

Eurostat's technocratic decision has also just added to growing euroscepticism that may mean passing any further Euro referenda here may become an impossibility in future.

Wanderer78

NorthStars wrote: »

What makes more sense here?
Letting IW borrow billions at a rate of somewhere north of 4% by all accounts or letting the NTMA borrow the money at less than 1%?

oh cheaper is good alright but im looking at the bigger problem. after listening to economist ellen brown the last few weeks, ive become convinced public banking is the way to go. we have to break free of the private banking system. its killing us. you could have a point with the ntma though

NorthStars

So, now that IW is to stay on the state balance sheet until 2020 at least, wouldn't it make more sense for the state to borrow for the necessary infrastructure upgrades at an almost zero interest rate than to allow a failed entity like IW borrow at a far higher rate?

LuckyLloyd

SpaceTime wrote: »

The problem is no matter how much someone argues Irish water or water charges may be the right thing, they're politically suicidal policies and it's now going to spill into the general election.

This is the thing with democratic government, you can't ram things through and expect to get reelected.

The free market will decide and currency is votes, not Euros.

Eurostat's technocratic decision has also just added to growing euroscepticism that may mean passing any further Euro referenda here may become an impossibility in future.

That's the first I've come across that point today! Are you suggesting their decision is incorrect?

SpaceTime

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's the first I've come across that point today! Are you suggesting their decision is incorrect?

Their decision may well be technically correct, but just watch over the next few days and weeks as this blows into a political mess and you'll see the more votes going toward anti water charges independents and SF.

The issue with this from my point of view is that the water charges appear to have been snuck in as a rider to the original bailout deal.

The Irish problems were caused by the bursting of a property bubble which had very profound implications in terms of loss of tax revenues and massively increased social expenditure.
It wasn't caused by failure to collect tax or charge for services as was the case in Greece for example.

There was a very questionable decision to micromanage this one aspect of how Ireland runs public services and, it's relatively minor aspect of public expenditure too.

The whole thing just stinks both from an EU side and Irish side in terms of vultures looking to make a quick buck out of turning a public service into a commercially run utility.

NorthStars

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's the first I've come across that point today! Are you suggesting their decision is incorrect?

Alan Kelly is taking issue with it, he was on the 6.01 earlier.