Is there anything to be said for another election?

Alf Stewart.

Car99 wrote: »

Getting rid of water charges what a joke , ffs , the tax payer will have to make up for it somewhere and the only people who will benefit are those that don't pay income tax. Whats the point in voting for any of those clowns.

Those that "don't pay income tax" were to be provided for via allowances and state aid, according to plans that were to drawn up by FG anyway, so your point is moot.

KingBrian2

Car99 wrote: »

Getting rid of water charges what a joke , ffs , the tax payer will have to make up for it somewhere and the only people who will benefit are those that don't pay income tax. Whats the point in voting for any of those clowns.

The polluters are the only crowd who will benefit from dropping water charges.

Bob24

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The polluters are the only crowd who will benefit from dropping water charges.

Yes the largest beneficiaries in terms of "amount saved" per household will be those who are wasting water or don't care about fixing leaks within their properties (even though to be fair this is not the largest crowd and with the current fee structure and the fairly low cap on the bills, those people are already heavily subsided by taxpayers).

Yet the other poster has a point and people who don't pay income tax are also winners here and probably are a much larger group. Removing the charges won't change the cost of running/upgrading the infrastructure and while the impact might not come instantly, increased income tax is realistically the most likely source for that funding if charges are to go away ... so mechaniclly part of the cost is transferred back from people who don't pay tax to people who do.

FrancieBrady

Redbishop wrote: »

They would need them!
While supporting FG administration, I think FF are still planning on being the largest opposition party, to keep SF down the order and for their own policy talk.
They plan to abstain on policy issues meaning FG do need independent support for majority votes.

Are any IND's officially on board? None of them voted for Enda in the last vote.

Baggy Trousers

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If current reporting reflects the final deal, it really is a spectacular win for Micheál Martin when you think about it. He not only succeeded in effectively abolishing water charges but he also got is biggest political rival to do it.

All of the kudos. None of the blowback.

Agreed and yet FG only "half" got rid of it. This commission and 9 month suspension will only prolong the agony for them. The anti-IW TDs will drag them through the mud on this for some time yet. It would be political suicide to resume water charges after 9 or 18 months. In the meantime we will probably get more and more visibility on how much money was wasted in the setup and operation of IW.

Redbishop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are any IND's officially on board? None of them voted for Enda in the last vote.

Not too sure yet, but I think they agreed in principle as long as FF were supportive.
Lowry and Zapone voted for Enda.

Redbishop

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Those that "don't pay income tax" were to be provided for via allowances and state aid, according to plans that were to drawn up by FG anyway, so your point is moot.

Not totally, they had an allowance.
Anything above that would be charged.
Of course none of it could be monitored without meters.

Jack Killian

Redbishop wrote: »

Not too sure yet, but I think they agreed in principle as long as FF were supportive.
Lowry and Zapone voted for Enda.

Coveney counted Lowry in their total last week, saying they "effectively had 50".

So much for Kenny "ruling him out" during the campaign. And Lowry said he wasn't consulted either, so it's very weird.

It'll be interesting to see whether Kenny risks bringing him bank into the fold proper; he might be handy to have around when the contracts for the replacement for IW come up (after the non-binding commission repeats the banking inquiry fiasco and comes up with nothing worthwhile).

Hotei

Is there anything to be said for another mass?

Chips Lovell

In fairness to FG, I don't think there's been any contact with Lowry. They can't stop him voting for Kenny either. He also voted for him in 2011.

FrancieBrady

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

In fairness to FG, I don't think there's been any contact with Lowry. They can't stop him voting for Kenny either. He also voted for him in 2011.

When Kenny is using the Dail to ask other deputies to distance themselves from past associates, you'd think he'd be quick to disassociate himself publicly from everything Lowry has done for him.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When Kenny is using the Dail to ask other deputies to distance themselves from past associates, you'd think he'd be quick to disassociate himself publicly from everything Lowry has done for him.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/enda-kenny-i-will-not-have-any-dealings-with-michael-lowry-1.2523745

"Taoiseach Enda Kenny has for the first time emphatically ruled out seeking the support of Independent Tipperary TD Michael Lowry for a future government."

He has said he wouldn't seek his support, he hasn't spoken to him, all of this done publicly, what more do you ask?

Car99

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Those that "don't pay income tax" were to be provided for via allowances and state aid, according to plans that were to drawn up by FG anyway, so your point is moot.

What plan was that exactly?

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/enda-kenny-i-will-not-have-any-dealings-with-michael-lowry-1.2523745

"Taoiseach Enda Kenny has for the first time emphatically ruled out seeking the support of Independent Tipperary TD Michael Lowry for a future government."

He has said he wouldn't seek his support, he hasn't spoken to him, all of this done publicly, what more do you ask?

A few ways of looking at that, some context below.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/kenny-refuses-11-chances-to-rule-out-lowry-as-a-likely-kingmaker-34392669.html

Redbishop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are any IND's officially on board? None of them voted for Enda in the last vote.

A bit of news on that this morning.
A term of 3 budgets at least, independents seem happy enough once that sort of term is agreed.
And those who haven't paid their water charges aren't going to get away in the smoke either.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-f%C3%A1il-set-to-support-fine-gael-for-three-budgets-1.2627057

FrancieBrady

Redbishop wrote: »

A bit of news on that this morning.
A term of 3 budgets at least, independents seem happy enough once that sort of term is agreed.
And those who haven't paid their water charges aren't going to get away in the smoke either.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-f%C3%A1il-set-to-support-fine-gael-for-three-budgets-1.2627057

Wonder has Alan Kelly talked himself into a cul de sac? Could it be a deal that get government but pulls FG apart?

Redbishop

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wonder has Alan Kelly talked himself into a cul de sac? Could it be a deal that get government but pulls FG apart?

I d say labour are livid.
Probably destroyed over unbudging FG resolve on charges before and during the election and now this happens!
They are bound to feel hard done by, probably rightly so.

FrancieBrady

Redbishop wrote: »

I d say labour are livid.
Probably destroyed over unbudging FG resolve on charges before and during the election and now this happens!
They are bound to feel hard done by, probably rightly so.

Apologies, pre coffee post. Kelly is Labour of course.

StewartGriffin

Well, a quick election looking very unlikely now so this threads days are numbered.

Despite what many are saying about a new govt lasting only as long as Martin allows it to last, I believe it will go 3 years unless there is some internal revolt within FG or FF.

This FG water climbdown has to have a reciprocal price tag attached, most likely in the form of a cast iron guarantee of FF support for a set period.

Zubeneschamali

Jayop;99534394I question the motives of the Troika and whether they had the best interests of the Irish people at heart or was their attention elsewhere. If it was the latter then I wouldn't attach much validity to what they said.

We know their motives - they wanted to make the country solvent so that it could pay its debts, but as a side-effect, they made the country solvent which is a good thing in itself.
It's all very well to say the country is about people, not figures in a spreadsheet, but the Government is better able to help people if the figures on the spreadsheet add up.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We know their motives - they wanted to make the country solvent so that it could pay its debts, but as a side-effect, they made the country solvent which is a good thing in itself.
It's all very well to say the country is about people, not figures in a spreadsheet, but the Government is better able to help people if the figures on the spreadsheet add up.

If only we'd ever seen any figures anywhere re IW that added up.....

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A few ways of looking at that, some context below.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/kenny-refuses-11-chances-to-rule-out-lowry-as-a-likely-kingmaker-34392669.html

That's an older story

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

That's an older story

We have two 'stories'.
Like what was said about what they would do after an election, it remains to be seen what the real story will be.

Godge

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have two 'stories'.
Like what was said about what they would do after an election, it remains to be seen what the real story will be.

No, we don't really have two stories. We have a situation where he didn't answer the question for a couple of days (your older story) and then we have the answer he gave in the end.

Giving credence to your story is the same as saying a 0-0 draw at half-time in a rugby match means the match is a draw.

FrancieBrady

Godge wrote: »

No, we don't really have two stories. We have a situation where he didn't answer the question for a couple of days (your older story) and then we have the answer he gave in the end.

Giving credence to your story is the same as saying a 0-0 draw at half-time in a rugby match means the match is a draw.

It's not as if Enda has said things and then done the opposite later.

Fine Gael seem fairly desperate to stay in power so anything is possible. We'll wait and see.

Jayop

So the refund if needed on those who paid the water charges is supposed to be something like €140m. Anyone good at math fancy working out how many bills that would be and what percentage of the population actually did pay.

Bob24

Jayop wrote: »

So the refund if needed on those who paid the water charges is supposed to be something like €140m. Anyone good at math fancy working out how many bills that would be and what percentage of the population actually did pay.

I thought the latest was that no refunds will be granted but any bill issued before a charge suspension is effectively enacted by the Dáil will have to be collected by Irish Water? (i.e. the suspension is not a cancellation of any unpaid bill for the past year and Irish Water will be asked to go after those people).

Did I get that wrong?

Redbishop

Jayop wrote: »

So the refund if needed on those who paid the water charges is supposed to be something like €140m. Anyone good at math fancy working out how many bills that would be and what percentage of the population actually did pay.

Well we were told 61% of customers paid some or all and that if paid in full it would get around 271m.
So a little better than half of revenue expected collected, if that is the final figure.

K-9

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Well, a quick election looking very unlikely now so this threads days are numbered.

Despite what many are saying about a new govt lasting only as long as Martin allows it to last, I believe it will go 3 years unless there is some internal revolt within FG or FF.

This FG water climbdown has to have a reciprocal price tag attached, most likely in the form of a cast iron guarantee of FF support for a set period.

I'd say 2 or 3 budgets, looks bad otherwise.

Depends also on what scandal or mismanaged crisis comes up and how FG react.

Redbishop

Redbishop wrote: »

Well we were told 61% of customers paid some or all and that if paid in full it would get around 271m.
So a little better than half of revenue expected collected, if that is the final figure.

PS, figures for quarter 3 were running at 110m
Which should mean IW collected less than half of what it should in quarter 4 and that the trend of compliance rising in every other quarter was stemmed and actually fell back slightly, but not as much as some anti IW protesters and politicians would have us believe!

Jayop

Bob24 wrote: »

I thought the latest was that no refunds will be granted but any bill issued before a charge suspension is effectively enacted by the Dáil will have to be collected by Irish Water? (i.e. the suspension is not a cancellation of any unpaid bill for the past year and Irish Water will be asked to go after those people).

Did I get that wrong?

That was my understanding of what they said originally but on Newstalk at 3 they were talking about refunds.

Redbishop wrote: »

Well we were told 61% of customers paid some or all and that if paid in full it would get around 271m.
So a little better than half of revenue expected collected, if that is the final figure.

Half of 61%. Not exactly as much as what they had us told with the snippets of information they decided to pass on.

Redbishop

Jayop wrote: »

That was my understanding of what they said originally but on Newstalk at 3 they were talking about refunds.



Half of 61%. Not exactly as much as what they had us told with the snippets of information they decided to pass on.

Don't follow?
I edited later too. But the figure I gave was 271m with 100% compliance, not 61%.
They still took in over 50% of total expected revenue.

Jayop

Redbishop wrote: »

Don't follow?
I edited later too. But the figure I gave was 271m with 100% compliance, not 61%.
They still took in over 50% of total expected revenue.

I'm probably confusing what you're saying completely but I take form your figures that IW said 61% of people paid some of their bills and were using that to prove that people were being compliant. So breaking that down it looks like it's closer to 30% of all the value of all bills issued was actually paid.

Redbishop

Jayop wrote: »

I'm probably confusing what you're saying completely but I take form your figures that IW said 61% of people paid some of their bills and were using that to prove that people were being compliant. So breaking that down it looks like it's closer to 30% of all the value of all bills issued was actually paid.

271m = total if 100% paid.
140m= what was collected.
Roughly 51.5% of bills issued.

Jayop

Redbishop wrote: »

271m = total if 100% paid.
140m= what was collected.
Roughly 51.5% of bills issued.

So the 271m isn't what would have been paid had 61% of those who paid something paid in full?

Ok, gotcha now.

hatrickpatrick

Jayop wrote: »

So the refund if needed on those who paid the water charges is supposed to be something like €140m. Anyone good at math fancy working out how many bills that would be and what percentage of the population actually did pay.

I don't have the figures to hand on living arrangements, so I'll do three scenarios - the first assuming that everyone is in a one adult household, the second assuming that everyone is in a multi (two or more) adult household, and the third assuming a 50/50 split.

If anyone has the actual statistic or knows where I might be able to make an estimation of it, hit me up and I'll do a better calculation.

Also for the sake of argument, everyone in this example is paying for water and waste water collection. Again, proper figures would make this far more accurate.

For a one adult household, the capped charge is €160/year. For a multi adult household, it's €260/ year.

Example one: (everyone who paid is in a one adult household):

€140m / €160 = 875,000 annual bills

Example two: (everyone who paid is in a multi adult household):

€140m / €260 = 538,562 annual bills

Example three: (50/50 split between single and multi adult households)

€140m / 2 = €70m

€70m / €160 = 437,500 annual bills
€70m / €260 = 269,231 annual bills
Total: 706,731 annual bills

So essentially, we're looking at somewhere roughly between a minimum of 538,562 and a maximum of 875,000 bills paid. Anyone know off hand what the total number of households who were supposed to be billed was?

And furthermore, how many bills were actually sent out? All I've estimated here are the number of annual capped charges paid. That will have to be divided by how many times each household received a bill in order to figure out how many actual households have paid, and this will be further complicated by the fact that some households may not have paid every bill (some may have paid the first one but none after that, some may have done the opposite, etc). I think we're now up to the fourth bill for each household, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

All of the above also assumes, of course, that Jayop's figure for the refund is correct.

Making the divisions I believe are necessary in order to get a final figure for the number of households which have paid yields a very low number, low enough that it makes me feel I've made a bollocks of the calculation in some way (I did pass maths so that's not even slightly unlikely)

subpar

Alan Kelly will be proved right regarding Irish Water.

Labour took a hammering in the recent election and are no doubt feeling very let down by Fine Gael's u turn this week.

Many voters and many spokespersons for the A.A.A / PBP and S.F. regularly accused Labour of putting the Party 1st and the Country 2nd. Well given the reluctance of so many in the new Dail to step into Government we should be thankful that Labour at least put the Country 2nd which is a couple of ranks up the scale ahead of where the Parties of protest do.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't have the figures to hand on living arrangements, so I'll do three scenarios - the first assuming that everyone is in a one adult household, the second assuming that everyone is in a multi (two or more) adult household, and the third assuming a 50/50 split.

If anyone has the actual statistic or knows where I might be able to make an estimation of it, hit me up and I'll do a better calculation.

Also for the sake of argument, everyone in this example is paying for water and waste water collection. Again, proper figures would make this far more accurate.

For a one adult household, the capped charge is €160/year. For a multi adult household, it's €260/ year.

Example one: (everyone who paid is in a one adult household):

€140m / €160 = 875,000 annual bills

Example two: (everyone who paid is in a multi adult household):

€140m / €260 = 538,562 annual bills

Example three: (50/50 split between single and multi adult households)

€140m / 2 = €70m

€70m / €160 = 437,500 annual bills
€70m / €260 = 269,231 annual bills
Total: 706,731 annual bills

So essentially, we're looking at somewhere roughly between a minimum of 538,562 and a maximum of 875,000 bills paid. Anyone know off hand what the total number of households who were supposed to be billed was?

And furthermore, how many bills were actually sent out? All I've estimated here are the number of annual capped charges paid. That will have to be divided by how many times each household received a bill in order to figure out how many actual households have paid, and this will be further complicated by the fact that some households may not have paid every bill (some may have paid the first one but none after that, some may have done the opposite, etc). I think we're now up to the fourth bill for each household, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

All of the above also assumes, of course, that Jayop's figure for the refund is correct.

Making the divisions I believe are necessary in order to get a final figure for the number of households which have paid yields a very low number, low enough that it makes me feel I've made a bollocks of the calculation in some way (I did pass maths so that's not even slightly unlikely)

You are also assuming that all of those you paid, paid four bills.

If, there were significant numbers who only paid one, two or three bills (I can't remember did I get my fourth?), then the maximum shifts up quite dramatically over 1 million households having paid something. That is probably where Alan Kelly is coming from.

Rightwing

subpar wrote: »

Alan Kelly will be proved right regarding Irish Water.

Labour took a hammering in the recent election and are no doubt feeling very let down by Fine Gael's u turn this week.

Many voters and many spokespersons for the A.A.A / PBP and S.F. regularly accused Labour of putting the Party 1st and the Country 2nd. Well given the reluctance of so many in the new Dail to step into Government we should be thankful that Labour at least put the Country 2nd which is a couple of ranks up the scale ahead of where the Parties of protest do.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness

Labour got it wrong, only have themselves to blame. If Kelly can't admit to that, opposition is best place for him.

KingBrian2

I don't want to get too much into the Irish Water debate because forming a gvt is more important at this stage but the reasons given by the anti water crowd were principally they could not pay or they already paid through general taxation. I'm not going to give that crowd the benefit of calling them honest. However it up to the gvt to better inform the people of their rights instead of allowing the yahoo crowd take hold of the message. For this I will say the PR was an unmitigated disaster followed on by the usual crowd of belligerents looking for less tax and less contribution from the people.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

You are also assuming that all of those you paid, paid four bills.

If, there were significant numbers who only paid one, two or three bills (I can't remember did I get my fourth?), then the maximum shifts up quite dramatically over 1 million households having paid something. That is probably where Alan Kelly is coming from.

I did acknowledge this in the post, just in case anyone gets the impression that I'm some kind of eejit

The only way to be sure about this is to have proper statistics, which I gather are not in the public domain at the moment.

It would be incredibly lulzy if Wikileaks published such stats in between leaking gigantic geopolitical dumps of military and intelligence documents

garrettod

"Is there anything to be said for another election?"

In my view yes there is ... we voted for certain people on the clear understanding that they were taking certain positions (regarding Irish Water, who would be Taoiseach, who they would not support as Taoiseach etc). If they won't honour the commitments they made, then we should be able to have another vote (and perhaps remove those we are unhappy with).

Redbishop

garrettod wrote: »

In my view yes there is ... we voted for certain people on the clear understanding that they were taking certain positions (regarding Irish Water, who would be Taoiseach, who they would not support as Taoiseach etc). If they won't honour the commitments they made, then we should be able to have another vote (and perhaps remove those we are unhappy with).

That day will come again too.
Might be sooner than we think even if not immediate. I personally don't see this going too far, isn't Leo making waves already!

Rightwing

This whole sorry episode shows the ineptitude of Government, and why most services should be privatised. Governments like waste, want waste and is as a waste.

KingBrian2

Rightwing wrote: »

This whole sorry episode shows the ineptitude of Government, and why most services should be privatised. Governments like waste, want waste and is as a waste.

Irresponsible Government is inept I agree with that more refined way of saying it.

hatrickpatrick

Rightwing wrote: »

This whole sorry episode shows the ineptitude of Government, and why most services should be privatised. Governments like waste, want waste and is as a waste.

The trouble is that under privatised water provision, charges would still be higher than they need to be in order to generate a profit.

If we must have a Water Utility, it needs to be a state owned entity which has just one very simple mandate: Provide an adequate water infrastructure while keeping costs to the consumer / taxpayer to the absolute possible minimum.

That would entail no bottomless well for spending on consultants and other idiotic corporate crap - spend money on people who are actually doing water-related work or on the work itself, or don't spend it at all.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The trouble is that under privatised water provision, charges would still be higher than they need to be in order to generate a profit.

If we must have a Water Utility, it needs to be a state owned entity which has just one very simple mandate: Provide an adequate water infrastructure while keeping costs to the consumer / taxpayer to the absolute possible minimum.

That would entail no bottomless well for spending on consultants and other idiotic corporate crap - spend money on people who are actually doing water-related work or on the work itself, or don't spend it at all.

What do you say to those who don't want to pay water charges at all? They seem to oppose any attempt by the gvt to install a water charge of any kind. We get into a muddle on Irish Water the company when the charges are needed to run the infrastructure for the whole country.

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What do you say to those who don't want to pay water charges at all? They seem to oppose any attempt by the gvt to install a water charge of any kind. We get into a muddle on Irish Water the company when the charges are needed to run the infrastructure for the whole country.

I oppose water charges, especially in the current climate. But I do believe that we have to separate the two political issues here - the charges, and the entity - because too often, people losing an argument on one of the two issues will seamlessly flip over to talking about the other issue, somehow believing that nobody noticed

Ideal scenario, no water charges, or at the very least, no water charges for normal, average consumption based on the number of occupants in the house.

Second best though, if there must be charges, are charges which are pared down to the absolute bone to pay for water treatment and infrastructure only. That's the key part people keep glossing over. Even among people who are happy to pay water charges, they are not happy to pay for what is, essentially, a vehicle for giving money to people who are owed favours by the government.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I oppose water charges, especially in the current climate. But I do believe that we have to separate the two political issues here - the charges, and the entity - because too often, people losing an argument on one of the two issues will seamlessly flip over to talking about the other issue, somehow believing that nobody noticed

Ideal scenario, no water charges, or at the very least, no water charges for normal, average consumption based on the number of occupants in the house.

Second best though, if there must be charges, are charges which are pared down to the absolute bone to pay for water treatment and infrastructure only. That's the key part people keep glossing over. Even among people who are happy to pay water charges, they are not happy to pay for what is, essentially, a vehicle for giving money to people who are owed favours by the government.

On that first relevant point you raise don't you see the importance of paying for the water we all use. The public waste vast amounts of water so does industry, farming and society in general.

Left to local authorities the public won't take care of our water resources. The guy or gal who did pay for this service and who does care for the water treatment is left high and dry.

Redbishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I oppose water charges, especially in the current climate. But I do believe that we have to separate the two political issues here - the charges, and the entity - because too often, people losing an argument on one of the two issues will seamlessly flip over to talking about the other issue, somehow believing that nobody noticed

Ideal scenario, no water charges, or at the very least, no water charges for normal, average consumption based on the number of occupants in the house.

Second best though, if there must be charges, are charges which are pared down to the absolute bone to pay for water treatment and infrastructure only. That's the key part people keep glossing over. Even among people who are happy to pay water charges, they are not happy to pay for what is, essentially, a vehicle for giving money to people who are owed favours by the government.

Can you link that and who are you talking about?