Water charges revisited?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Funnily enough there are quite a few pro posters on here that at one stage on the old threads waved around Irish Water figures as if they had found the Holy Grail, yet now when actual data from the same source contradicts their agenda they have become non believers.
Educated or not, guesswork is still just guesswork and not something that would convince me (or anyone else I imagine) that it is a basis for flushing another 465 Million down the tubes to join the 465 Million already flushed there. Which is what you have been proposing.



I really do not see what me reading a meter will do for your arguement unless you are going to contact ever household that has one to do the same.
Come to think off it, hasn`t that been already done and the figures published!

My biggest issue is with people quoting something from some Irish Water spokesperson from 4 years ago as if it was gospel then and still 100% true today.

For a start, a radio interview isn't statistics, and even if it was, those statistics must be out of date now.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't one of the first cock ups made by iw, was to give away the underlying agenda and how we were to be fleeced if we conserved water.


It was designed to be a cash generator for the govt from the ground up.

When some people think that actually paying for the water you use is equivalent to being fleeced, then we have a very immature attitude to politics in Ireland.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

When some people think that actually paying for the water you use is equivalent to being fleeced, then we have a very immature attitude to politics in Ireland.

Fleeced for conserving water, when conservation was the original selling point.

You don't need a first class degree in political science to understand that.

dense

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't one of the first cock ups made by iw, was to give away the underlying agenda and how we were to be fleeced if we conserved water.


It was designed to be a cash generator for the govt from the ground up.

It has to be if it's going to successfully exist as an independent off the books utility with the necessary accounts available to demonstrate to creditors its ability not only to borrow substantial amounts, but to repay them.


If it's not going to be a profit oriented business, no one is going to extend proper loan facilities to it.


It's already had a major false start with Eurostat, so it cannot afford to send another signal showing it continues to have half baked business and ownership plans to the EU , the next one will have to show it's a real moneymaker.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Fleeced for conserving water, when conservation was the original selling point.

You don't need a first class degree in political science to understand that.

That would be a positive outcome, if we are using less water, then that is to be welcomed. If that comes with higher prices, so be it, the main goal of conserving water will have been achieved.

The person who conserves more than their neighbour will always be a winner.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

That would be a positive outcome, if we are using less water, then that is to be welcomed. If that comes with higher prices, so be it, the main goal of conserving water will have been achieved.

The person who conserves more than their neighbour will always be a winner.

Would you listen to yourself

In what conservation planet would someone willingly conserve something, if they were charged less for using MORE?

You're presumably not in the oil busineess.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would you listen to yourself

In what conservation planet would someone willingly conserve something, if they were charged less for using MORE?

You're presumably not in the oil busineess.

You are missing the point. For an individual, there will always be a gain by conserving more than someone else. If everyone conserves, you have to work harder and conserve even more to keep benefitting.

That is a win for conservation. That is the main objective from my point of view.

It seems to me you see everything through the lens of paying as little as possible for as much as you can get. Not everyone is like that.

aido79

charlie14 wrote: »

Funnily enough there are quite a few pro posters on here that at one stage on the old threads waved around Irish Water figures as if they had found the Holy Grail, yet now when actual data from the same source contradicts their agenda they have become non believers.
Educated or not, guesswork is still just guesswork and not something that would convince me (or anyone else I imagine) that it is a basis for flushing another 465 Million down the tubes to join the 465 Million already flushed there. Which is what you have been proposing.



I really do not see what me reading a meter will do for your arguement unless you are going to contact ever household that has one to do the same.
Come to think off it, hasn`t that been already done and the figures published!

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

dense

aido79 wrote: »

I don't think you should paint us all with the same brush. I don't believe them. It doesn't mean other pro posters don't believe them.
It may be guesswork but I like to think of it as educated guesswork.
Do you have a water meter? If so what is your average daily usage?
Mine is somewhere between 250 and 500 litres a day depending on time of year which is well above Irish Water's average figures. That's for 2 adults and one child with no swimming pool or anything like that. I'm also 100% sure I have no leaks also.

The thing is nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.



People might be showering only once a week in a majority of households.

Sure, any surveys or chatting to friends and they'll say they're showering every day. Twice a day, just to be sure.

That might not be the case at all.



If IW is sayong the vast majority of metered properties are showing an average use of 250 lpd it looks like people are not showering half as much as what they're claiming, and conserving a great degree of water.



But they'll say they are.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

The person who conserves more than their neighbour will always be a winner.

That sounds like one of the ten commandments.

What's the prize? Eternal life?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

My biggest issue is with people quoting something from some Irish Water spokesperson from 4 years ago as if it was gospel then and still 100% true today.

For a start, a radio interview isn't statistics, and even if it was, those statistics must be out of date now.

You must be addressing the wrong poster.


Any statistics I have pointed to have not been from radio interviews. They have been from widely published data resulting from the first fix scheme and readings of 880,000 meters according to that previous statistical God of pro supporters, Irish Water.
For lads and lassies that were so enthusiastic about Irish Water, backing practically everything concerned with it, aren`t ye being a tad shallow when the figures do not suit ye perhaps.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

You are missing the point. For an individual, there will always be a gain by conserving more than someone else. If everyone conserves, you have to work harder and conserve even more to keep benefitting.

That is a win for conservation. That is the main objective from my point of view.

It seems to me you see everything through the lens of paying as little as possible for as much as you can get. Not everyone is like that.

I'm glad you seem to be going against the grain , and realise not everyone is a freeloading scrounger.

dense

aido79 wrote: »

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

Its headline contradicts the content.



That says the median figure is still 250 lpd

The median figure for all households, which is less sensitive to such distortions, was 252 litres a day.

Sleeper12

aido79 wrote:

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

+1

One of the many mistakes the go made was to use figures we all knew weren't true. I had my meter in for about a month and I realised how far out government figures were & how much more expensive everyone's water bill was going to be.

I'm still 100 percent beh metered water but it has to be fair. Everyone should have a to pay something. Even children & OAPS. They could introduce a means tested social welfare payment to OAPs if needed. The important thing is everyone pays something

blanch152

aido79 wrote: »

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

The 3.4% accounting for 31% of the water used fall into two categories:

(1) Those who have leaks on their properties
(2) Those who are completely wasting water

The argument for paying is clear.

The other point is that if this group were using twice the normal amount and the rest was accounted for in leaks, then there is leakage of 24% of the water supply on the customer side.

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

Going to simplify this for you one item at a time.
At least you have moved on to the realization that meters were ever only intended for charging purposes.

I havent moved on to anything.
As I have already said: Meters measure water.
What you or anyone else chooses to do with the data a meter delivers is irrelevant to the meter.
ONE of the things the data (should) be used for is charging by usage
Another is detecting leaks.

charlie14 wrote: »

Irish Water were not charging for what you used. They were charging for what they produced where the householder was expected to pay for all household water produced while using less than 50%

This thread is not about what IW *were* doing. Its called "water charges revisited"
Move on and try to fix the problem.

charlie14 wrote: »

First two section I have address long ago on the mega threads so I have no interest in going down any further rabbit holes with you on it.

Useful. So you are only going to engage with posters who have read eveyone of your previous posts?
Handy for debating that.

charlie14 wrote: »

The last section is just despicable and undeserving of any comment.

Give me an other reason why people are refusing to pay for what they use then?

charlie14 wrote: »

You were the one that actually came on here pushing the glory of meters for leak detection. Now when your own figures have show how ridiculous that is you are jumping all over the place attempting to sell them.
All that data collection did not require 880,000 meters at a cost for meters alone of 465 Million Euro.
A sample survey with 1% of 880,000 at 1% of the cost would have achieved the same.

Again, (and for the last time)
Meters on the consumer side allow you to make sense out of the district/area meter readings.
Without them your area meters are worthless as you cannot distinguish between use and loss.
Unless you are going to rely on averages of averages of EU averages.
I'd rather billions were spent based on facts and not based on meaningless averages.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Aido, I find it difficult to believe that a house could be leaking 10liters per minute (I've already done
the maths) which amounts to more than 2. 5 million litres per year, and no one noticed it/wouldn't have been noticed without meters.

I find it difficult to believe that a house was leaking the equivalent of more than 2 x full sized olympic swimming pools worth of water, and no one noticed. Where did water go? Was the house on stilts, or out at sea?

From IW

"20 million litres per day, is as a result of leaks at just 1,100 properties."

OR 12.6l/min.

Perhaps, like most toilets since about 1970, the leaks just go back into the waste system and no one sees them?

But you can be bloody sure that people will go looking for them IF they were being charged.

GreeBo

dense wrote: »

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:





https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x



Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

Of course that would only be true of private companies who are in the business to make a profit.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

The 3.4% accounting for 31% of the water used fall into two categories:

(1) Those who have leaks on their properties
(2) Those who are completely wasting water

The argument for paying is clear.

The other point is that if this group were using twice the normal amount and the rest was accounted for in leaks, then there is leakage of 24% of the water supply on the customer side.

Looks like less than 4% of households waste water.


Cure that and the problem, if it is a problem, is sorted.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Looks like less than 4% of households waste water.


Cure that and the problem, if it is a problem, is sorted.

We only know which 4% in the case of metered houses.

To identify the 4% in respect of unmetered houses, we have to meter them.

You make an excellent argument for metering, especially as these figures show we could save 25% of the water supplied to houses. Would have made a big difference this summer.

dense

GreeBo wrote: »

Of course that would only be true of private companies who are in the business to make a profit.

Is there any good reason why you think IW, which was intended on being a self funding independent single utility applying for market loans should not assume a financial position of taking more revenue in than it is paying out?


The credit ratings agencies would laugh at it.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

You make an excellent argument for metering, especially as these figures show we could save 25% of the water supplied to houses. Would have made a big difference this summer.

That cant be assumed at all because we don't know the total average daily demand for water.

GreeBo

dense wrote: »

Is there any good reason why you think IW, which was intended on being a self funding independent single utility applying for market loans should not assume a financial position of taking more revenue in than it is paying out?


The credit ratings agencies would laugh at it.

Self-funding doesnt mean For Profit.

GreeBo

dense wrote: »

That cant be assumed at all because we don't know the total average daily demand for water.

Which is in itself an excellent reason for having meters!

Its almost like trying to make any decisions without the data gathered by meters is pointless.

dense

GreeBo wrote: »

Self-funding doesnt mean For Profit.

I don't think anyone has said it does.


What's the justification for wanting IW to be a loss making water services utility, and how would it best advised to spend these losses it's going to be permanently generating?

dense

GreeBo wrote: »

Which is in itself an excellent reason for having meters!

Its almost like trying to make any decisions without the data gathered by meters is pointless.

If you get the data what value is it?
No one knows what the average national demand is to begin with.

GreeBo

dense wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said it does.


What's the justification for wanting IW to be a loss making water services utility, and how would it best advised to spend these losses it's going to be permanently generating?

There are 3 (broad) options
1) Make a loss and be subsidized by Government (effectively where we have been up until now with LA and are still with IW)
2) Make a profit
3) Break even (possibly with limited subsidy for areas where cost far outstrips income)


Why do you ignore option 3?

dense wrote: »

If you get the data what value is it?
No one knows what the average national demand is to begin with.

Seriously?
Your first sentence answers your question.
The value of the data is that it exactly telss you what the average national demand is!

charlie14

aido79 wrote: »

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

From your link it is difficult to see where the CSO got their figure from, because if it was from Irish Water then they are way off what Irish Water has claimed from the readings of 880,000 meters. ?

Do you believe Irish Water were telling porkies with their figure.
If they were, then I cannot see why they would, but then perhaps you have an explanation ?

Between yourself and myself of late I am having doubts over some of the CSO`s figures. Not alone in that as Eurostat felt the same the Market Corporation Test. Throw in "Leprechaun Economics" and you would seriously wonder.
I can see where the could be ok in areas such as average house occupancy from a nationwide census filled in by every household in the State, but other than that their recent record hasn`t been much to write home about.

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

From your link it is difficult to see where the CSO got their figure from, because if it was from Irish Water then they are way off what Irish Water has claimed from the readings of 880,000 meters. ?

Do you believe Irish Water were telling porkies with their figure.
If they were, then I cannot see why they would, but then perhaps you have an explanation ?

Between yourself and myself of late I am having doubts over some of the CSO`s figures. Not alone in that as Eurostat felt the same the Market Corporation Test. Throw in "Leprechaun Economics" and you would seriously wonder.
I can see where the could be ok in areas such as average house occupancy from a nationwide census filled in by every household in the State, but other than that their recent record hasn`t been much to write home about.

I think everyone was working on estimations based on averages, at best.
With the best will in the world this is guestimation and any errors are multiplied. You can easily be way over or under reality by just being out a tiny bit on some estimates.

Hence why we need meters to determine actual demand.

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

I havent moved on to anything.
As I have already said: Meters measure water.
What you or anyone else chooses to do with the data a meter delivers is irrelevant to the meter.
ONE of the things the data (should) be used for is charging by usage
Another is detecting leaks.


This thread is not about what IW *were* doing. Its called "water charges revisited"
Move on and try to fix the problem.



Useful. So you are only going to engage with posters who have read eveyone of your previous posts?
Handy for debating that.

Give me an other reason why people are refusing to pay for what they use then?


Again, (and for the last time)
Meters on the consumer side allow you to make sense out of the district/area meter readings.
Without them your area meters are worthless as you cannot distinguish between use and loss.
Unless you are going to rely on averages of averages of EU averages.
I'd rather billions were spent based on facts and not based on meaningless averages.



From IW

"20 million litres per day, is as a result of leaks at just 1,100 properties."

OR 12.6l/min.

Perhaps, like most toilets since about 1970, the leaks just go back into the waste system and no one sees them?

But you can be bloody sure that people will go looking for them IF they were being charged.

I now longer have any interest in wasting time and effort going over the same old ground that was covered long ago where most of what you keep repeating shown then to be rubbish or totally uneconomical regarding metering an leakage.
You are in favour of charging for water by way of metering. That is your prerogative, but the whole premise is dead due to political arrogance, cronyism, financial waste and lack of public support etc.
It is now a toxic wasteland that no political party with any hopes of having government influence for at least a generation would go near with even a very long barge pole.
Difficult for some pro poster to take I can understand, but I`m afraid they are just going to have to suck it up and move on.

In case I didn`t make it clear. I have no interest in chasing around, not just a rabbit hole, but a warren with you any further.

Goodbye and best of luck.

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

I now longer have any interest in wasting time and effort going over the same old ground that was covered long ago where most of what you keep repeating shown then to be rubbish or totally uneconomical regarding metering an leakage.
You are in favour of charging for water by way of metering. That is your prerogative, but the whole premise is dead due to political arrogance, cronyism, financial waste and lack of public support etc.
It is now a toxic wasteland that no political party with any hopes of having government influence for at least a generation would go near with even a very long barge pole.
Difficult for some pro poster to take I can understand, but I`m afraid they are just going to have to suck it up and move on.

In case I didn`t make it clear. I have no interest in chasing around, not just a rabbit hole, but a warren with you any further.

Goodbye and best of luck.

So you disagree with metering in principal or just because of how it was handled politically?

Is metering not working perfectly well for Gas and Electricity?

In order for "us" to solve the problem of water in Ireland we need to come up with the correct solution, leaving aside politics and the past.

I would have assumed that everyone would be in favour of paying by usage rather than a flat rate, but perhaps I'm wrong?

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

So you disagree with metering in principal or just because of how it was handled politically?

Is metering not working perfectly well for Gas and Electricity?

In order for "us" to solve the problem of water in Ireland we need to come up with the correct solution, leaving aside politics and the past.

I would have assumed that everyone would be in favour of paying by usage rather than a flat rate, but perhaps I'm wrong?

What is it you fail to get ?

I have told you i no wish to have any further discussion with you
In fairness I believe that is understandable considering that someone that is so keen on meters and all the uses they believe the have, will not even accept the data publish based on readings from 880,000 of them.

Goodbye.

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

What is it you fail to get ?

I have told you i no wish to have any further discussion with you
In fairness I believe that is understandable considering that someone that is so keen on meters and all the uses they believe the have, will not even accept the data publish based on readings from 880,000 of them.

Goodbye.

So you dont want meters because you dont want to pay based on what you use.
ergo you want someone else to pay for it.

Yet you have an issue when I point out that makes you a scroungers.
Which is it?

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

So you dont want meters because you dont want to pay based on what you use.
ergo you want someone else to pay for it.

Yet you have an issue when I point out that makes you a scroungers.
Which is it?

I have told you on a number off occasions now I have no interest in having any further discussion with you based on the reasons I gave. You can also add your scrounger remark to that list.
I have never reported anyone in my time here, but if you are going to continue harassing then it is something I am going to have to seriously consider.

dense

GreeBo wrote: »

There are 3 (broad) options
1) Make a loss and be subsidized by Government (effectively where we have been up until now with LA and are still with IW)
2) Make a profit
3) Break even (possibly with limited subsidy for areas where cost far outstrips income)


Why do you ignore option 3?

Utilities do not pitch for successfully discharging their responsibilities to external billion euro investments on the premise of "breaking even".


It's just too risky. It is planned to separate it from ervia in the next couple of years.
There has to be something in the mix to persuade creditors that they should evaluate it as as being a viable concern.



It cant be seen to be flying by the seat of its pants, hopefully breaking even at every fiancial year end, with no profit to meet its credit commitments or ambitions.


Its nonsensical to think otherwise.

dense

GreeBo wrote: »

Seriously?
Your first sentence answers your question.
The value of the data is that it exactly telss you what the average national demand is!

It would only tells you what household demand is. It wouldn't tell you a mite about anything else.



Why spend another half billion to tell us what we already know, 250lpd?

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

I have told you on a number off occasions now I have no interest in having any further discussion with you based on the reasons I gave. You can also add your scrounger remark to that list.
I have never reported anyone in my time here, but if you are going to continue harassing then it is something I am going to have to seriously consider.

Harassing?:rolleyes:

It's a discussion board, I'm posting messages on it.

I think you need to build a bridge and get over yourself.

Chips Lovell

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There's far too many people taking swipes at other posters rather than engaging in debate. If you're looking for trench warfare, this isn't the place.

Be nice. Play the ball, not the man please.

This is clearly being ignored. Locked for review.

Chips Lovell

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Already did, several times. Is this a new tactic of water charge proponents? Constantly asking for the same answers ad nauesum?

charlie14 wrote: »

Not really.

Once pro posters back in the day on the mega thread saw the way the wind was blowing on metering charges, it became practically the norm.

GreeBo wrote: »

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

See this is where everything you say can be ignored.

Good loser wrote: »

You're very gullible Johnny.


You excoriate FG and have this overwhelming reverence for 'their' committee.


Supposedly! Because you never needed any committee to convince you anyway, did you?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Welcome back G.L I thought you'd taken the huff after I had to school you on the annual subsistence grants those on private wells/GWS were entitled to each year.

Here you are posting again about a subject you seem to know so little about.

GreeBo wrote: »

So you dont want meters because you dont want to pay based on what you use.
ergo you want someone else to pay for it.

Yet you have an issue when I point out that makes you a scroungers.
Which is it?

charlie14 wrote: »

I have told you on a number off occasions now I have no interest in having any further discussion with you based on the reasons I gave. You can also add your scrounger remark to that list.
I have never reported anyone in my time here, but if you are going to continue harassing then it is something I am going to have to seriously consider.

GreeBo wrote: »

Harassing?:rolleyes:

It's a discussion board, I'm posting messages on it.

I think you need to build a bridge and get over yourself.

We're not going to have this thread go the way other threads on water charges have gone. You had your chance to discuss this civilly and you ignored it.

Hitman3000, charlie14, GreeBo, Good loser, Johnny Dogs: Do not post on this thread again.

Thank you

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Utilities do not pitch for successfully discharging their responsibilities to external billion euro investments on the premise of "breaking even".


It's just too risky. It is planned to separate it from ervia in the next couple of years.
There has to be something in the mix to persuade creditors that they should evaluate it as as being a viable concern.



It cant be seen to be flying by the seat of its pants, hopefully breaking even at every fiancial year end, with no profit to meet its credit commitments or ambitions.


Its nonsensical to think otherwise.

Breaking even would include repayment of any debt. That would be sustainable.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Breaking even would include repayment of any debt. That would be sustainable.

You cannot break even unless your profits, there's that word again are equal to your costs.
If you encounter an unexpected cost, there has to be a backstop somewhere.



A business must be profitable for it to be sustainable.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

You cannot break even unless your profits, there's that word again are equal to your costs.
If you encounter an unexpected cost, there has to be a backstop somewhere.



A business must be profitable for it to be sustainable.

You break even if your revenue is equal to your costs, there is no profit.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

You break even if your revenue is equal to your costs, there is no profit.

Not so, because Ervia is claiming Irish Water made a profit of €54m in 2016 in it's own financial report.


https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://www.water.ie/about-us/freedom-of-information/model-publication-scheme/financial-information/ervia_annual_report_2016.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiJuJvym67cAhWmK8AKHSPmARsQFggRMAI&usg=AOvVaw1-zKZxwsHN7arLLRWWSplV


It must make a profit, otherwise it's a dead duck.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Yeah, sorry I understand you were backing my post , it's not a believable figure tbh, but I'm not suggesting Tommy is lying.

I think he might come back and clarify later that he mixed up minute with hour, or even that there was a rogue zero in there, and it should have been 0.1 a minute.

The irony for me is that people will just thank and believe a post without doing the sums because it would suit a narrative, yet they'll call people out on things that are in the public domain because it doesn't.

Hopefully Tommy will reappear and clear everything up.

It's not 0.1lpm, it's 1lpm - I posted the evidence of that.

One litre per minute.

That's a significant amount of water.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

Nope, and I have no interest in going down rabbit holes with you or anyone else on that ECJ ruling.

Already done to death on the old threads.
Posted that for anyone that is not aware of it and up to themselves if they want to peruse it and make up their own minds.

You just posted jibberish and that isn't a case on the ECJ website. You can get a link if you want, but you won't.

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:





https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x



Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

Nobody has suggested that Ireland will become the US and move away from the CRU model of pricing.

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

It has to be if it's going to successfully exist as an independent off the books utility with the necessary accounts available to demonstrate to creditors its ability not only to borrow substantial amounts, but to repay them.


If it's not going to be a profit oriented business, no one is going to extend proper loan facilities to it.


It's already had a major false start with Eurostat, so it cannot afford to send another signal showing it continues to have half baked business and ownership plans to the EU , the next one will have to show it's a real moneymaker.

This poster keeps showing up to out them self as one of the biggest spoofers that has ever posted on this forum.

This is one of the most insane and unrealistic things that has ever been said about semi-state or state subsidized utilities.

It manifestly ignores the fact that it was always intended and is still the case that a significant amount of tax goes to subsidize Irish Water, it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the banking sector vis-a-vis utility lending, and it misrepresents the Eurostat findings.

Chips Lovell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You just posted jibberish....

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This poster keeps showing up to out them self as one of the biggest spoofers that has ever posted on this forum.

Banned

James Brown

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you have numbers to back that up?
According to IW in 2017 we had 47% leaks, they have since fixed some.
Why are you ignoring the leaks that are on the customers side when IW says they are a significant % of leaks?
You have decided that the "50%" number that is bandied about is all in the mains, this is incorrect and wrong.


Why do you think it went elsewhere?
The water system, while in desperate need of repair, was still satisfying demand unlike, say the health system.
"The con"? Please. :rolleyes:

Again using the magical money that comes from where exactly?
We wouldnt have any problem if we had the money.
IW is the vehicle setup to get this money.
Which part of the above dont you understand?


Oh so when it suits your "argument" you agree with IW? Useful that.
...

With all due respect, all this has been covered and I can't tell if you are simply not knowledgeable or acting the mess.

We've money for everything I listed, but the cost of LA's actively upgrading and maintaining over the decades, at a fraction, requires magic money? That's just childishness.
Simply pointing out both IW and myself disagree with you. Not sure where you are getting your anecdotal facts from.

James Brown

aido79 wrote: »

The original idea for Irish Water was good. The mistake they made was changing the plan along the way.

It depends on how we are defining mistake. The plethora or bad decisions, (which they did not deem bad) led to them needing to heed public opinion, despite their best efforts to skirt it. It should be noted that their changes were them trying to 'fix' a plan and quango nobody wanted. The changes, although pushed into being by the people, were the making of the then government.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody has suggested that Ireland will become the US and move away from the CRU model of pricing.

Yet.