Water charges revisited?

dense

Edward M wrote: »

The evidence may well suggest privatisation could have been a possibility perhaps when you look at it.
Even the failure to pass the market test could be seen as a EU attempt to force it into private hands to let it be able to borrow.
Even if it wasn't intentional from the start, the scenario in the end looks like it was sort of being forced on the govt by outside influences!

Yes.

The outside influences being the free market EU cheerleaders and the IMF, because cash being advanced was dependent on the creation of IW.


Had it passed the free market test you would have had a market to regulate, and all the fun that that brings to the consumer regarding competition and opening the market effectively to outfits providing the same thing, water, under a different brand, just like electricity and with a price to pay for the privilege.



Heaven knows what the EC thought of the package that it been forwarded in an attempt to pass the test, because not one aspect was complying with their expectations by the time it came to being assessed.


So yes it was built into its DNA.
It was even crucial once that it passed this free market test, until I think it's creators realised they'd been had, being left with something no one really knows what to do with now.



The Right2Water people want it kept in public ownership but don't realise the repercussions of keeping it.


The government wants people to vote to keep it in public ownership so that they can claim the public wants IW to continue existing.



Clever moves require clever thinking.

crossman47

dense wrote: »

Whilst I respect anyone who supports the Right2Water movement, why is this vital commodity bit always wheeled out?


Do you not think that electricity is a vital commodity too?

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

You're missing the point. The generation of electricity has not been privatised.

Edward M

crossman47 wrote: »

You're missing the point. The generation of electricity has not been privatised.

It has. There are many private electric generation companies here.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/japanese-buy-300m-irish-wind-farm-portfolio-1.3172596?mode=amp

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Yes.

The outside influences being the free market EU cheerleaders and the IMF, because cash being advanced was dependent on the creation of IW.


Had it passed the free market test you would have had a market to regulate, and all the fun that that brings to the consumer regarding competition and opening the market effectively to outfits providing the same thing, water, under a different brand, just like electricity and with a price to pay for the privilege.



Heaven knows what the EC thought of the package that it been forwarded in an attempt to pass the test, because not one aspect was complying with their expectations by the time it came to being assessed.


So yes it was built into its DNA.
It was even crucial once that it passed this free market test, until I think it's creators realised they'd been had, being left with something no one really knows what to do with now.



The Right2Water people want it kept in public ownership but don't realise the repercussions of keeping it.


The government wants people to vote to keep it in public ownership so that they can claim the public wants IW to continue existing.



Clever moves require clever thinking.

The problem with that is that you assume passing the market test equate to privatisation and competition. Our universities are and remain in State ownership, and they passed the market test last January:

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/methods/nationalaccounts/Assessment_of_Classification_of_Universities_in_Ireland_according_to_ESA_2010.pdf

BarryD2

dense wrote: »

Whilst I respect anyone who supports the Right2Water movement, why is this vital commodity bit always wheeled out?


Do you not think that electricity is a vital commodity too?

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

It's wheeled out because it's a convenient catchphrase to engage lazy thinkers and to promote a political agenda to get some people bums on seats. Electricity is vital as you say, communications are vital, food is vital, clothing is vital shelter is vital and so on. All things people accept the need to pay usage charges for.

And lots of rural people are paying water charges by usage which makes us think about we use and what it's costing. It's right and proper that if you live e.g in leafy Foxrock and have a large garden of shrubs and plants, that you factor in the cost of running a sprinkler daily on your precious plot. It's right and proper that if you want two or three power showers a day, then you factor in the cost.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

It has. There are many private electric generation companies here.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/japanese-buy-300m-irish-wind-farm-portfolio-1.3172596?mode=amp

Yes, but the grid remains in State ownership.

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but the grid remains in State ownership.

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/

True enough.
But these farms aren't generating at a loss or break even margin.
They do make a profit and it affects the price of supply of electricity to the consumer.

Edward M

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's wheeled out because it's a convenient catchphrase to engage lazy thinkers and to promote a political agenda to get some people bums on seats. Electricity is vital as you say, communications are vital, food is vital, clothing is vital shelter is vital and so on. All things people accept the need to pay usage charges for.

And lots of rural people are paying water charges by usage which makes us think about we use and what it's costing. It's right and proper that if you live e.g in leafy Foxrock and have a large garden of shrubs and plants, that you factor in the cost of running a sprinkler daily on your precious plot. It's right and proper that if you want two or three power showers a day, then you factor in the cost.

I'd be for water charges myself.
But nothing is being wheeled out conveniently to get bums on seats.
We were fed a drip about the necessity of charges based on sound reasoning, like the need for investment in the infrastructure and the lack of money to do it. Then this modern company Irish Water was set up in what looked like the most expensive fashion possible with all the perks for its employees that could nearly be thrown at them, while every other worker and average citizen were virtually at the end of their tether.
Then came the well founded enough claims of cronyism with meter contracts and cut price company sales by nama.
The chance of privatisation of the service is real enough, it would be sold to us citizens as opening the market up to competition and there by giving us choice and saving us money.
But in reality it would just be putting money in the pockets of other wealthy investors in the guise of being for our benefit.
If the total truth were told instead of the rhetoric of this is of benefit to nobody but the consumer it might endear the govt to us more.
Sure, somebody has to fix the problems with the water, but it should have been handled much better by the govt, more transparently and honestly!

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

I'd be for water charges myself.
But nothing is being wheeled out conveniently to get bums on seats.
We were fed a drip about the necessity of charges based on sound reasoning, like the need for investment in the infrastructure and the lack of money to do it. Then this modern company Irish Water was set up in what looked like the most expensive fashion possible with all the perks for its employees that could nearly be thrown at them, while every other worker and average citizen were virtually at the end of their tether.
Then came the well founded enough claims of cronyism with meter contracts and cut price company sales by nama.
The chance of privatisation of the service is real enough, it would be sold to us citizens as opening the market up to competition and there by giving us choice and saving us money.
But in reality it would just be putting money in the pockets of other wealthy investors in the guise of being for our benefit.
If the total truth were told instead of the rhetoric of this is of benefit to nobody but the consumer it might endear the govt to us more.
Sure, somebody has to fix the problems with the water, but it should have been handled much better by the govt, more transparently and honestly!

To be fair to the employees, Irish Water was set up on the same basis as the other state utility companies, rewards and remuneration on the same basis. There was an awful lot of misconception around that issue.

People in An Post, Eirgrid, DAA etc. all get paid on a similar basis. It wasn't fair to single out the Irish Water employees. That was just a convenient soft target for the politicians of the left. Notably, they didn't criticise the high packages of others in State bodies represented by their friends in unions.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair to the employees, Irish Water was set up on the same basis as the other state utility companies, rewards and remuneration on the same basis. There was an awful lot of misconception around that issue.

People in An Post, Eirgrid, DAA etc. all get paid on a similar basis. It wasn't fair to single out the Irish Water employees. That was just a convenient soft target for the politicians of the left. Notably, they didn't criticise the high packages of others in State bodies represented by their friends in unions.

Is this common across the CS?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-water-staff-share-3m-bonus-despite-overly-high-costs-at-utility-35607221.html

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Is this common across the CS?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/irish-water-staff-share-3m-bonus-despite-overly-high-costs-at-utility-35607221.html

Common across the Semi-State sector.

Irish Water got its scheme from its parent company Erviva

James Brown

dense wrote: »

...



The Right2Water people want it kept in public ownership but don't realise the repercussions of keeping it.
..

They understood the damage and potential cost of putting such a thing in the hands of cronies. The best we could have hoped for was well meaning but inept stewardship.

If you work for a government department and they set up a sub-section or begin a project and position you within it, you don't get a new contract. One of the problems with IW was the bonus for nothing, golden parachutes etc. these things get lost in the broader debate. And that was a model that wasn't even private.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair to the employees, Irish Water was set up on the same basis as the other state utility companies, rewards and remuneration on the same basis. There was an awful lot of misconception around that issue.

People in An Post, Eirgrid, DAA etc. all get paid on a similar basis. It wasn't fair to single out the Irish Water employees.

You can't really blame the public for that because the populist FG and Labour parties were on the warpath about all these quangos right before creating one they'd be remembered for.

In the run-up to the 2011 general election, a slew of Fine Gael and Labour spokespeople made the dramatic promise that they would slash the number of State agencies, commissions and bodies.

It would lead to hundreds of millions of euros in savings, the “synergies” (yes, that) would create efficiencies and these agencies would be far more accountable and transparent

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/quango-cull-audacious-promises-of-2011-amounted-to-little-1.2929535?mode=amp


After a while Minister Howlin had to admit he didn't even know whether there was a hundred and fifty or two hundred and fifty state agencies.


https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/howlin-unclear-on-number-of-quangos-181345.html

The number of quangos remains unknown as the minister in charge of reform admitted that some only meet every few years.

Brendan Howlin, the public expenditure minister, said the number of quangos or state agencies could number anywhere between 150 and 250.

So another one was hardly going to make a difference.

Another one with the usual conditions and pensions that could only be dreamt of by those employed in the private sector.

You can see why people may have felt they were being exploited having been thrown that red herring by populist parties prior to an election.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

You can't really blame the public for that because the populist FG and Labour parties were on the warpath about all these quangos right before creating one they'd be remembered for.





https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/quango-cull-audacious-promises-of-2011-amounted-to-little-1.2929535?mode=amp


After a while Minister Howlin had to admit he didn't even know whether there was a hundred and fifty or two hundred and fifty state agencies.


https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/politics/howlin-unclear-on-number-of-quangos-181345.html



So another one was hardly going to make a difference.

Another one with the usual conditions and pensions that could only be dreamt of by those employed in the private sector.

You can see why people may have felt they were being exploited having been thrown that red herring by populist parties prior to an election.

A couple of points on this.

Firstly, State bodies are useful. That is why every country has them and lots of them.

Secondly, the FG policy was naive, they hadn't been in power for quite a while and didn't understand how government worked. Labour should have known better.

Thirdly, they did reduce the number of State bodies significantly, through mergers, reforms and some abolitions. 33 VECs, down to 16 ETBs, for example. What they misunderstood was that some were very efficient and useful.

https://www.etbi.ie/establishment-of-education-and-training-boards/

Fourthly, it takes time and it is still going on. Only last week, they finally announced the merger of DIT, ITB and IT Tallaght, the first of the mergers of Institutes of Technology. It was promised in a 2011 report, that needed clarification, policy decisions and ultimately legislation. As I understand it, the consolidation of State bodies is still going on.

https://www.tu4dublin.ie/

Finally, just because you reduce the number of State bodies in education or health doesn't mean you don't need one extra in some different area. This is especially true if it is ensuring that the 29 incompetent local authorities (itself a reduction) are giving up another function to a better organised central body.

So, of all the brainless arguments against Irish Water and water charges, and there was quite a number, the argument that it was wrong because the number of State bodies increased by one is among the most brainless.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

So, of all the brainless arguments against Irish Water and water charges, and there was quite a number, the argument that it was wrong because the number of State bodies increased by one is among the most brainless.

Where did you see that argument being made?


I said populist politicians in FG and Labour mislead the public about culling quangos.



I said Brendan Howlin didnt know how many quangos there were and that one more wasn't going to make a difference.


How can you equate the above to being an argument against water charges and Irish Water?


Because I exposed just how shallow and populist FG and Labour could be??

James Brown

A little above naive. As I recall FG didn't want IW discussed at any great length and the term 'railroaded it through' was oft used. They knew full well what they were doing. This attempt at rewriting history where Fine Gael are the well meaning but naive political newcomers is codology. We are to hold the opposition to account for not fighting against poor policy, but when Kenny's government were in opposition for so long, how could they be expected to know how government works like? Amazing.

OMD

dense wrote: »

Where did you see that argument being made?


I said populist politicians in FG and Labour mislead the public about culling quangos.



I said Brendan Howlin didnt know how many quangos there were and that one more wasn't going to make a difference.


How can you equate the above to being an argument against water charges and Irish Water?


Because I exposed just how shallow and populist FG and Labour could be??

The public reaction to the word Quango is ridiculous. The idea that a quango is a bad thing so less quangos is good is farcical. If the quango is not worth having then fair enough dismantle it. However many/most are of benefit to the country.

The idea that a quango is bad simply because it is called a quango is just an example of people reading to many UK newspapers.

dense

OMD wrote: »

The idea that a quango is bad simply because it is called a quango is just an example of people reading to many UK newspapers.

Maybe FG and Labour had been reading too many UK newspapers whilst digging for angles with which to catch the public's attention?


Quite possibly!

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Where did you see that argument being made?

I said populist politicians in FG and Labour mislead the public about culling quangos.

I said Brendan Howlin didnt know how many quangos there were and that one more wasn't going to make a difference.

How can you equate the above to being an argument against water charges and Irish Water?

Because I exposed just how shallow and populist FG and Labour could be??

The argument was made across numerous Irish Water threads by posters who are still around today.

I said that FG were naive, you think they were shallow and populist. Fair enough, opinions differ.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A little above naive. As I recall FG didn't want IW discussed at any great length and the term 'railroaded it through' was oft used. They knew full well what they were doing. This attempt at rewriting history where Fine Gael are the well meaning but naive political newcomers is codology. We are to hold the opposition to account for not fighting against poor policy, but when Kenny's government were in opposition for so long, how could they be expected to know how government works like? Amazing.

Railroaded it through? Have you ever heard of public consultation?

There was a public consultation process ahead of the estabishment of Irish Water. Take another issue, do you think people will be happy with the new Bus Connects scheme? How many of those who will protest afterwards will have engaged with the public consultation process?

I have little time for people who don't get involved in public consultation and who moan afterwards. What about abortion? The NO campaign believed it was railroaded through. Given the referendum only had four weeks, do you agree with them about that? Or is it only things you dislike that are railroaded through?

Finally, Fine Gael were in government for 2.5 years out of the 20 between 1982 and 2011. Hardly experienced.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The argument was made across numerous Irish Water threads by posters who are still around today.

I said that FG were naive, you think they were shallow and populist. Fair enough, opinions differ.




Railroaded it through? Have you ever heard of public consultation?

There was a public consultation process ahead of the estabishment of Irish Water. Take another issue, do you think people will be happy with the new Bus Connects scheme? How many of those who will protest afterwards will have engaged with the public consultation process?

I have little time for people who don't get involved in public consultation and who moan afterwards. What about abortion? The NO campaign believed it was railroaded through. Given the referendum only had four weeks, do you agree with them about that? Or is it only things you dislike that are railroaded through?

Finally, Fine Gael were in government for 2.5 years out of the 20 between 1982 and 2011. Hardly experienced.

So you retract your claim Fine Gael were naive and didn't understand how government worked? You seem to be arguing against that here.
FYI: You said they didn't understand how government worked, nothing about the lack of recent experience of, I assume, being in government. Also I've seen you criticise opposition politicians for their lackluster efforts at keeping Fine Gael in check or coming up with alternatives whenever Fine Gael get a bout of naivety. But sure they wouldn't understand how government works?
FG tried and suceeded in rushing through IW and used scaremongering and throwing around accusations such as ISIS for any naysayers. Hardly naive.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you retract your claim Fine Gael were naive and didn't understand how government worked? You seem to be arguing against that here.
FYI: You said they didn't understand how government worked, nothing about the lack of recent experience of, I assume, being in government. Also I've seen you criticise opposition politicians for their lackluster efforts at keeping Fine Gael in check or coming up with alternatives whenever Fine Gael get a bout of naivety. But sure they wouldn't understand how government works?
FG tried and suceeded in rushing through IW and used scaremongering and throwing around accusations such as ISIS for any naysayers. Hardly naive.

What? I said FG were naive to promise the abolition of hundreds of quangos. It was unachievable.

What was achievable, and what was done by them, was a rationalisation through limited abolition, significant mergers and reallocation of functions. They achieved what they promised, in reducing the quangoes, except not to the scale they promised. Having worked in the public service, I knew what was naive and what was achievable. That is why I believe they have done a reasonable job on that issue, all considered.

As for the opposition, yes, like Syriza in Greece, they are dangerously naive, particularly the AAA lot or whatever they are called. SF are a little less dangerous, but also less palatable because of their past. Some of the proposed legislation is just off the wall.

Jolly Red Giant

Let's deal with some of the urban myths - starting with this one -

blanch152 wrote: »

It is just amazing that we still have people on here talking about the privatisation agenda. It just wasn't true - it was made up by the self-serving politicians of the left who then got lucky with a single document.

Privatisation was (and still is) most definitely on the agenda. FF/FG/LP all support privatisation of public services - and have privatised large sections of the public service (SF have also done the same in the North - including privatising water infrastructure). The troika actively demand the privatisation of water in crisis countries in return for loans.

If privatisation was not and is not an issue then why are the establishment parties consistently resisting a referendum on the public ownership of water?

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course people have a democratic right to protest, but the people also have the democratic right not to be subject to mob rule. There is a balance between the two.

In my opinion, the line was crossed by the water protestors from democratic protest into mob rule.

All Hail The Mob -

for the past 250 years the establishment have been accusing the working classes and poor masses of 'mob rule' every time they challenged the status quo. Without 'mob rule' you would not have a vote (unless you were a wealthy property owning man), without 'mob rule' you would not have anything like a decent health or education system, without 'mob rule' you would be paying water charges.

A few hundreds protesters blocked a road in Jobstown for a short period and the hacks cry 'mob rule' and the establishment condemn the actions - the same politicians, government ministers, praised these actions as 'effective protest' - effective protest becomes 'mob rule' when it opposes the interests of the establishment.

Jolly Red Giant

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Paul Murphy wasn't even welcome at jobstown. You have been made aware of this numerous times but you chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit.

As demonstrated by the fact that Solidarity are - by far - the biggest political party in Jobstown.

During the Jobstown protest there were constant debates and discussions among the protesters over how the protest should develop - Paul Murphy and other Solidarity representatives put forward proposals, some that were accepted by those on the protest, some that were not.

dense wrote: »

The young man with the brick comes to my mind.

The incident with the brick occurred hours after the end of the Jobstown protest - in a different area - and while the Gardai were flooding an estate with riot cops enforcing an arrest warrant. It had nothing to do with the protest against water charges.

unit 1 wrote: »

Paul Murphy spooked sf, sf spooked ff, ff desperation to get back in spooked rhyme and reason, and now we are where we are.
The next strong government will introduce charges in some form or shape, and I feel this in inevitable.

What spooked SF and FF was the fact that one million households were boycotting water charges.

Any government that attempts to introduce water charges will be faced with the same level of resistance and boycott as the most recent campaign.

unit 1 wrote: »

Their answer to water charges, MORE FREE STUFF. Its like 1977 all over again.

You serious think that we don't pay for water, or anything else :rolleyes:

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

If Paul Murphy had been in power for the last thirty years, Aer Lingus would still be in state ownership, it would be losing hundreds of millions every year, and it would cost €1,000 to fly to London return on one of the three flights a day to the UK.

Evidence ?

blanch152 wrote: »

State ownership or not shouldn't be an ideological hang-up the way that people like Paul Murphy treat it. What is best for the country should be the agenda.

So what is best for the country is massive subsidies to the spivs and speculators and lining the pockets of the likes of 'redacted' on the back of imposing austerity on working class people (in order to pay for the gambling debts of bankers, developers and speculators).

blanch152 wrote: »

You miss the point, Paul Murphy would keep everything in public ownership, from banks and taxi companies to restaurants and airlines.

Again - evidence ?

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't related to the point I was making. However, it is interesting that some people want to go back to the time when installing a phone line took six months under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

a phone line took six months because for 60 years the right-wing governments invested zero money in telecommunications - they then pumped £700million of public money into Eircom and promptly privatised it with the spivs and speculators making a financial killing.

dense wrote: »

Privatisation hasn't made electricity less safe or less accessible so why would it with water?

It has led to one of the most expensive (and profitable) electricity supplies in the EU.

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

He was there, and while he may not have committed a criminal offence, his misogynist behaviour towards the Minister and her adviser were not becoming.

And you can provide evidence of such behaviour ?

And take note - the trial transcripts are available and every thing Paul Murphy did and said during the protest is on the court record.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The incident with the brick occurred hours after the end of the Jobstown protest - in a different area - and while the Gardai were flooding an estate with riot cops enforcing an arrest warrant. It had nothing to do with the protest against water charges.

The court heard the incident happened at about 4pm, 15 minutes after former tánaiste Joan Burton had left the scene, having earlier attended a local event.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-smashed-garda-car-window-in-jobstown-protest-gets-suspended-sentence-1.3360716?mode=amp


15 minutes, not "hours".


Also if it had nothing to do with the protest, why did his defence claim it did?

Former community policeman Garda Darren Rooney told the court he had known Collins for 14 years through various youth and school programmes. He agreed with Michael O’Higgins SC, defending, that Collins was “a decent lad” who had “allowed himself to be carried away in the heat of this particular protest”.

Jolly Red Giant

On the substantive issue -

Water Charges would have made zero difference to the current water crisis - metering would have made zero difference to the current water crisis.

Half the water supply in the Dublin area leaks out of the antiquated Victorian water pipes - that is 300million litres of water a day. This is the result of 100 years of right-wing Irish governments refusing to invest in public services.

Even if water charges had been introduced Irish Water would not have spent a penny more than it has on infrastructure development - it is operating to the same financial plan since it was established. So all the current claptrap about 'if we had water charges' is hot air - smoke and mirrors - and utterly irrelevant to any debate about how to prevent the current water crisis happening again.

Furthermore - and to demonstrate the difference in approach - Solidarity councillors (and Socialist Party councillors before them) have consistently (over years) attempted to get councils to adopt planning laws that would reduce water usage. they proposed that all new houses would be fitted with dual flush toilets - the establishment parties voted it down - they proposed that all new homes be fitted with grey water recycling systems - the establishment parties voted it down - they proposed that all new homes would be fitted with rainwater collection systems for recycling into household usage - guess what - the establishment parties voted it down - and they voted them down because these proposals didn't serve the interests of the developers and speculators.

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-smashed-garda-car-window-in-jobstown-protest-gets-suspended-sentence-1.3360716?mode=amp


15 minutes, not "hours".


Also if it had nothing to do with the protest, why did his defence claim it did?

This individual was not part of the protest - had not been there. If he was there and this incident occurred as part of the protest you can be damned sure that it would have been a central part of the prosecution evidence during the Jobstown trial - it was never mentioned. To quote a cop saying that he was there (and got carried away) is like the rest of the Garda evidence during the Jobstown trial - proven to be false.

And to demonstrate how the media manipulated this story - this was the photo published in the Independent -



The incident occurred at least 90 minutes after the Jobstown protest ended. The cops had left after the protest and returned to serve an arrest warrant - more than 50 cops went into an estate and began pepper spraying kids in the estate who started giving them lip.

Furthermore - I notice that you have no comments about the protest photos I posted - a protest that a government minister praised as being 'an effective protest'.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This individual was not part of the protest - had not been there. If he was there and this incident occurred as part of the protest you can be damned sure that it would have been a central part of the prosecution evidence during the Jobstown trial - it was never mentioned. To quote a cop saying that he was there (and got carried away) is like the rest of the Garda evidence during the Jobstown trial - proven to be false.

And to demonstrate how the media manipulated this story - this was the photo published in the Independent -



The incident occurred at least 90 minutes after the Jobstown protest ended. The cops had left after the protest and returned to serve an arrest warrant - more than 50 cops went into an estate and began pepper spraying kids in the estate who started giving them lip.

Furthermore - I notice that you have no comments about the protest photos I posted - a protest that a government minister praised as being 'an effective protest'.

I don't really care. I wasn't there so can only go on what his solicitor said.

His own solicitor used the protest (which you say he had nothing to do with) as his defence.

The defendant, if had he had nothing to do with this protest should have used some other stupid excuse for making him throw the brick.

He can't have it both ways.
And trying to link it to the protest, a tactic which the court accepted, is his problem not mine.

Have you taken it up with him?

Red_Wake

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

On the substantive issue -

Water Charges would have made zero difference to the current water crisis - metering would have made zero difference to the current water crisis.

Half the water supply in the Dublin area leaks out of the antiquated Victorian water pipes - that is 300million litres of water a day. This is the result of 100 years of right-wing Irish governments refusing to invest in public services.

Even if water charges had been introduced Irish Water would not have spent a penny more than it has on infrastructure development - it is operating to the same financial plan since it was established. So all the current claptrap about 'if we had water charges' is hot air - smoke and mirrors - and utterly irrelevant to any debate about how to prevent the current water crisis happening again.

Furthermore - and to demonstrate the difference in approach - Solidarity councillors (and Socialist Party councillors before them) have consistently (over years) attempted to get councils to adopt planning laws that would reduce water usage. they proposed that all new houses would be fitted with dual flush toilets - the establishment parties voted it down - they proposed that all new homes be fitted with grey water recycling systems - the establishment parties voted it down - they proposed that all new homes would be fitted with rainwater collection systems for recycling into household usage - guess what - the establishment parties voted it down - and they voted them down because these proposals didn't serve the interests of the developers and speculators.

FF/FG currently only hold 17 out of 63 seats on DCC[and it has been like this since 2014] - what's stopping the current council from enacting these regulations?

BarryD2

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

On the substantive issue -

Water Charges would have made zero difference to the current water crisis - metering would have made zero difference to the current water crisis.

Half the water supply in the Dublin area leaks out of the antiquated Victorian water pipes - that is 300million litres of water a day. This is the result of 100 years of right-wing Irish governments refusing to invest in public services.

The same old crap!

Metered water charges would most certainly assist in the current water shortages. It is a fact that when these were first mooted and partially installed that they had an effect - water usage dropped.

Of course, the infrastructure needs to be repaired and that's what your charge was intended to fund.

But the priority in these matters should be the mantra : REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE.

Both public reduction and reuse would be encouraged by metered water charges.

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

On the substantive issue -

Water Charges would have made zero difference to the current water crisis - metering would have made zero difference to the current water crisis.

Half the water supply in the Dublin area leaks out of the antiquated Victorian water pipes - that is 300million litres of water a day. This is the result of 100 years of right-wing Irish governments refusing to invest in public services.

Even if water charges had been introduced Irish Water would not have spent a penny more than it has on infrastructure development - it is operating to the same financial plan since it was established. So all the current claptrap about 'if we had water charges' is hot air - smoke and mirrors - and utterly irrelevant to any debate about how to prevent the current water crisis happening again.

Furthermore - and to demonstrate the difference in approach - Solidarity councillors (and Socialist Party councillors before them) have consistently (over years) attempted to get councils to adopt planning laws that would reduce water usage. they proposed that all new houses would be fitted with dual flush toilets - the establishment parties voted it down - they proposed that all new homes be fitted with grey water recycling systems - the establishment parties voted it down - they proposed that all new homes would be fitted with rainwater collection systems for recycling into household usage - guess what - the establishment parties voted it down - and they voted them down because these proposals didn't serve the interests of the developers and speculators.

Absolute rubbish. All of the international studies have shown that metered houses use less water than unmetered houses where charging is based on metering. Even if only a 5% saving in domestic water, that would have meant no issue in Dublin this summer.

As for council regulations, the parties of the left have controlled DCC for the last half-decade. Apart from arguing about what Bob Geldof said about them, what have they actually done for housing? Zero.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What? I said FG were naive to promise the abolition of hundreds of quangos. It was unachievable.

Nope.

blanch152 wrote: »

...

Secondly, the FG policy was naive, they hadn't been in power for quite a while and didn't understand how government worked. Labour should have known better.
..

You said they didn't understand how government worked. You said they were naive. You are trying to give them a well meaning but inept out. You are defending their record based on their naivety and lack of understanding how government works. I expect to hear no more criticism of opposition parties from you, specifically those who never sat in government never mind it having been a while?

blanch152 wrote: »

What was achievable, and what was done by them, was a rationalisation through limited abolition, significant mergers and reallocation of functions. They achieved what they promised, in reducing the quangoes, except not to the scale they promised. Having worked in the public service, I knew what was naive and what was achievable. That is why I believe they have done a reasonable job on that issue, all considered.

So they failed, but they tried, possibly. Maybe it was waffle to get elected like the 'change the way we do business' and an 'end to cronyism'? They actively worked to avoid both.

blanch152 wrote: »

As for the opposition, yes, like Syriza in Greece, they are dangerously naive, particularly the AAA lot or whatever they are called. SF are a little less dangerous, but also less palatable because of their past. Some of the proposed legislation is just off the wall.

Fone Geel or whatever they are called, sorry I'm being dismissive and childish.
Personally I cannot trust Fine Gael or their partners Fianna Fail. Kenny had all the right lines the country needed. Sadly for the country and his place in history he ensured nothing of note changed in the very way we do business, having been elected on a promise to change things. This was not a little err or naivety. This was peoples lives and the fix the country badly needs. He lied and we are no better off in 'the way we do business'. The roller coaster is back open for business. He was a chancer and a con man in regards of his 2011 promises. So how these people, found out again can ever hope to reintroduce water charges in any form is fantasy. They can't be trusted and have no will to change. That's on them not the public. They've proved they can't be trusted, so why should the onus be on the public to try meet them halfway on any new water charge move? But lets discuss what the third biggest party in the country, that never sat in government, thought about what was happening in Greece almost a decade ago.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. All of the international studies have shown that metered houses use less water than unmetered houses where charging is based on metering. Even if only a 5% saving in domestic water, that would have meant no issue in Dublin this summer.

As for council regulations, the parties of the left have controlled DCC for the last half-decade. Apart from arguing about what Bob Geldof said about them, what have they actually done for housing? Zero.

FYI: a half decade is 5 years. What ever happened to 'these things take time'? Gas man.

dense

BarryD2 wrote: »

The same old crap!

Metered water charges would most certainly assist in the current water shortages. .

No guarantee whatsoever.

The public might simply have said, feck this, I'm paying for this so I'm going to use away on it, much like what appears to be happening in the UK which is experiencing the exact same problems you allude to, including having leaking networks, despite having charges.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=guardian+water+leaks+increasing&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg3O32tL_cAhUnLMAKHTLrCcIQ_AUIBSgA


It is far too simplistic to suggest that water charges would assist in the current situation here because they certainly don't seem to have played any part in preventing the UK having regular hosepipe bans.

And yes, I remember seeing what I would describe as fake news accompanied by a fake graph purporting to be a tempoary knee jerk reaction drop in usage at the time charges kicked in.

And that was before it was announced that in any event we use less water here per capita than countries which do charge for water.

Which makes it a bit pointless to propose that we need to charge for water just to help us be more like countries that do charge for water.

After all, we see that where charging goes, privatisation usually follows.


And people here don't want that either, citing stuff about water being a vital commodity and believing that privatisation is a dirty word, like quango.


If there are any valid reasons for trying to introduce water charges here, I've yet to hear any that upon any serious analysis, stand up.

View

It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved. There would be enormous political pressure to improve the system since who in their right mind would want to pay for wasted water?

By way to contrast, if the water is supplied to you “free”, then as we have seen over the past decades, no one cares that there is wasted water. Why should you care if something free is wasted since you’ll never get directly billed for it?

blanch152

View wrote: »

It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved. There would be enormous political pressure to improve the system since who in their right mind would want to pay for wasted water?

By way to contrast, if the water is supplied to you “free”, then as we have seen over the past decades, no one cares that there is wasted water. Why should you care if something free is wasted since you’ll never get directly billed for it?

My neighbour had a leak on his property for over six months. I was in his back garden more than once discussing it. Until I pointed out that it was so bad it might be damaging the foundations of his house he was going to do nothing to get it fixed. If he was paying €1,000 a month for wasted water, he would have fixed it straightaway.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

It has led to one of the most expensive (and profitable) electricity supplies in the EU.

0f course it has, that's something we agree on!

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Your belief that IW would have been privatised is misguided and misfounded in my opinion. There is a complete absence of evidence that this would have happened bar one enquiry in one communication from Eurostat.

In my opinion, those who believe in the privatisation agenda are blindly following the likes of Paul Murphy and the PBP who claimed that to be the case.

I haven't seen any hard evidence that Paul Murphy wasn't welcome at Jobstown. He was there, and while he may not have committed a criminal offence, his misogynist behaviour towards the Minister and her adviser were not becoming.

Fair enough.

I believe Paul Murphy to have had his profile heightened by FG/Lab in order to give them a scapegoat/whipping boy status as criticising the general public over IW wouldn't fly.
When Paul Murphy appeared at the Jobstown protest the protesters are quoted in the trial as not wanting him there.

Video footage has been played in the trial of Solidarity TD Paul Murphy showing fellow protesters apparently shouting at the politician and telling him to "mind his own business".

“The crowd had some animosity towards Paul Murphy”, defence barrister Raymond Comyn SC said at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial yesterday.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/protesters-told-paul-murphy-to-mind-his-own-business-at-jobstown-incident-court-hears-35717328.html

I assumed the trail had been closely followed, especially by those with a keen interest in all things Paul Murphy.
As regards misogyny, I don't know the sex of the people in the car played a roll. It's not like he drunkenly pulled one of them onto his lap in the Dail. However, feel free to have your own ideas. They are as relevant as the inclusion of Paul Murphy in ever discussion about the failed IW con.

James Brown

View wrote: »

It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved. There would be enormous political pressure to improve the system since who in their right mind would want to pay for wasted water?

By way to contrast, if the water is supplied to you “free”, then as we have seen over the past decades, no one cares that there is wasted water. Why should you care if something free is wasted since you’ll never get directly billed for it?

This is false. I don't pay a street littering collection charge, but I don't litter. Never wasted water. Don't know anyone who does.
FYI: we pay for water. Always have, continue to do so. It's a service our taxes cover, which hasn't been privatised, unlike household rubbish collection, telecommunications. But water ever being privatised is fantasy

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I was in his back garden more than once discussing it.

A man with substantially more than two pints on his mind!

James Brown

dense wrote: »

A man with substantially more than two pints on his mind!

And pints of water, during a drought the blaggard.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Fair enough.

I believe Paul Murphy to have had his profile heightened by FG/Lab in order to give them a scapegoat/whipping boy status as criticising the general public over IW wouldn't fly.
When Paul Murphy appeared at the Jobstown protest the protesters are quoted in the trial as not wanting him there.



I assumed the trail had been closely followed, especially by those with a keen interest in all things Paul Murphy.
As regards misogyny, I don't know the sex of the people in the car played a roll. It's not like he drunkenly pulled one of them onto his lap in the Dail. However, feel free to have your own ideas. They are as relevant as the inclusion of Paul Murphy in ever discussion about the failed IW con.

I wasn't alleging that Paul Murphy had committed a criminal offence so why would the trial be of reference? I saw a video of his actions and that was sufficient to form an opinion about his behaviour during those five minutes.

What went on before or after that segment, whether it was criminal or not, is irrelevant to the opinion I formed. IF there is footage showing him pleading with the crowd to disperse and leave the women alone, then I would revise my opinion. The best you could argue is that he stood idly by while the women were treated badly. Still behaviour I could not stomach.

dense

View wrote: »

It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved.

Do you not think that having 50% leaking is in itself "a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved"?



Also can you find any instances of water utilities citing their charges as being the reason they haven't had to introduce a hosepipe ban in the UK?


I haven't.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Do you not think that having 50% leaking is in itself "a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved"?



Also can you find any instances of water utilities citing their charges as being the reason they haven't had to introduce a hosepipe ban in the UK?


I haven't.

No, but they had a more severe drought and took longer to introduce a hosepipe ban.

Furthermore, they are privatised utilities, and therefore in promoting profit, would have been operating with tighter margins of supply making a hosepipe ban more likely.

A public water utility with metered charges is likely to be in a better position to cope with a shortage.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I wasn't alleging that Paul Murphy had committed a criminal offence so why would the trial be of reference? I saw a video of his actions and that was sufficient to form an opinion about his behaviour during those five minutes.

What went on before or after that segment, whether it was criminal or not, is irrelevant to the opinion I formed. IF there is footage showing him pleading with the crowd to disperse and leave the women alone, then I would revise my opinion. The best you could argue is that he stood idly by while the women were treated badly. Still behaviour I could not stomach.

You said you never saw any evidence he was unwelcome. I gave you evidence.
You are now making it about any perceived criminality for some reason. I don't care frankly. The case has come and gone.
You accused him of misogyny and can only cite him not helping a TD he was actively there to protest from protesters, because she was female. Nonsense.

Kudos on bringing the discussion to Paul Murphy. Being against water charges, water charges in a specific form or fearful of privatisation, does not automatically mean one has to defend Paul Murphy or whom ever else you'd like to introduce. This is a recurring tactic with you.

James Brown

View wrote: »

It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved. There would be enormous political pressure to improve the system since who in their right mind would want to pay for wasted water?

By way to contrast, if the water is supplied to you “free”, then as we have seen over the past decades, no one cares that there is wasted water. Why should you care if something free is wasted since you’ll never get directly billed for it?

There was no public pressure of note in 2011 to make improving the 50% leak rate in mains a priority above and beyond the harsh financial climate, but they did it anyway. Why this would now require the public to be put between a rock and a hard place to 'understand' the importance, to force government to act, on something it has shown itself capable of attempting, DESPITE political and public pressure to the contrary, makes no sense.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

A public water utility with metered charges is likely to be in a better position to cope with a shortage.

Like in Scotland?

Scottish Water has seen an increase of 30 percent in usage levels in parts of the country, as demand remains significantly higher than normal.

30% higher!!


Where they're delivering water in tankers and asking people not to use hosepipes amid the longest heatwave since 1976?


Not really. Hasn't made a blind bit of difference.



https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/990319/Hose-pipe-ban-2018-Scotland-north-west-England-is-there-a-hosepipe-ban-in-my-area

BarryD2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is false. I don't pay a street littering collection charge, but I don't litter. Never wasted water. Don't know anyone who does.

What's your definition of reasonable water use?? You may consider that 'you don't waste water' but that depends on what you consider normal use. If that includes regularly watering your lawn & washing your car, filling paddling pools, extensive household use of power showers etc., then you are likely are wasting water.

Reported today that Irish Water's appeal to Greater Dublin to conserve water has only resulted in a 1-2% reduction in use. That is simply pathetic and it's clear that most don't give a toss what they use.

What will bring the matter home is when public water has to be rationed from tankers in Greater Dublin. Only then will the message start to sink in. Wait till you are hauling buckets of water to flush your jacks and then you'll know all about it.

Idbatterim

BarryD2 wrote: »

What's your definition of reasonable water use?? You may consider that 'you don't waste water' but that depends on what you consider normal use. If that includes regularly watering your lawn & washing your car, filling paddling pools, extensive household use of power showers etc., then you are likely are wasting water.

Reported today that Irish Water's appeal to Greater Dublin to conserve water has only resulted in a 1-2% reduction in use. That is simply pathetic and it's clear that most don't give a toss what they use.

What will bring the matter home is when public water has to be rationed from tankers in Greater Dublin. Only then will the message start to sink in. Wait till you are hauling buckets of water to flush your jacks and then you'll know all about it.

If the 1-2% is true. It’s a joke. This is an issue when you don’t pay per litre, You don’t pay for what you use.most People don’t give a toss for the most part ...