Is there anything to be said for another election?

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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.

Evidence for this? Washing one's clothes and keeping clean does not count as waste, nor does drinking adequate water every day. This is the usage I don't think should count for bills, because that will inevitably result in people who are terrified about their financial situation cutting back on usage they really shouldn't be cutting back on, which would severely hit peoples' quality of life.

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.

I agree with the latter part. If people don't have to pay for the public water mains, those who can't access it should have their own water supply subsidised.

Bob24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Evidence for this? Washing one's clothes and keeping clean does not count as waste, nor does drinking adequate water every day. This is the usage I don't think should count for bills, because that will inevitably result in people who are terrified about their financial situation cutting back on usage they really shouldn't be cutting back on, which would severely hit peoples' quality of life.

Just for leaks within properties which people where not fixing and taxpayers had been subsiding for years:

"Some 150 customers have received bills from the company which show they are each using more than €1,000 worth of water between January and March due to leaks, and the company has already detected over 30,000 suspected problems in properties."

(http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/irish-waters-first-fix-free-is-for-leaks-of-53000-litres-31147077.html)

Then you have loads of people not being careful about water because its "free". The most horrendous example I have heard is "I leave the taps open in the winter to prevent the pipe from freezing". But there are many other silly behaviours.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Evidence for this? Washing one's clothes and keeping clean does not count as waste, nor does drinking adequate water every day. This is the usage I don't think should count for bills, because that will inevitably result in people who are terrified about their financial situation cutting back on usage they really shouldn't be cutting back on, which would severely hit peoples' quality of life.



I agree with the latter part. If people don't have to pay for the public water mains, those who can't access it should have their own water supply subsidised.

Their are taps all across this nation that are leaking vast amounts of water. Cooking is a major source of water usage. Washing cars is very water intensive and this country is full of cars. Cleaning up the streets is another use of water.

We can't keep subsiding people that would only increase the National debt. We need to reduce the National debt not increase the National debt.

hatrickpatrick

Redbishop wrote: »

Can you link that and who are you talking about?

Sure.


Cronyism: http://www.thejournal.ie/paudie-coffey-driver-irish-water-1698425-Sep2014/

^ Why wasn't Paudey Coffey sacked immediately over this?

Incompetence being rewarded with further appointments: http://www.thejournal.ie/poolbeg-incinerator-e91-million-617594-Oct2012/

Just off the top of my head. Let's not forget the bonuses for people who hadn't actually performed well, also.

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Their are taps all across this nation that are leaking vast amounts of water.

Source? And of course that needs to be dealt with.

Cooking is a major source of water usage.

And one which people should absolutely not be asked to reduce. Or are you suggesting that preparing food is an example of "waste"?

Washing cars is very water intensive and this country is full of cars. Cleaning up the streets is another use of water.

Your point being? None of the things you have mentioned, apart from leaks, count as "waste". They are all valid and necessary use of water.

We can't keep subsiding people that would only increase the National debt. We need to reduce the National debt not increase the National debt.[/QUOTE]

If Irish Water was about reducing the national debt, it wouldn't have been allowed to waste so much money being set up. That argument is thoroughly... *puts on sunglasses* dead in the water

I cannot abide asking ordinary people to reduce their quality of life in order to reduce the national debt, while we tolerate extravagance and cronyism in government and bodies connected to government. That isn't right. Government can get its own house in order with regard to wasting taxpayers' money before it asks ordinary families to forgo their basic comforts such as being able to cook and have a feckin' shower in the morning before work.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Source? And of course that needs to be dealt with.



And one which people should absolutely not be asked to reduce. Or are you suggesting that preparing food is an example of "waste"?



Your point being? None of the things you have mentioned, apart from leaks, count as "waste". They are all valid and necessary use of water.

We can't keep subsiding people that would only increase the National debt. We need to reduce the National debt not increase the National debt.

If Irish Water was about reducing the national debt, it wouldn't have been allowed to waste so much money being set up. That argument is thoroughly... *puts on sunglasses* dead in the water


The anti crowd are demanding the gvt be denied the tools to actually make a difference in their lives. As for evidence of leaking taps I see it everywhere.

Bob24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's not forget the bonuses for people who hadn't actually performed well, also.

As far as I know, Irish Water hasn't paid a single bonus since its creation, including to people who performed well.

That's how stupid the protests have been: IW tried to introduced a performance based incentive model identical to many private sector companies, whereby part of the employee's pay (mentioned on people's contracts) is only available if performance targets are met. This got labeled as outrageous bonuses by people who didn't care to understand how it actually worked. The payments weren't made due to political pressure. The unions went labour court with a guaranteed win (obvious breach of contract by the employer). Irish Water couldn't fix this and become compliant with work contracts due to political pressure, and was forced by the labour court to pay compensation to employees regardless of performance.

So what protest managed to to in that case is just to destroy the attempt to move from a public service automatic increment type of pay model to a performance based one, and to send a message to Irish Water employees that no matter how poorly or greatly they perform, it will have zero impact their pay (best way to kill motivation within staff and drive away strong performers).

Baggy Trousers

Bob24 wrote: »

As far as I know, Irish Water hasn't paid a single bonus since its creation, including to people who performed well.

That's how stupid the protests have been: IW tried to introduced a performance based incentive identical to many private sector employers, whereby pay of the employe's pay (mentioned on people's contracts) is only available if performance is met. This gets labels as outrageous bonuses by people who don't care to understand how it actually works. The payments aren't made do to political pressure. Union go labour court with a guaranteed win (obvious breach of contract by the employer). Irish Water can't fix this and become compliment with work contracts due to political pressure, and is forced by the labour court to pay compensation to employees regardless of performance.

So what protest managed to to in that case is just to destroy the attempt to move from a public service automatic increment based type of pay model to a performance based one, and to send a message to Irish Water employees that no matter how poorly or greatly they perform, it will have zero impact their pay (best way to kill motivation and drive away strong performers).

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/underperforming-utility-staff-will-still-get-bonus-292062.html

Irish Water workers who underperform will be rewarded with bonuses, it has emerged.
Staff members judged to “need to improve” are entitled to increased pay, while those found to be doing just the standard of work expected of them get bonuses of up to 14%.

Senior staff at the utility and its parent company Bord Gáis, renamed Ervia, are in line for annual bonuses of up to 19%, RTÉ has revealed.

Even if those at management level are deemed to “need to improve” at their annual performance review, they can expect an extra 9% payment to top up their wages above €90,000.

Staff who “need improvement” and are earning €70,000-plus are entitled to a 4% top-up, and lower grades with wages up to the mid-€40,000 level can expect a 1.5% bonus.

Baggy Trousers

Bob24 wrote: »

As far as I know, Irish Water hasn't paid a single bonus since its creation, including to people who performed well.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ministers-standing-over-irish-water-bonuses-354301.html

Irish Water employees are to get backdated incremental payments averaging
€1,500 following a ruling by the Labour Relations Commission.

The company refused to pay the incremental awards for 2013 and 2014 after a
new performance-related scheme was branded a bonus culture by opposition
parties.

Tánaiste Joan Burton told the Dáil at the time: “I do not anticipate any
bonus payment, any enhancement payment, or whatever other kind of management
speak is used for the payments being paid”.

Fiskar

The thought of Joan Burton and Mary Lou McDonald mouthing from the opposition benches fills with fear, that I may never want to listen to a Dail debate again until the next election.

Bob24

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ministers-standing-over-irish-water-bonuses-354301.html

That article says exactly what I was explaining. Because Irish Water was prevented from paying performance based incentives which were in every employees contract due to political pressure, unions brought the matter to the labour court which forced it instead to pay compensation to employees regardless of performance. What was paid is not bonuses but a compensation for breaking every employee's contract (under direct instructions of the government, interestingly enough).

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The anti crowd are demanding the gvt be denied the tools to actually make a difference in their lives.

Wow, look! An answer which doesn't even pretend to actually address anything that was asked!

Care to explain this comment, as well as responding to any of the points raised in my post?

As for evidence of leaking taps I see it everywhere.

Well then it should be easy enough for you to cite some of it

hatrickpatrick

Bob24 wrote: »

As far as I know, Irish Water hasn't paid a single bonus since its creation, including to people who performed well.

Only because we, the people, put a stop to it.

That's how stupid the protests have been: IW tried to introduced a performance based incentive model identical to many private sector companies

Including for under performance.

So what protest managed to to in that case is just to destroy the attempt to move from a public service automatic increment type of pay model to a performance based one, and to send a message to Irish Water employees that no matter how poorly or greatly they perform, it will have zero impact their pay (best way to kill motivation within staff and drive away strong performers).

Given that the widely cited bonus structure introduced initially by Irish Water included bonuses for those who UNDER performed, this entire argument is bogus. If everything was as you describe I might actually have been ok with it.

Bob24

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Given that the widely cited bonus structure introduced initially by Irish Water included bonuses for those who UNDER performed, this entire argument is bogus. If everything was as you describe I might actually have been ok with it.

I don't think you have ever worked for a large private sector employer. I spent 10 years with an American multinational and they did give part of their bonus targets to lower performers, simply because they impose a "bell curve" distribution for performance rating and being in the lower ratings doesn't mean you have brought zero value to the company - just less than other employees in the same grade (an employee which seriously under performs will be dealt with outside the bonus system through performance improvement through performance improvement programs and eventually dismissed if they don't fix the problems, but this is fairly rare).

Company I was with was typically paying 50-70% of the bonus target for "below target" ratings, 100% for "target achieved", and 130-150% for "target exceeded".

Baggy Trousers

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't think you have ever worked for a large private sector employer. I spent 10 years with an American multinational and they did give part of their bonus targets to lower performers, simply because they impose a "bell curve" distribution for performance rating and being in the lower ratings doesn't mean you have brought zero value to the company - just less than other employees in the same grade (an employee which seriously under performs will be dealt with outside the bonus system through performance improvement through performance improvement programs and eventually dismissed if they don't fix the problems, but this is extremely rare).

Company I was with was typically paying 50-70% of the bonus target for "below target" ratings, 100% for "target achieved", and 130-150% for "target exceeded".

I have worked in US multinationals in Ireland before and I can guarantee you that underperformers got 0% bonuses. They were lucky to have their jobs.

Redbishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure.


Cronyism: http://www.thejournal.ie/paudie-coffey-driver-irish-water-1698425-Sep2014/

^ Why wasn't Paudey Coffey sacked immediately over this?

Incompetence being rewarded with further appointments: http://www.thejournal.ie/poolbeg-incinerator-e91-million-617594-Oct2012/

Just off the top of my head. Let's not forget the bonuses for people who hadn't actually performed well, also.

Fair points.

Bob24

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I have worked in US multinationals in Ireland before and I can guarantee you that underperformers got 0% bonuses. They were lucky to have their jobs.

Not my experience. To my knowledge in my company only people in performance improvement plans (quite rare) were getting 0 bonus and could obviously lose their job if they were showing no improvement after a few months, but that was a separate thing from yearly performance reviews. And I don't think any of us as any information to say something similar does or doesn't exist at Irish Water.

And at the end of the day what matters is that the guaranteed pay plus the bonus paid to low performers is what you want to pay to a low performers.
i.e. a company which pays part of the bonus to low performers will likely have lower guaranteed pay that a company which doesn't: whether the guy gets 35k with no bonus or 32k fixed pay and 3k bonus makes no difference to the company, what matter is that the total fixed+bonus is the current market rate.

Of of course if you are talking financial targets for sales representatives it is different, but it doesn't apply to IW.

Redbishop

Just wondering here have we any party or political grouping here capable of setting up or running any dept or state agency without some form of cronyism.
Its probably seen as good practice to have your friends close by in political circles.
To really try and insure transparency and fairness in situations like IW its probably best to go for outside expertise with no hint of any political affiliation here, which would probably mean hiring a foreign expert in this field.
No doubt it was handled badly, but that doesent mean its a total disaster that cant be fixed.
Funny FF settled for charges and not IW?

hatrickpatrick

Bob24 wrote: »

Just for leaks within properties which people where not fixing and taxpayers had been subsiding for years:

"Some 150 customers have received bills from the company which show they are each using more than €1,000 worth of water between January and March due to leaks, and the company has already detected over 30,000 suspected problems in properties."

(http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/irish-waters-first-fix-free-is-for-leaks-of-53000-litres-31147077.html)

Then you have loads of people not being careful about water because its "free". The most horrendous example I have heard is "I leave the taps open in the winter to prevent the pipe from freezing". But there are many other silly behaviours.

Fair points, and something needs to be done about these issues, but introducing a system wherein a struggling family with three children has to choose between washing their clothes or washing their kids is not a solution.

As I've said many times before, if there was a free allowance per person in a household, and it covered normal day to day water usage, I might be able to get on board. One of the things which initially pissed me off about water charges, long before IW became the monster that it did, was that there was no category of extra allowances for households with multiple adults (more than two) - just for couples or single parents with kids.

This essentially meant automatically and definitively screwing students over, as due to the rent and economic situation at the moment, every student I know is either an adult still living with their family, or an adult living in a household with anywhere between three and six adults, some even more than this when you include those forced to 'couch surf' because there's such a shortage of affordable accommodation.

With the initially proposed free allowances, people in such living situations were thrown under the bus. With an allowance per household rather than per person, the free allowance would have been used up within a month in a six student household, and they would have ended up paying disproportionately more - on top of the fact that students by nature can only work part time jobs, and are faced with rising fees for college as well as their own living expenses if living away from home.

Essentially what I'm saying is, peoples' quality of life has already suffered hugely during austerity - telling people who literally have no disposable income left at the end of the week that they must now make do with showering less often, washing their clothes less often, drinking fewer glasses of water or making fewer cups of tea for fear of adding yet more financial burden to their already bleak situation was a bridge too far, at least for me. This is one of the reasons that water charges aroused more opposition than other comparable utility charges, a fact which the pro side seem to still be bewildered about - it was the timing. The introduction of water charges during a period of extreme stagflation (rising cost of living combined with dropping disposable incomes) took an already "death by a thousand cuts" situation and slashed it with a chainsaw.

In short, incentivising conservation should only be pursued if a mechanism is found to avoid burdening non-wasteful, ordinary users of water at the same time.

hatrickpatrick

Redbishop wrote: »

Just wondering here have we any party or political grouping here capable of setting up or running any dept or state agency without some form of cronyism.

If there is, it has yet to emerge. I'll be interested thought to see how this minority government behaves. Now that the government will have to actually fight and earn its votes in the Dail rather than relying on whipped TDs, there's at least some chance that another IW-esque setup won't pass. There's also now the possibility of ministers losing confidence vote if they are caught openly engaging in bullsh!t, such as Coffey, Reilly or Shatter in the last government.
There is an opportunity here for some real transparency and accountability in Irish politics at long last. As was said on Prime Time earlier tonight, whether it works out will ultimately depend on whether our TDs can quickly adapt to a new paradigm in which a higher level of political maturity is required than has been required in any recent Dail setup.

Time will tell. I for one am optimistic until proven otherwise.

Its probably seen as good practice to have your friends close by in political circles.

You can say that again :pac: This isn't a uniquely Irish problem by a long stretch, the Sanders v Clinton argument in the States essentially boils down to the same issue.

To really try and insure transparency and fairness in situations like IW its probably best to go for outside expertise with no hint of any political affiliation here, which would probably mean hiring a foreign expert in this field.

This would have been a brilliant idea. On the other hand, it could be argued that this is what Fg/Lab intended when they gave the IW job to Bord Gais / Eriva - and then that entity pretty much immediately went down the bottomless money well for consultants route, over a billing / metering system almost identical to the one Bord Gais and the ESB already use.

Perhaps this is an element specifically of Irish political culture, in which case you'd be spot in in advocating foreign expertise. Out of interest, do you know whether we've tried that with anything else? I must check whether, for instance, police complaints mechanisms were investigated in other jurisdictions while GSOC was being set up, or if the ESB is modelled on an electricity utility in another country?

No doubt it was handled badly, but that doesent mean its a total disaster that cant be fixed.

Do you mean IW the entity, or water charges in general? IW may be intractable without a re-brand, and I can't see that going well either since it would quickly come out that IW had spend massive amounts of money on the re-branding, and another sh!tstorm would start to churn almost immediately.

I will say that I do feel a huge amount of sympathy for front-line staff in IW. I don't like the fact that we're wasting so much taxpayer's money on a corporate entity, but apart from the politically appointed and the senior echelons, the employees of IW are by and large just people who were looking for work, saw something they were interested in, and applied for it. It's not their fault that it turned into a political football, and I'd break somewhat with my fellow left activists by saying that I wouldn't like to see those people just told to pack their bags next week and finding themselves unemployed.

If IW is ultimately to be wound down, or even if the corporate / desk aspect of it is to be significantly downsized, the staff - at least, the non political staff - should get a fair redundancy deal. It'll cost the taxpayer money, but at the end of the day the low level staff didn't ask to be put in the situation they might be about to be put in.

Funny FF settled for charges and not IW?

Not when one considers that while FG have proven themselves to be masters of cronyism, FF are the original grand wizards.

Redbishop

Frankly, I wouldn't trust this set up as far as I could throw it.
I think its obvious there is no trust and so far it looks like its based on blackmail and bribery.
I m usually not a govt basher for the sake of it and will wait and see a list of policies, but I m not hopeful.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

The opposition to water charges is a national embarrassment. If our elected representatives fail to form a government and are forced to call a new election because Irish people don't want to pay for water, then we richly deserve the clown show we've created.

I think you left out the word "twice"

Jack Killian

Jayop wrote: »

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

Ok, gotcha now.

No. The €271m was hopelessly incompetent guesswork, as they assumed that the average use was 150 litres per day.

The average use is 85 litres, which meant that a lot of people presumably got nowhere near the €60 per quarter bill.

The fact remains that 600,000 people haven't registered though, and they all got the default bill, so the full discrepancy is still not explained.

If IW released actual figures instead of pretending that 61% "are paying" then we might be able to do the maths; they repeatedly refuse to provide any meaningful figures though.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Wow, look! An answer which doesn't even pretend to actually address anything that was asked!

Care to explain this comment, as well as responding to any of the points raised in my post?



Well then it should be easy enough for you to cite some of it

You'd need a public company in order to that my friend.;) If people had any public complaints they could have taken it up with Irish Water instead of circumventing the law.

You voted for this scenario. By giving parties with irresponsible records a chance to return to power and punishing parties that were making measurable differences in political life.

KlausFlouride

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Given that the widely cited bonus structure introduced initially by Irish Water included bonuses for those who UNDER performed, this entire argument is bogus. If everything was as you describe I might actually have been ok with it.

On what basis would Irish Water employees be measured? It seems odd that a public utility would have targets meaningful for awarding bonuses.

superman28

At this point I would like another election,, I have zero faith that this shaky FF/FG alliance will last.. FF have proven they put their Party politics ahead of the needs of the country and will jump ship anyway when it suits them over the next year or so.

This IW talk is a farce,, what a shambles and a waste of time,, Yes, it was set up in a micky mouse fashion and Irish people don't like regular bills.. (strangely don't mind paying TV licence, Property tax annual bills though).. I pay vast more money in my USC, property tax and sky high variable rate mortgage interest rates.

I'd personally like to go back to a vote and try again..

Jack Killian

Jack Killian wrote: »

No. The €271m was hopelessly incompetent guesswork, as they assumed that the average use was 150 litres per day.

I assume your more competent guesswork is available to us to compare?

Jack Killian wrote: »

The average use is 85 litres, which meant that a lot of people presumably got nowhere near the €60 per quarter bill.

Citation needed. Statistics from the CER approved Water metering study revealed an average consumption of 120l per day, which fell to ~ 109l per day when outliers (the 1% of houses that were consuming 22% of all of the water) were excluded. These figures are not dissimilar from water consumption rates in other countries with similar environments and economics.

Jack Killian wrote: »

The fact remains that 600,000 people haven't registered though, and they all got the default bill, so the full discrepancy is still not explained..

Those who have not registered are unlikely to have paid.

Jack Killian wrote: »

If IW released actual figures instead of pretending that 61% "are paying" then we might be able to do the maths; they repeatedly refuse to provide any meaningful figures though.

Do ESB release payment figures? 61% of IW customers have made a payment to IW. There are no need for air quotes, just simple facts will do fine.

Bob24

KlausFlouride wrote: »

On what basis would Irish Water employees be measured? It seems odd that a public utility would have targets meaningful for awarding bonuses.

Most professional jobs can be assigned targets (if not, it usually means the employee's role is not properly defined).

An employee doing customer service can have targets on how many complaints they address per month.
An employee working on infrastructure projects can have targets on certain projects being delivered on time and within budget if they are a project manager, or technical aspects of the project being delivered successfully if they are engineers.
A guy managing a waste water treatment plant will probably have targets related to the availability and safety of the plant.
Etc ...

Back to the thread title;

What would another election result in? Lets flesh it out.

What scenarios are available that see anything other than a FF or FG minority? Or a FF/FG coalition?

Could we see FG and LAB regaining 20+ seats between them (at the cost of independents / SF / FF)? - Extremely unlikely imo.

Could we see FF pulling in 20+ seats from those both Left and Right of it? - (Possibly a few seats, but nowhere near getting 20 imo)

Could we see a grand coalition of the left? SF/Independents/Green/PBP/AAA? - (I don't think that's likely either really).

Could any other coalition / minority arrangements be come to?
- I can't imagine FF and FG countenancing SF partnership.

Could a huge surge in Independents and Green/SD votes bring them closer to being able to form a coalition with FF or FG? - (unlikely imo as much of their vote comes from being 'Not FF nor FG').

I think we're stuck to be honest. Another go-around would give us a fairly similar make up in the Dáil, and similar problems with trying to organise a Government from the disparate and polarised groups.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

Back to the thread title;

What would another election result in? Lets flesh it out.

What scenarios are available that see anything other than a FF or FG minority? Or a FF/FG coalition?

Could we see FG and LAB regaining 20+ seats between them (at the cost of independents / SF / FF)? - Extremely unlikely imo.

Could we see FF pulling in 20+ seats from those both Left and Right of it? - (Possibly a few seats, but nowhere near getting 20 imo)

Could we see a grand coalition of the left? SF/Independents/Green/PBP/AAA? - (I don't think that's likely either really).

Could any other coalition / minority arrangements be come to?
- I can't imagine FF and FG countenancing SF partnership.

Could a huge surge in Independents and Green/SD votes bring them closer to being able to form a coalition with FF or FG? - (unlikely imo as much of their vote comes from being 'Not FF nor FG').

I think we're stuck to be honest. Another go-around would give us a fairly similar make up in the Dáil, and similar problems with trying to organise a Government from the disparate and polarised groups.

Yes I think this is correct. And possibly the reason why FF/FG both seem to be ready to temporarily compromise on previous red lines: they know if they don't and there is another election, they will likely be back in the same situation again, and will both carry for responsibility for paralysing the country. The problem is that they are mostly just kicking the can down the road on disagreement points (for example suspending the charges for a few months is not a final decision and they will have to clash on this in the future), and the deal could be a boomerang coming back to hit them again in a few months.

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I assume your more competent guesswork is available to us to compare?

I didn't cost the taxpayer a billion euro. That sort of post is merely to stifle debate.

Pro's regularly claim that the reason IW was so expensive with all its consultants was because experts cost money; their cost/benefit analysis was never public and the reasons for setting it up varies depending on the wind, so take it up with them.

Citation needed. Statistics from the CER approved Water metering study revealed an average consumption of 120l per day, which fell to ~ 109l per day when outliers (the 1% of houses that were consuming 22% of all of the water) were excluded. These figures are not dissimilar from water consumption rates in other countries with similar environments and economics.

What figure did IW and the government use in determining and declaring that IW would be self-sufficient ? What figure did they use when claiming that we needed to conserve ?

What figures have they released re similar consumption by commercial users, and ensure they paid their fair share ?

Those who have not registered are unlikely to have paid.

Obviously. The point is that even the "amount billed" doesn't provide any figure which could determine whether IW would ever have been the "user pays" model that was promised.

Do ESB release payment figures? 61% of IW customers have made a payment to IW. There are no need for air quotes, just simple facts will do fine.

Done to death. ESB is not a new utility designed to fix supposed problems with the current provider. ESB is not a monopoly end-user utility provider (it used to be, but that was deemed illegal) and as a result has commercial and competition considerations.

The air quotes applied to the falsehood of "are paying" and is completely appropriate, as it was used in headlines.

"Have paid something" would have been accurate, had they not been more interested in lies and spin.

The most obvious issue with IW is that, as shown by your post, the only way to defend it is to row in with discussion-stifling "show us yours" and "not-like-with-like" irrelevancies.

If you had any standalone defence it would prove that it was a good idea - which, ironically the concept was, before being imposed so badly and with so many lies - without resorting to whataboutery.

FrancieBrady

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes I think this is correct. And possibly the reason why FF/FG both seem to be ready to temporarily compromise on previous red lines: they know if they don't and there is another election, they will likely be back in the same situation again, and will both carry for responsibility for paralysing the country. The problem is that they are mostly just kicking the can down the road on disagreement points (for example suspending the charges for a few months is not a final decision and they will have to clash on this in the future), and the deal could be a boomerang coming back to hit them again in a few months.

Is there not a contradiction in the highlighted bit.
If they are gonna end up in the same situation how will they have 'carried the responsibility'?

I personally favour another election, define the issues, go to the country and let there be no doubt what the people want.

Jack Killian

Jack Killian wrote: »

I didn't cost the taxpayer a billion euro. That sort of post is merely to stifle debate.

I didn't ask if you did. I asked if your guesswork was available to us? Asking questions is not stifling debate in any rational sense.
FWIW, the €271m is based upon the capped charges, and not the usage estimates.

Jack Killian wrote: »

What figure did IW and the government use in determining and declaring that IW would be self-sufficient ? What figure did they use when claiming that we needed to conserve ?

What figures have they released re similar consumption by commercial users, and ensure they paid their fair share ?

I asked a very simple question of your assertion (that average usage is 85l), you have responded with 3 questions, none of which have answered my question.

This does not seem to be an answer.

Jack Killian wrote: »

Done to death. ESB is not a new utility designed to fix supposed problems with the current provider. ESB is not a monopoly end-user utility provider (it used to be, but that was deemed illegal) and as a result has commercial and competition considerations..

When ESB was set up, it was indeed a brand new utility designed to amalgamate dozens of other electricity providers. It was also a natural monopoly.
Did it release payment figures? Does it still? After how long of IW being set up and running will you accept that it no longer ought to release payment figures?

Jack Killian wrote: »

The air quotes applied to the falsehood of "are paying" and is completely appropriate, as it was used in headlines.

Is this a rant about the media? I have little time for modern media myself these days, and so read beyond the headline and go for their sources myself. Perhaps you might follow suit and give us some information about your assertion on average usage?

Jack Killian wrote: »

If you had any standalone defence it would prove that it was a good idea - which, ironically the concept was, before being imposed so badly and with so many lies - without resorting to whataboutery.

There is no whataboutery. I wrote a fact, and asked you a question.

Bob24

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there not a contradiction in the highlighted bit.
If they are gonna end up in the same situation how will they have 'carried the responsibility'?

I personally favour another election, define the issues, go to the country and let there be no doubt what the people want.

Well realistically only FF/FG have enough seats to compromise and form a government. So as long as they don't compromise they will be the ones held responsible for the deadlock. And if another election is to bring a similar Dail, it will just extend that responsibility further until the compromise anyway.

I guess my point is that the more they wait the more it hurts them because the current negotiation circus is hurting everyone's credibility and eventually they are the only ones who can do something.

KlausFlouride

Spain seems to be have a similar if worse scenario, a klatch of ideologically opposing political parties and no workable combination even close to making a government. It looks like they are heading towards another election by default. If there was another election here, it doesn't look like the overall numbers would change, and if anything political positions would have hardened re a grand coalition of some form. Where do we go from here?

Jayop

Yeah I don't see any big changes after another election right now, maybe a few marginal seats one way or the other but nothing to change the look of it. If anything people are probably more entrenched in their views of the various groups after this fiasco.

SF, inds and left parties won't change and see the government as a farce.
Ff voters see Ff ffing and that's what they voted for.
FG voters are down to the loyal few and they won't change.

FrancieBrady

Bob24 wrote: »

Well realistically only FF/FG have enough seats to compromise and form a government. So as long as they don't compromise they will be the ones held responsible for the deadlock. And if another election is to bring a similar Dail, it will just extend that responsibility further until the compromise anyway.

I guess my point is that the more they wait the more it hurts them because the current negotiation circus is hurting everyone's credibility and eventually they are the only ones who can do something.

But if they are, as you say, going to come back from another election, the same. How would that mean that either will have been 'held responsible' or will have been 'hurt more'

I think they need to take their positions on this, go to the country and see what the people say.
If not we have the prospect of this hanging over all governance for a number of years, hampering anything getting done.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said many times before, if there was a free allowance per person in a household, and it covered normal day to day water usage, I might be able to get on board.

Great idea. How do you determine reliably how many people are in a household? I guess you'd have to get their PPS numbers. Shouldn't be any problem there, right?

And there's the problem with this whole fiasco: the constant jumping from one reason to be outraged to another.

Jack Killian wrote: »

I think you left out the word "twice"

No, I bloody well didn't. I can't believe this needs to be spelled out yet again, but here I go:

Water that's paid for through direct billing isn't being paid for through general taxation.

Got it?

Let me explain that again: if the provision of water is funded through direct billing, then it doesn't need to be paid for through taxation.

Now, I don't know if you genuinely believe that the exact same water is, in fact, being paid for twice - that a water services worker is getting two salaries, or suppliers to treatment plants are getting two cheques for each invoice - or whether you're just engaging it meaningless rhetoric in order to avoid having to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. But no: we're not paying for water twice.

I pay for my water through a group scheme. I also pay taxes. Does that mean I'm paying for water twice?

No, it means that my taxes aren't paying for my water. My taxes are paying for police and hospitals and social welfare and the national debt and other people's water... but they're not paying for my water.

"Paying twice" is such a ridiculous argument, I can't believe anyone advances it with any actual sincerity.

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't ask if you did. I asked if your guesswork was available to us? Asking questions is not stifling debate in any rational sense.

Considering that my "guesswork" exposed that IW wouldn't be standalone unless we paid it €600 on average, it should be available when the previous Politics Cafe threads are archived.

I asked a very simple question of your assertion (that average usage is 85l), you have responded with 3 questions, none of which have answered my question.

This does not seem to be an answer.

Kate Gannon, Senior Engineer, Irish Water wrote:

.

"It had been estimated homes could be using up to 190 litres per person per day," she told the Pat Kenny Show on Newstalk.

"But it has emerged that 93% of households are only using about 250 litres per day, or just over 80 litres per person.

Amazing that you're asking me for the quote; do you not keep yourself informed ?

When ESB was set up, it was indeed a brand new utility designed to amalgamate dozens of other electricity providers. It was also a natural monopoly.

Yes, and back then there weren't individuals with more money than countries buying essential services. And it was pre monopoly rules.

So you're comparing apples and oranges.

Did it release payment figures? Does it still? After how long of IW being set up and running will you accept that it no longer ought to release payment figures?

Never. It's a new, transparent, streamlined utility. For everyone that doesn't pay the rest of us have to pay more. We should know.

Is this a rant about the media? I have little time for modern media myself these days, and so read beyond the headline and go for their sources myself.

No. It's not a rant about the media. It's a rant about IW's own PR spin. As contained in the text of said articles and press releases.

But you already know this and are only trying to imply that I don't read. Which is disingenuous considering that I have previously commended the Irish Examiner for prefixing the headline with "Irish Water claims that....", which you're well aware of but now feigning ignorance of.

There is no whataboutery. I wrote a fact, and asked you a question.

There is whataboutery. What about ESB, what about your guesses, what about anything other than IW being competent and honest.

Bob24

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But if they are, as you say, going to come back from another election, the same. How would that mean that either will have been 'held responsible' or will have been 'hurt more'

I think they need to take their positions on this, go to the country and see what the people say.
If not we have the prospect of this hanging over all governance for a number of years, hampering anything getting done.

What a few posters have said and I agree with is that another election wouldn't significantly change the balance of power in the Dail.

We might be wrong, but assuming FG/FF share that analysis, what would the point be for them to go for another election?

As for why they would be held responsible, quite simply because they are the two largest parties in the Dail and no-one except them can initiate the formation of a government. And no one likes uncertainty and paralysis so the longer this lasts the more they look irresponsible.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

Great idea. How do you determine reliably how many people are in a household? I guess you'd have to get their PPS numbers. Shouldn't be any problem there, right?

And there's the problem with this whole fiasco: the constant jumping from one reason to be outraged to another.



No, I bloody well didn't. I can't believe this needs to be spelled out yet again, but here I go:

Water that's paid for through direct billing isn't being paid for through general taxation.

Got it?

Let me explain that again: if the provision of water is funded through direct billing, then it doesn't need to be paid for through taxation.

Now, I don't know if you genuinely believe that the exact same water is, in fact, being paid for twice - that a water services worker is getting two salaries, or suppliers to treatment plants are getting two cheques for each invoice - or whether you're just engaging it meaningless rhetoric in order to avoid having to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. But no: we're not paying for water twice.

I pay for my water through a group scheme. I also pay taxes. Does that mean I'm paying for water twice?

No, it means that my taxes aren't paying for my water. My taxes are paying for police and hospitals and social welfare and the national debt and other people's water... but they're not paying for my water.

"Paying twice" is such a ridiculous argument, I can't believe anyone advances it with any actual sincerity.

We are asked to pay 85% of the cost - directly and indirectly - despite using 20% of the water produced.

You could argue that we're paying 4 times. So saying "twice" is extremely conservative and is allowing for added investment; however IW is not investing anything extra, still spending €1.2 billion per annum.

But I stuck to the twice to be conservative.

I can't believe that anyone doesn't see that.

BTW - I'm in the same boat as yourself, so why should my LPT go to IW ?

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

We are asked to pay 85% of the cost - directly and indirectly - despite using 20% of the water produced.

That's impressive. I've never seen the goalposts moved completely off the pitch before.

Jack Killian

Jack Killian wrote: »

Considering that my "guesswork" exposed that IW wouldn't be standalone unless we paid it €600 on average, it should be available when the previous Politics Cafe threads are archived..

We appear to be diverging from what I asked, once more. Is your guesswork better than IW?

Again, recall what I've just told you. The €271m revenue expectation was based upon the capped charges. If there is a significant majority of persons beating the cap, then yes of course that figure will be an overestimate.

You have told us that the average usage is 85l per day, which would be absolutely phenomenally low considering that there are still enormous household users that would drag that usage up. If that figure is indeed true, then there could well be a majority of people beating the cap.

Care to back this figure up?

Jack Killian wrote: »

Amazing that you're asking me for the quote; do you not keep yourself informed ?

Fantastic! Can you reread the quote a few times and understand what it's saying?

It tells us that 93% of the households in the country are using less than 250l per day.

It tells us nothing of the average. And the meter study's estimate of that average was ~ 109l per household.

You my friend have told us previously that the average use was 85l, but how on earth have you come to that conclusion from those figures? They tell us that 7% of households use more than 250l (or over double the meter study's estimate of average usage). That's it!

You appear to be keen to 93rd percentile individual user figure to the previously estimated average household figure. These are totally different metrics of course, and so comparison is fairly bizarre?

Jack Killian wrote: »

Yes, and back then there weren't individuals with more money than countries buying essential services. And it was pre monopoly rules.
So you're comparing apples and oranges.

I am comparing electricity and water actually. Two utilities that the Government sought to provide to the people of the State.

Jack Killian wrote: »

Never. It's a new, transparent, streamlined utility. For everyone that doesn't pay the rest of us have to pay more. We should know..

Fascinating. So ESB should still be telling us payment figures? If not, why not? Lets apply rules fairly now.

Jack Killian wrote: »

No. It's not a rant about the media. It's a rant about IW's own PR spin. As contained in the text of said articles and press releases.

If I remember correctly IW's press releases contained the information as I presented it, not as you have attributed it to them, unless you want to show me otherwise?
- 61% of IW customers have made a payment to IW -

Jack Killian wrote: »

But you already know this and are only trying to imply that I don't read. Which is disingenuous considering that I have previously commended the Irish Examiner for prefixing the headline with "Irish Water claims that....", which you're well aware of but now feigning ignorance of.

I'm implying nothing. I am telling you that I treat the media coverage of almost everything with a pinch of salt, there is no truly fair media coverage, as such you ought to delve deeper in my opinion.

Jack Killian wrote: »

There is whataboutery. What about ESB, what about your guesses, what about anything other than IW being competent and honest.

That's not whataboutery. I am asking why we don't apply the rules that you are trying to apply to IW to all similar instances?

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's impressive. I've never seen the goalposts moved completely off the pitch before.

No moving of goalposts whatsoever.

We are not - despite what government tries to spin - "paying directly for water" since IW was set up, as it gets at least €200 extra per household via the LGF.

If we were "paying for what we use", then 20% of €1.2 billion would some bit under the €200 - €270 million that IW would have received via the bills.

So that would be that.

But we're also paying via the LGF. Approx €400 million annually. Not including metering & setup costs.

So we're paying at least twice; almost 3 times.

And the 85 litres per day skews that too, as we're using less.

You disputed that we were paying twice.

So I even factored in the supposed "increased investment required", even though IW is investing nothing extra.

If you don't like the facts, then it's hardly my fault.

The problem is that the attempted justification for IW swings around more than the arguments against it that you railed against earlier; one could argue that the antis arguments have to swing around because as soon as it's exposed that it's not about fairness, the pros move on to conservation, and once that's debunked it becomes something else, and so on.

Jack Killian

Deleted User wrote: »

You have told us that the average usage is 85l per day, which would be absolutely phenomenally low considering that there are still enormous household users that would drag that usage up. If that figure is indeed true, then there could well be a majority of people beating the cap.

Care to back this figure up ?

Fantastic! Can you reread the quote a few times and understand what it's saying?

It tells us that 93% of the households in the country are using less than 250l per day.

It tells us nothing of the average.

What ??????

IW Senior Engineer wrote:

"But it has emerged that 93% of households are only using about 250 litres per day, or just over 80 litres per person.

The 7% are outliers.

I stated that "the average usage is 85l per day".

My figure is 5L higher than the Irish Water senior engineer, and you're still trying to claim that I have to back my figure up ????

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

So we're paying at least twice; almost 3 times.

Fine, let's stick with that.

Who is getting paid twice or three times? The employees? The suppliers?

Jack Killian

Deleted User wrote: »

If I remember correctly IW's press releases contained the information as I presented it, not as you have attributed it to them, unless you want to show me otherwise?
- 61% of IW customers have made a payment to IW -

Gladly. Straight from the horse's mouth on their own website:

http://www.water.ie/news/irish-water-confirms-61-o/

Irish Water wrote:

Irish Water confirms 61% of customers are now paying water charges

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm implying nothing. I am telling you that I treat the media coverage of almost everything with a pinch of salt, there is no truly fair media coverage, as such you ought to delve deeper in my opinion.

I have. You're the one who hasn't, obviously.

K-9

Mod:

Ok, can we try and keep it relevant to talk about another election, minority Government talks or whatever they are calling them, and not go over IW allowances etc. yet again.

A guideline would be; talk about the politics of IW in the context of Government talks or another election, fine, going over the ins and outs of IW yet again, not so good!

Bob24

The last few posts are completely off-topic ... just saying.

IMO it shows the complete hysteria on what is a minor issue (since now everyone seems to agree a national utility is a good thing and the discussion is only on the fees). One exemple of real issue: the many young professionals who can't afford to rent or buy a decent place don't care about a 200 euros yearly bill (especially since in parallel their taxes have been slightly reduced last year to more or less compensate for it). What they want is to not not waste hundreds of euros each month on expensive rents or mortgages due to a lack of appropriate housing. And that is one issue amongst any other. If an other election is to be held just over how much water charges should be, I'd say the country will have reached a new low.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Great idea. How do you determine reliably how many people are in a household? I guess you'd have to get their PPS numbers. Shouldn't be any problem there, right?

If this had been the reason for wanting PPSNs and if this had actually been explained to the public at the time (neither of which was remotely true) then there's a good chance people wouldn't have got pissed off. The PPSN issue was only an issue because as IW was set up at the time, it had no legitimate need for them.

I take it though that you actually do agree, from your "great idea" remark, that a free allowance per household when there are many households in Ireland with a large group of adults would have been fairer than the free allowance system which was put in place?

A large number of the people at Irish Water protests were students. That was not a coincidence. When the fact that the free allowance would not extend beyond households with two adults or households with kids - traditional family homes - there was a large amount of genuine fear which swept through the student population. I remember it because I was a student at the time. College was buzzing with anger the morning after the free allowance setup was announced. It was an utterly moronic oversight by the government.

And there's the problem with this whole fiasco: the constant jumping from one reason to be outraged to another.

If and when the Politics Cafe archive goes up, you can go back to my posts from 2/3 years ago and you'll find that I said the exact same thing at the time with regard to my own reason for opposing and my friends' reasons for opposing. Can't speak for anyone else, obviously.

EDIT: Replied to this before seeing K-9's post, apologies