Irish Water pushing ahead with privatisation of Water Infrastructure on the DL?

gerryirl

Roger you are correct in what your saying. We must have fixed at Least 10 leaks in the space of ten yards not one main. Old and poor quality mains. Fix one the pressure finds another weak spot. This is where you require a new mains. Not every main like this is getting replaced. They will look at how much water you will save before they justify replacing it. In many instances mains will be replaced on age alone or if there are lead services off it rather than leakage. Things ain't as simple as some people seem to think

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm afraid there were at least 10 supposed fixes carried out on the exact same place. The shiny blue pipes begin about half a mile further up the road, so have no bearing on the original leak. I find it hard to understand how Irish Water (or their contractors) were able to successfully fix a leak after Local Authorities had 10 attempts. Though, to be fair to the LAs, the repair might last for a year before resurfacing. The LA team (a digger, truck and usually 4 men) could take a day to "fix" the leak temporarily, yet a similar team from IW (or their contractors) had same leak fixed permanently in a couple of hours.

think about it though. What is leaking?
What keeps breaking?
A joint or pipe via a hole?
something had to be replaced since the leak hasn't come back. You cant set a timer on a repair so that it only last a year or two. I reckon a pipe was replaced?
(Or maybe its the reduced pressure in the mains since IW thats taking the strain of some of the pipes).

(You reckon those LA lads enjoyed having to fix the same leak 10 times, and ever notice the different health and safety standards?)

Hotblack Desiato

mada999 wrote: »

no one at the moment.. but they are waiting until the taxpayers upgrade the infrastructure and then somone will swoop in an buy it.. max 10 years imo..

This again. Why haven't the electricity and gas networks been privatised so? They're actually profitable.

jimmycrackcorm

mada999 wrote:

no one at the moment.. but they are waiting until the taxpayers upgrade the infrastructure and then somone will swoop in an buy it.. max 10 years imo..

If that's the case then why hasn't the ESB been sold off? After all it is an almost identical model to IW.

You've no actual basis for your scaremongering.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

think about it though. What is leaking?
What keeps breaking?
A joint or pipe via a hole?
something had to be replaced since the leak hasn't come back. You cant set a timer on a repair so that it only last a year or two. I reckon a pipe was replaced?
(Or maybe its the reduced pressure in the mains since IW thats taking the strain of some of the pipes).

(You reckon those LA lads enjoyed having to fix the same leak 10 times, and ever notice the different health and safety standards?)

I don't know what the problem was, but it was in the exact same place every time! Whatever the IW lads did, it sorted it.

My point (which I'm sure you will chose to ignore) is that one same sized team did in a couple of hours what another attempted 10 times and at least twice the length of time each attempt.

Say you had a plumbing problem and had the same crew in time and again to fix it only for it to recur every time. If that crew was replaced by another, who spent half the time on your problem and seems to have sorted it permanently. Which would you call in the event of needing a plumber in the future?

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know what the problem was, but it was in the exact same place every time! Whatever the IW lads did, it sorted it.

My point (which I'm sure you will chose to ignore) is that one same sized team did in a couple of hours what another attempted 10 times and at least twice the length of time each attempt.

Say you had a plumbing problem and had the same crew in time and again to fix it only for it to recur every time. If that crew was replaced by another, who spent half the time on your problem and seems to have sorted it permanently. Which would you call in the event of needing a plumber in the future?

I see your point, you're not seeing mine!

Using your analogy, rather than hiring a plumber you used your brother who only had a hammer and some tape.
He needed a length of copper pipe to fix it permanently, but he wasn't allowed buy it...
(see the difference?)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This again. Why haven't the electricity and gas networks been privatised so? They're actually profitable.

Correct and there's also the underlying fact that you don't privatise what is a natural monopoly like a network that is of state importance. Privatise water and you end up with separate mains for each private company. Security of supply dictates the need for state control. Plus, it's just not going to happen.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I see your point, you're not seeing mine!

Using your analogy, rather than hiring a plumber you used your brother who only had a hammer and some tape.
He needed a length of copper pipe to fix it permanently, but he wasn't allowed buy it...
(see the difference?)

All the more reason to have a system specifically for a purpose. In this case a system solely for the provision of water, staffed by people who know what they’re doing. As for asking my brother to sort my plumbing, I’ve more sense.

blackcard

You do realize that under the SLA, the same people are carrying out repairs as previously? If Councils were carrying out repairs previously, they are still carrying out repairs. If contractors were carrying out repairs for Councils, they will be carrying out repairs for Irish Water. In either case, the works are organised by the LA

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

blackcard wrote: »

You do realize that under the SLA, the same people are carrying out repairs as previously? If Councils were carrying out repairs previously, they are still carrying out repairs. If contractors were carrying out repairs for Councils, they will be carrying out repairs for Irish Water. In either case, the works are organised by the LA

You do realise the OP was about a change in this taking the contracting from the LA???

blackcard

Vaughn Skinny Hurricane wrote: »

blackcard wrote: »

You do realize that under the SLA, the same people are carrying out repairs as previously? If Councils were carrying out repairs previously, they are still carrying out repairs. If contractors were carrying out repairs for Councils, they will be carrying out repairs for Irish Water. In either case, the works are organised by the LA

You do realise the OP was about a change in this taking the contracting from the LA???

I was just responding to MaryAnne who seems to think that the reason her pipe remainded fixed was because IW were in charge. If you report a leak in a pipe, you contact a call centre, Abtran. They notify the LA through Maximo. The LA then arranges to repair the leak either directly or by contractor. IW have absolutely no input except paying for it

Nettle Soup

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If that's the case then why hasn't the ESB been sold off? After all it is an almost identical model to IW.

You've no actual basis for your scaremongering.

Jesus Christ, people like you have extremely short memories or very good blinkers.

The minister who set up Irish Water feared privatisation.

Seriously open your eyes. So naive.

end of the road

Vaughn Skinny Hurricane wrote: »

Correct and there's also the underlying fact that you don't privatise what is a natural monopoly like a network that is of state importance. Privatise water and you end up with separate mains for each private company. Security of supply dictates the need for state control. Plus, it's just not going to happen.

britain did it, and we usually copy them eventually. i hope you are right and our government aren't as thick as britain's have been since 1979 but i wouldn't bank on it just yet.

Nettle Soup

Duplicate post

Roger Hassenforder

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If that's the case then why hasn't the ESB been sold off? After all it is an almost identical model to IW.

You've no actual basis for your scaremongering.

Its half the model!
There's no "waste" electricity where most of the costs are coming from, and where we seem to have a massive infrastructural deficit

Roger Hassenforder

Deleted User wrote: »

All the more reason to have a system specifically for a purpose. In this case a system solely for the provision of water, staffed by people who know what they’re doing. As for asking my brother to sort my plumbing, I’ve more sense.

its an analogy Maryanne, not literal
(Are you saying the Councils didn't know what they were doing?)

Roger Hassenforder

Nout123 wrote: »

I thought all the staff wear IW jackets now. And fixing leaks is not as easy as you may believe. Remember that part of the country without water for what a week. As they had to get a part tooled to fix it.

word on the street is that's not the whole truth.
Apparently there was also an issue with access and someone being owed money by IW... midnight phone calls by the Louth County Manger to landowners... not something the IW spin machine want in the public domain...

Roger Hassenforder

Nout123 wrote: »

Have they got rid off the 700 call centre staff that had the contract yet ? I assume they just charge the same amount with 10 people taking calls at this stage. Great if your the company.

but sure we need it for the customer support for water charges?

Oh wait...

wordofwarning

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Jesus Christ, people like you have extremely short memories or very good blinkers.

The minister who set up Irish Water feared privatisation.

Seriously open your eyes. So naive.

This person is not naive, they are real.

Who owns the gas network? The state. Who owns the airports? The state. Who own the electrical grid? The state. Who owns the roads in the country? The state.

Do you see a pattern? In case you don't, the state seems to keep important assets in state ownership.

Explain to me why the state would privatise IW? It would be political suicide. Why would a government privatise IW, when they would finish their party off? The party that privatise IW is done. Therefore, it will never happen

Seriously open your eyes. Don't be naive...

NinetyTwoTeam

Yep, this will all be done by stealth now. The government learned their lesson. They got the national ID cards that way with no protests etc., they're going to use that model from now on I'd say, no radio or TV ads just sneak it in.

end of the road

wordofwarning wrote: »

This person is not naive, they are real.

Who owns the gas network? The state. Who owns the airports? The state. Who own the electrical grid? The state. Who owns the roads in the country? The state.

Do you see a pattern? In case you don't, the state seems to keep important assets in state ownership.

Explain to me why the state would privatise IW? It would be political suicide. Why would a government privatise IW, when they would finish their party off? The party that privatise IW is done. Therefore, it will never happen

Seriously open your eyes. Don't be naive...

successive british governments privatized and sold off to cronies and all got re-elected. so to say it couldn't or wouldn't happen ever is naive, even if it may turn out to be correct.

Nettle Soup

wordofwarning wrote: »

This person is not naive, they are real.

Who owns the gas network? The state. Who owns the airports? The state. Who own the electrical grid? The state. Who owns the roads in the country? The state.

Do you see a pattern? In case you don't, the state seems to keep important assets in state ownership.

Explain to me why the state would privatise IW? It would be political suicide. Why would a government privatise IW, when they would finish their party off? The party that privatise IW is done. Therefore, it will never happen

Seriously open your eyes. Don't be naive...

No no no, you explain this speech from the Dail to me. How can you forget these things???? It put people on the streets.

Are you saying that you naïve see-no-evil lapdogs know more than the minister and current FG TD who helped set up Irish Water

Privatisation was always part of the Irish Water "plan"

I await your analysis.

You are real alright...really deluded.

gerryirl

I met the very Minister in his office in the Dail when IW was been setup to talk about it as he wanted to meet with various people that were working in the water industry. In fairness to him he had a plan at the time an relayed it to me but in reality it never happened they way he thought it would

Nettle Soup

I am waiting...:rolleyes:

In case you were afraid to watch the youtube...some more from the good Minister...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/odowd-my-proposal-to-ban-irish-water-privatisation-was-deleted-654080.html

The minister who set up Irish Water has said there are "forces" within the Department of the Environment who want to privatise the water network.

Fergus O'Dowd said there was good reason to be concerned about the possibility of Irish Water being sold to private hands.

The Fine Gael TD made his comments in the Dáil in the early hours of the morning, as TDs debated the Water Services Bill.
"We have reason to be concerned," he said. "I am convinced there are other forces at work here - not necessarily political forces - that are active and they do have an influence."

He said he wanted a ban on privatisation to be included in previous legislation, but that proposal was deleted.

Seriously open your eyes. Don't be so so naïve after the fact...there is actually an awful lot to learn from the Irish Water story. Politics in Ireland will never be the same again.
Arrogance is gone...except perhaps with Phil 'I will ll reduce your water to a trickle' Hogan who got rewarded for incompetence.

The good people of Ireland dodged a bullet because we refused to pay those quango bills and took to the streets. It was brave and it was noble.

Ask Labour who took their own bullet at the last GE.

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I am waiting...:rolleyes:

In case you were afraid to watch the youtube...some more from the good Minister...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/odowd-my-proposal-to-ban-irish-water-privatisation-was-deleted-654080.html



Seriously open your eyes. Don't be naive...

The good people of Ireland dodged a bullet because we refused to pay those quango bills and took to the streets.

Ask Labour who took their own bullet at the last GE.

You seem to have missed the bit where Irish Water are still here as are charges for excessive use.

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to have missed the bit where Irish Water are still here as are charges for excessive use.

Give it up Mary, you lost.

This thread is about privatisation. Did you listen to the O'Dowd video?...he asks knowingly.

Bishopsback

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Give it up Mary, you lost.

This thread is about privatisation. Did you listen to the O'Dowd video?...he asks knowingly.

Apart from a speech by O'Dowd, who says the forces weren't necessarily political, if there were forces at all, is there any evidence of a concerted effort. Bearing in mind where O'Dowd is sitting and maybe his political fears.

Nettle Soup

Bishopsback wrote: »

Apart from a speech by O'Dowd, who says the forces weren't necessarily political, if there were forces at all, is there any evidence of a concerted effort. Bearing in mind where O'Dowd is sitting and maybe his political fears.

Apart from a speech in the Dáil from a Government Minister who helped set up Irish Water??? What more do you want??? Are you saying he made it up???

He was the Minister of State for Natural Resources! The guy was sent to the back benches by Hogan soon after.

He said he wanted a ban on privatisation to be included in previous legislation, but that proposal was deleted.

The question I would ask is how you people know better!

Mr O’Dowd said he had also sought a commitment that Irish Water would never be privatised. But it had not been included in the legislation at the time and he had objected strongly.

“That was absolutely wrong,’’ he added. “We were going back on an absolutely fundamental promise that I had made in the Oireachtas. ’’

McMurphy

Privatisation?

I'll just leave this here.



Taken from here

Mind you, there's a lot of dancing on heads of pins going on in this thread. Much of it coming from people who favoured FG inspired wet dream.

Oblivious to, or ignoring the fact that the same FG established a "expert commission" to examine our water system, and how it's funded.

No one hardly needs reminded that the "expert commission" concluded that water should be funded by general taxation do they?

Obviously the days of stuffing your commission full of insiders, where they're told what to conclude at the end is over.

Nettle Soup

Remember the EU Eurostat test that Irish Water failed?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/09/07/privatisation-of-irish-water-is-ultimately-envisaged/

Ken Foxe, in yesterday’s Sunday Times, reported:

“A reference to plans for the future privatisation of Irish Water was removed from a Eurostat letter explaining its classification of the water utility following a request from the Central Statistics Office (CSO). The reference, which could have proved highly embarrassing to the government, was in a preliminary letter sent by the European statistics agency to the CSO last July.”

“Eurostat had, in its original letter, said the “privatisation of Irish Water is ultimately envisaged” although ownership of the infrastructure could only be changed by referendum. However, the CSO asked that the reference to privatisation be removed, according to correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times following a document request to Eurostat.”

It's like we are discussing some kind of revisionist history here. This was only 2-3 YEARS AGO. How do people forget this stuff and start think Irish Water wasn't too bad after all. I don't know...

So naïve...

Bishopsback

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Remember the EU Eurostat test that Irish Water failed?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/09/07/privatisation-of-irish-water-is-ultimately-envisaged/



[/INDENT]

Again there, a referendum needed to privatise the infrastructure.
IW by definition would have been operated as if it was a private company.
It would have been borrowing off the state books if it had passed the test and been raising its own funding. That's not to say it would or should be sold off.
The protest was very successful from a political standpoint, it obliterated Labour, cut FG down to size and almost left the country ungovernable.
Something SF and leftie loonies would love, they don't want to govern, just make noise and gain seats to keep the mula flowing.
Thankfully, there are enough fairly sensible politicians and party's to chug on with the job of keeping us afloat.

wordofwarning

Nettle Soup wrote: »

It put people on the streets.

OMG! This is my point!!! If people are so outraged about IW charging for water and protesting. Privatising it, will finish off any Government. Every Government knows this. Yet the tin foil brigade, living off every lie from the anti-everything parties are believing the BS that IW will still be privatised...

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Are you saying that you naïve see-no-evil lapdogs know more than the minister and current FG TD who helped set up Irish Water

I am sorry, but I don't live off the opinions of single TDs. I know there are certain individuals in Ireland, who would go to jail for some TDs like Paul Murphy. I am an educated individual and see the bigger picture. I don't take the option of a TD trying to save his ass, as the word of God...

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Privatisation was always part of the Irish Water "plan"

I await your analysis.

You are real alright...really deluded.

I literally roll my eyes at anyone who thinks that Irish Water should be in the constitution of Ireland. A constitution should basic and as small as possible. It should not be filled to the brim with populaist BS. It is ironic that most of the crowd screaming and shouting that IW should be in the constitution are the same crowd moaning about the constitution being filled with outdated stuff like women's rights, abortion, god etc. It is as if some people never learn... ie what seems great to put in the constitution now, does not make much sense in a few years.

You fall to realise that IW was set up during a period of the state on the verge of bankruptcy. The privatisation of any state assets was on the card. But they were not privatised. If we did not privatise state assets during a massive economic crash. We won't do it during the good times.

Also that TD saying that he wanted a law requiring IW to hold a referendum before being privatised. It makes no ****ing sense. You could just change the law and not have to worry about the referendum. I will explain that video to you. It is someone trying to save their ass...

gerryirl

your correct Bishopsback... only problem is the people who think they won the battle with no charges didn't actually win. IW is now going to be funded through general taxation, so all the people that were protesting that don't work or don't need to work are fine while all the other people braking there backs to make a living will pay through taxes of some kind. Road tax was already diverted to pay for some of it and god knows what else. As you say from a Political standpoint they won but not on the charges

McMurphy

gerryirl wrote: »

your correct Bishopsback... only problem is the people who think they won the battle with no charges didn't actually win. IW is now going to be funded through general taxation, so all the people that were protesting that don't work or don't need to work are fine while all the other people braking there backs to make a living will pay through taxes of some kind. Road tax was already diverted to pay for some of it and god knows what else. As you say from a Political standpoint they won but not on the charges

So it'll be the same as it always has been?

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So it'll be the same as it always has been?

Funding wise, yes it seems.
That doesn't mean that's the best outcome though.
Remember that resolution SF MEPs voted for, a report chaired by Lynn Boylan of SF?
Can you remember the wording of that, I can remind you if need be.

McMurphy

Bishopsback wrote: »

Funding wise, yes it seems.
That doesn't mean that's the best outcome though.

It's the best way of funding for our water services according to a commission of experts, set up by FG. Take it up with them should you disagree with it.

Remember that resolution SF MEPs voted for, a report chaired by Lynn Boylan of SF?
Can you remember the wording of that, I can remind you if need be.

Wtf is it with your SF infatuation? Away and take it to a SF thread, and stop trying the old deflection in this one.

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

It's the best way of funding for our water services according to a commission of experts, set up by FG. Take it up with them should you disagree with it.

Wtf is it with your SF infatuation? Away and take it to a SF thread, and stop trying the old deflection in this one.

Lol, no obsession as such. I just see it as a bit hypocritical for a party to develop a stance against a particular stance in one country while its reps are voting in favour of the very same stance elsewhere.
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/726550/
Now miss Boylan actually chaired this thing!

Roger Hassenforder

Bishopsback wrote: »

Lol, no obsession as such. I just see it as a bit hypocritical for a party to develop a stance against a particular stance in one country while its reps are voting in favour of the very same stance elsewhere.
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.rte.ie/amp/726550/
Now miss Boylan actually chaired this thing!

Can you imagine the flip flopping if FF had a presence in another country

Bishopsback

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Can you imagine the flip flopping if FF had a presence in another country

Tbf, are any of them any different in that respect.
This has been the biggest flip flop for all the major party's.
I would concede that the protest was a big success.

Roger Hassenforder

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So it'll be the same as it always has been?

It seems to be even less going to actually providing water services, now that some of it is going to pay for the >700 bureaucracy and (>200?) call centre


https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914731-epa_-_irish_water/


"Less than half (44%) of improvement works due between 2009 and 2016 were reported as complete at the end of 2016"

" for many years Ireland has not invested enough in the infrastructure needed to collect and treat our waste water. Capital expenditure on waste water treatment infrastructure in 2016 was €172 million. This is nearly €100 million less than the average spent each year between 2000 and 2011"

"delays in carrying out priority infrastructural improvements, despite revenue being available to carry out these works. For example, works to eliminate discharges of raw sewage from 16 areas, which were expected to be completed by the end of 2017, have been delayed by over three years. This highlights the need within Irish Water to improve efficiencies in the delivery of infrastructure projects."


At least someone is trying to keep them honest...