Water charges revisited?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Really glad to hear that people are being responsible.

You accept people are being responsible, yet you claim we are wasteful?

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You accept people are being responsible, yet you claim we are wasteful?

You do realise that the demand for water fell in the greater Dublin area after a hose ban was announced?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

You do realise that the demand for water fell in the greater Dublin area after a hose ban was announced?

So you're saying people heeded the call for conservation and are being responsible. All good so.

Sam Russell

I think the water charge protesters forgot about the waste water aspect. It is just as bad that the Ringsend treatment plant stank for years and not a lot was done about it. The lumpy water on Sandymount Strand was a testament to that.

Whatever about the charges for clean potable water, charging the same for waste water was never explained. For each cubic metre of input water, they assumed a exact same amount of effluent, and an exact same charge for its disposal, without any study as to how much it actually cost.

The amount charged to the public was twice the amount DCC charged their commercial customers - again no justification.

Irish Water was a succession of wrong headed, wrongly implemented decisions. Every decision was wrong.

No wonder there were protests.

VinLieger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

May I suggest the research of political scientist mark Blyth, who has done exceptional research into its continual failures globally, he also has some very interesting opinions on our current wave of populist politics

Good for you, youve found someone who agrees with you, im sure i could find just as many if not likely quite a few more economists and political scientists of equal or greater qualifications who think it worked out quite well.

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

I think he thinks I’m some kind of performing monkey.

Im not playing..

I’d relish a chance to get into some government departments In a professional capacity though. I’d six sigma their asses for all of about 5 minutes before the unions would run me out the door..

I would agree that you would only last 5 minutes, it is an indication of how realistic your ideas are.

Still waiting....

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The board appointments and consultant fees were signs of rot, even before the sweet deal currently under investigation. Even if there were no charge to the public, it was a quango. There were no winners in this, except of course for the board appointees, consultants, laughing Yoga instructors and metering contract recipient.
And these same people would never privatise? :rolleyes:

Because people focussed on the small things like board appointments rather than the bigger picture.

It is a sad state of political discussion when people cannot distinguish between what is material and what is important. This failure, egged on by populist charlatan politicians was what brought Irish Water down.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

It is a sad state of political discussion when people cannot distinguish between what is material and what is important. This failure, egged on by populist charlatan politicians was what brought Irish Water down.

IW was brought down by the incompetence of FG but of course you will blame everyone except the party you only ever give a 3rd or 4th preference too. As for Populist you use the word like it is a slur. My understanding of 'populist' is a policy ideology targeted towards the common man. All parties are guilty of this, some just more so than others.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

IW was brought down by the incompetence of FG but of course you will blame everyone except the party you only ever give a 3rd or 4th preference too. As for Populist you use the word like it is a slur. My understanding of 'populist' is a policy ideology targeted towards the common man. All parties are guilty of this, some just more so than others.

Populism is a slur, and I stand over it.

It is a symbolism of those who would put popularity over what is right. There are many forms of populism, but this definition probably sums it up for me:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

"In popular discourse, the term has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action."

If you wanted an explanation of the opportunistic opposition to water charges, you couldn't find a better one.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

If you wanted an explanation of the opportunistic opposition to water charges, you couldn't find a better one.

Nothing of what you say negates the mess FG created.

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

Still waiting....

You'll be waiting a while..

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a symbolism of those who would put popularity over what is right.

You don't have a monopoly on being right.

No one does.

You have an opinion, just like the rest of us.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

If they were, then there’d be no need for a hose pipe ban.

That, unfortunately is a viewpoint completely removed from reality.

If it were the case, there'd be no need for privatised water companies in the UK to also be considering hosepipe bans as we speak.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/982866/hosepipe-ban-2018-what-happens-use-hosepipe-during-ban-hosepipe-ban-areas

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/is-there-hosepipe-ban-2018-1742375

All the more shocking once you realise that they don't have 50% of treated water being lost before it gets near a meter.

So we're actually in a far better position consumption-wise.
As a country without water charges, we use less than they do in countries that have water charges and meters.

We dont waste water. Let's keep it that way.

https://www.boards.ie/irishwater

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Because people focussed on the small things like board appointments rather than the bigger picture.

It is a sad state of political discussion when people cannot distinguish between what is material and what is important. This failure, egged on by populist charlatan politicians was what brought Irish Water down.

No, unless you're describing FG and FF as charlatans.

Which, considering that both were originally staunchly in favour of metering and charges might be accurate!

Irish Water, as a media brand was actually "brought down" by the FF/FG C&S Agreement.

It's still there of course currently lurking as a boilerplate entity, minus the silly TV ads and call centres.

We never heard any more about that plebiscite/referendum thing as once promised by the populist FG/FF alliance??
Still waiting, eh?

Good loser

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No supporter of any party least of all FF but I'm curious why the screwup that was the introduction of IW is in anyway the fault of FF. FG and Lab were the governing parties at the time and their fingerprints are all over the mess. From Hogans threats to laughing yoga.

Revisionism there if ever there was.


Have you completely forgotten that for the confidence and supply agreement FF held FG's feet to the fire for months on the issue of water charges?

Or, simply, FF blackmailed FG.

Apparently the joint program (or whatever it's called) had 603 words devoted to Water Charges and 6 to child poverty.

Puke politics at its worst.

I have resolved never again to vote for FF because of their stance on this issue.

Good loser

Rennaws wrote: »

You'll be waiting a while..



You don't have a monopoly on being right.

No one does.

You have an opinion, just like the rest of us.

True - but all opinions are not equally valid.


Yours, for example, lack clarity and commonsense.


That a higher rate taxpayer should oppose Water Charges beggars belief.

The Bishop Basher

Good loser wrote: »

True - but all opinions are not equally valid.

I would say they certainly earn more credence when backed up with facts.

Good loser wrote: »

Yours, for example, lack clarity and commonsense.

Ok. But that's just your opinion which as you say isn't necessarily valid so you'll need to provide evidence if you want it to have any validity otherwise you're just waffling.

Good loser wrote: »

That a higher rate taxpayer should oppose Water Charges beggars belief.

We'll consider your belief well and truly beggared then

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You answered your own question.
We pay through taxation. No denying how poorly water has been managed for decades. Paying tax and a portion from that take going to water was already in place. The premise was we didn't want to pay. We are/have been paying.
How the state allocates the tax take for it's housekeeping is another issue.

You are choosing to miss the point.
We paid taxes, some of which went towards water, but not enough.
Do we now pay more in taxes to fund water or do we pay by usage, the latter being the fairer option.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. Again, how it's mismanaged is another issue. The fact remains money towards water, how ever poorly allocated, has and does come from tax, therefore we all already pay for it. Just because the state under-funds or mismanages an area, that's not to say we don't pay any taxes.

I never said that we don't pay taxes. I said that we don't fund water services sufficiently from our taxes. We now need to decide whether we want a functional service and if so how do we fund it.
However, it is not true to say that we already pay for water implying that no other funding is required: would you expect to be able to keep a new €1k TV after paying €500 for it, after all using your logic you already paid for it?

VinLieger

Rennaws wrote: »

I’d relish a chance to get into some government departments In a professional capacity though. I’d six sigma their asses for all of about 5 minutes before the unions would run me out the door..

The Irony being the vast majority of anti water charge politicians would be heavily pro union and thus against any kind of meaningful reform of the public sector

The Bishop Basher

VinLieger wrote: »

The Irony being the vast majority of anti water charge politicians would be heavily pro union and thus against any kind of meaningful reform of the public sector

Absolutely.. And I really despise unions.

My reasons for opposing Irish Water were driven solely by the scandalous level of inefficiency and waste in our system.

I wasn't prepared to pay yet another tax to cover up the incompetence of politicians.

I have no problem paying my way and i'm more the willing to pay for resources I use and even those I don't. I'm very happy to pay my taxes once we spend them wisely and take care of our elderly and our sick. But we're not doing any of these things and IW was just yet another bloated quango from the outset.

I just couldn't stomach paying for that kind of waste yet again and we would have been paying that forever more.

The failure of IW was 100% down to the incompetence of Enda, Phil, FG and Labour all of whom failed to deliver on their election promises and tried to blackmail, hound and threaten and electorate who'd had enough and bit back..

Mr.H

The water charges talk is a load of crap driven by certain government parties and friendly media.

We keep hearing we told you so. Now that there is a potential drought they are saying that if we paid charges it would be ok. I say they are lying.

We just come off the back of one of the worst winters in recent history. Record breaking snow ffs. Floods everywhere and for some reason we are out of water?? All lies used to force water charges down our throats. The people spoke and do not want water charges. We dont mind paying for it through taxation. Its these sneaky extra charges we despise. Let me ask this. If i paid water charges could i go with a company other than Irish water? Of course not. It is either breaching unfair competition laws or it is a government entity which is set up to pretend it is not just collecting a tax.

But of course the apologists for the government will disagree. The sooner leos party fs off the better.

Seth Brundle

Mr.H wrote: »

We keep hearing we told you so. Now that there is a potential drought they are saying that if we paid charges it would be ok. I say they are lying.

Who has said this?
To my recollection, the claim was that had we brought in water charges properly, we would be in a better position to fund water services and also people would be more aware of their usage as they would be paying for it.

Mr.H wrote: »

We just come off the back of one of the worst winters in recent history. Record breaking snow ffs. Floods everywhere and for some reason we are out of water??

What has the snow got to do with anything.
The water in your tap is (expensive) treated water. Snow isn't!
Furthermore, we don't have the storage facilities to keep all the melted snow.

Mr.H wrote: »

All lies used to force water charges down our throats. The people spoke and do not want water charges. We dont mind paying for it through taxation. Its these sneaky extra charges we despise.

No, some people spoke and the idiot politicians got scared and reacted. Some people continued shouting and the politicians reacted again. Eventually it got to the point that the politicians were tripping over themselves to appease the shouters and fecked up the whole project.

Mr.H wrote: »

Let me ask this. If i paid water charges could i go with a company other than Irish water? Of course not. It is either breaching unfair competition laws or it is a government entity which is set up to pretend it is not just collecting a tax.

There already are loads of water suppliers around the country in the guise of group water schemes (not that those against Irish Water cared about!). There is nothing stopping you setting up something similar and then you won't have to pay any pesky water charges. Oh wait, you will!

Mr.H wrote: »

But of course the apologists for the government will disagree. The sooner leos party fs off the better.

ok, and to be replaced with?

Idbatterim

In a way. With all the usuals suspects getting their free allowances and exemptions, isn’t it better in a way financially for those that pay for everything, that it is coming from general taxation? There is so much money now being sucked into health, services and infrastructure, that the days of any meaningful welfare increases are long over , their e5 hike in the budget probably won’t even cover inflation ...

McMurphy

No, some people spoke and the idiot politicians got scared and reacted. Some people continued shouting and the politicians reacted again. Eventually it got to the point that the politicians were tripping over themselves to appease the shouters and fecked up the whole project.

I am of the opinion that is was largely due to its incompetence surrounding water charges, and the questionable circumstances surrounding the set up of IW , the metering contracts etc that undoubtedly led to them losing the last election.

Some on here are arguing that had the charging regime not been brought to a halt , we'd not be facing hose pipe bans.

Butt hurt arrogance (which also contributed to them losing the election)

Firstly, the charges were capped, so bang goes pay for what you use argument.

Secondly, had the charges never been capped, people would most likely be using their water for whatever the hell they wanted, pools/watering lawns/washing cars etc etc etc. Why not? They're being charged, so might feel entitled to. There goes the water conservation argument.

Lastly, with half of the treated water never reaching the end user anyway due to leaks in the system, half the battle is already lost with conserving it.

Droughts have been long associated with heatwaves in this country, long before the white knight (or elephant depending on your view) of Irish Water came on the scene, and will continue to be associated with them long into the future, Irish Water or no Irish Water.

There's a hose pipe ban in parts of the UK too I hear.

Don't they pay for their water?

It's over boys and girls, the people said no to the shambles, and it will take a mighty brave political party to run an election ticket with reintroducing water charges.

My kids kids might see a govt wanting to grasp that thorny issue again, and that opportunity at introducing them can only be attributed to 2 party's, one of which was annihilated at the last election.

Leos spin unit had it of still been here might spin the above facts in a different light, but alas that's toast also.

Time to get over it people, let it go.

crossman47

Good loser wrote: »

Revisionism there if ever there was.


Have you completely forgotten that for the confidence and supply agreement FF held FG's feet to the fire for months on the issue of water charges?

Or, simply, FF blackmailed FG.

Apparently the joint program (or whatever it's called) had 603 words devoted to Water Charges and 6 to child poverty.

Puke politics at its worst.

I have resolved never again to vote for FF because of their stance on this issue.

I agree with you. i don't see anyone I can vote for next time. FG bottled it (pardon the pun) over water charges, FF blackmailed them, SF jumped on the bandwagon and the looney left made hay. A clesr case of not showing leadership when needed. We will never repair the water infrastructure from the current level of taxes and they will all be afraid to go for additional tax. And then we laugh at the Brexiteers as being stupid!

Idbatterim

crossman47 wrote: »

I agree with you. i don't see anyone I can vote for next time. FG bottled it (pardon the pun) over water charges, FF blackmailed them, SF jumped on the bandwagon and the looney left made hay. A clesr case of not showing leadership when needed. We will never repair the water infrastructure from the current level of taxes and they will all be afraid to go for additional tax. And then we laugh at the Brexiteers as being stupid!

All this talk of additional tax, the economic growth is growing the taxes. Just don’t waste it on welfare increases etc, there is more than enough then for infrastructure...

McMurphy

Idbatterim wrote: »

All this talk of additional tax, the economic growth is growing the taxes. Just don’t waste it on welfare increases etc, there is more than enough then for infrastructure...

Look after those who get up early in the morning.

aido79

Mr.H wrote: »

The people spoke and do not want water charges. We dont mind paying for it through taxation.

So you'd prefer an increase in your taxes rather than pay water charges?

Hitman3000

Good loser wrote:

Revisionism there if ever there was.

There is no revisionism on my behalf, I have only commented upon the set up of IW and that creation is solely the responsibility of FG and to a lesser extent Lab.
If you wish to push the fantasy that FF blackmailed FG why did FG allow itself to be blackmailed? Was it perhaps so Enda could fulfil his goal or that FG retain power (albeit hamstrung) at any cost.
I also find these proclamations of future voting intentions as hilarious. No one cares or is impressed by such nonsense.

The Bishop Basher

aido79 wrote: »

So you'd prefer an increase in your taxes rather than pay water charges?

How about tax reform so everyone pays their fair share.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

So you'd prefer an increase in your taxes rather than pay water charges?

Maybe you'll get this without a long winded explanation from me and see my point.
There are over 1 million free travel pass holders some with the right to a companion when travelling. Everyone else pays a significant fare in part to cover the FTP along with government subvention. What if everyone paid a reasonable amount do you think fares would be as high?
Now the previous water charge regime saw so many exceptions and allowances that those had a job or just over a certain limit were going to get creased. So yes I'd pay more vat or excise or property tax knowing the majority would be contributing. Of course with the caveat that the mess IW is be reformed first.

crossman47

Rennaws wrote: »

How about tax reform so everyone pays their fair share.

Which usually means let me alone and make others pay more.

Hitman3000

crossman47 wrote:

Which usually means let me alone and make others pay more.

To me it means get everyone to pay there fair share. Close loopholes, require companies to actually pay the corporate tax rate we have set. Increase the vat rate back to 13.5% for the hospitality sector. Tourism has recovered there is no need for the continued subvention. Money better spent elsewhere, water infrastructure for example which benefits the tourism industry greatly.

VinLieger

Rennaws wrote: »

How about tax reform so everyone pays their fair share.

Tax reform is sorely needed, USC is a fantastic tax and we need more reformike it that pulls in as many people as possible to take up the tax burden. I think its inevitable it will unfortunately be scrapped but in that case wholesale reform of the tax bands needs to be a priority!

The Bishop Basher

crossman47 wrote: »

Which usually means let me alone and make others pay more.

Making others start paying anything at all would be a start..

Which is why I’m a fan of the USC.

Larbre34

Don't forget folks, the charges as levied weren't even going to cover the admin costs of the structure set up to levy them. This means two things, the charges were only going to climb and hitching scope for capital investment to their success was just a red herring.

At the same time, folks in the Cities had been paying pretty eye watering levels of property tax, with zero regard for ability to pay, only to see a whack of of it redistributed to rural areas. So politically, the timing and manner of introducing water charges was naive, miscalculated and doomed. So miscalculated in fact, they have destroyed the chance of bringing in any sort of charging regime for generations.

A couple of things need to happen. 1, Irish Water needs to be abolished and network investment handed over to TII to be handled like the civil engineering challenge it is and let them get on with it using their proven expertise. 2, the Dept of Environment and the Councils need to make water conservation a local civic matter, because it is the right thing to do and do the PR like plastic bags and the smoking ban, put an education programme into schools. Awareness becomes second nature and over time we become better as a Country and managing the resource, particularly if our weather is going to become more extreme.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

Don't forget folks, the charges as levied weren't even going to cover the admin costs of the structure set up to levy them. This means two things, the charges were only going to climb and hitching scope for capital investment to their success was just a red herring.

At the same time, folks in the Cities had been paying pretty eye watering levels of property tax, with zero regard for ability to pay, only to see a whack of of it redistributed to rural areas. So politically, the timing and manner of introducing water charges was naive, miscalculated and doomed. So miscalculated in fact, they have destroyed the chance of bringing in any sort of charging regime for generations.

A couple of things need to happen. 1, Irish Water needs to be abolished and network investment handed over to TII to be handled like the civil engineering challenge it is and let them get on with it using their proven expertise. 2, the Dept of Environment and the Councils need to make water conservation a local civic matter, because it is the right thing to do and do the PR like plastic bags and the smoking ban, put an education programme into schools. Awareness becomes second nature and over time we become better as a Country and managing the resource, particularly if our weather is going to become more extreme.

Link to your claim? Or is it not a fact that it’s the initial setup costs that most of the first years income would cover?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Link to your claim? Or is it not a fact that it’s the initial setup costs that most of the first years income would cover?

So you ask for a link to a claim by making a claim of your own. I'm sure both of you can provide links in that case.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Link to your claim? Or is it not a fact that it’s the initial setup costs that most of the first years income would cover?

Initial set up costs were 1billion plus.

Capped charges in year one were set to bring in over a billion

Nonsense.

McMurphy

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Initial set up costs were 1billion plus.

Capped charges in year one were set to bring in over a billion

Nonsense.

Edit. 2billion


.

facehugger99

Larbre34 wrote: »

A couple of things need to happen. 1, Irish Water needs to be abolished and network investment handed over to TII to be handled like the civil engineering challenge it is and let them get on with it using their proven expertise.

Using the money-tree funds or did you have something else in mind?

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

Using the money-tree funds or did you have something else in mind?

Is the €120B required spend on the project Ireland 2040 plan coming from the money tree too, aye?

PeadarCo

Larbre34 wrote:

A couple of things need to happen. 1, Irish Water needs to be abolished and network investment handed over to TII to be handled like the civil engineering challenge it is and let them get on with it using their proven expertise. 2, the Dept of Environment and the Councils need to make water conservation a local civic matter, because it is the right thing to do and do the PR like plastic bags and the smoking ban, put an education programme into schools. Awareness becomes second nature and over time we become better as a Country and managing the resource, particularly if our weather is going to become more extreme.

Is this not an argument for water charges. Plastic bags were dealt with by taxing them. That is what water charges are a charge on use. In the case of the smoking ban, that made it an offence for a place to allow smoking inside. If this approach was applied to water charges it would mean making it an offence to waste water which is far more extreme than water charges.

What experience does TII have with dealing with water mains. Why experience would they have that Irish water wouldn't?

Larbre34

PeadarCo wrote: »

Is this not an argument for water charges. Plastic bags were dealt with by taxing them. That is what water charges are a charge on use. In the case of the smoking ban, that made it an offence for a place to allow smoking inside. If this approach was applied to water charges it would mean making it an offence to waste water which is far more extreme than water charges.

What experience does TII have with dealing with water mains. Why experience would they have that Irish water wouldn't?

Its an argument for charging for profligacy, but the Govt have ****ed that possibility.

TII are civil engineering project managers, it doesnt particularly matter whether its a motorway a tramline or a pipeline network, they know how to package up projects and deliver them. My point is, they are already in situ, now that charges have gone away, having Irish Water remain is costly duplication of resources.

Larbre34

facehugger99 wrote: »

Using the money-tree funds or did you have something else in mind?

Eh, no, ignorant comment. The same 600m~ per annum out of taxation that is already on the slate. The saving comes in the abolition of Irish Water and using TII for its expertise as i said above.

Irish Water does not equal efficiency.

dense

aido79 wrote: »

So you'd prefer an increase in your taxes rather than pay water charges?

I'd like to see how proposals for tax increases would fly!

Water charges were abolished of course and I don't recall taxes being increased to fill that void.

Nor did I hear that IW has had to abandon their ambitious and much admired investment plans as a result. Indeed, the Shannon thing is even in planning IIRC. Therefore the choice you offered is a non sequitur.

Those with any bit of acumen would now have to agree that the only logical and sensible thing to do now before any plebiscite makes selling it awkward is to offload IW as a going concern to an international utility which presumably would invest the necessary billions required and then play hardball with the peaceful protest types who won't pay the annual charges. Charges which I'm guessing would be multiples of what they were, in order to produce some sort of dividend for investors.

Logic of course is one thing, but the FG/FF alliance has time and time again shown that it doesn't have the political will to do what is necessary to provide us with a first class water system.

It's also worth remembering that in spite of almost 50% leakage, which only on rare occasions causes problems, our system is actually quite good in world terms of penetration, quality, the lack of water poverty, combined with quite a frugal personal consumption rate.

Some would seek to say otherwise of course.

Because again, politics.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Link to your claim? Or is it not a fact that it’s the initial setup costs that most of the first years income would cover?

I'd have thought you would have been schooled enough in this from the multiple IW threads over the years. But OK.

Charges = €170m. Irish Water salaries and pensions, >€70m per annum, not including the Council staff they support. Add in their consultants, property costs, energy, PR (!) and many other overheads and its very clear. Not to mention, if the charges were still there, the cost of the billing admin would be too.

You lost, get over it.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Because people focussed on the small things like board appointments rather than the bigger picture.

It is a sad state of political discussion when people cannot distinguish between what is material and what is important. This failure, egged on by populist charlatan politicians was what brought Irish Water down.

You are misinterpreting my comment.

The board appointments and consultant fees were signs of rot, even before the sweet deal currently under investigation.

These things were an aside. A sign we couldn't trust politicians and their cronies to take care of the tax payers best interests. The water infrastructure was third place after 'looking after our own' and a sweet metering deal.

I'm surprised at this stage you still post such comments. The 'small things' such as 70m on consultants and crony appointments all came to light while opposition to the quango was already in full flow, you know this surely? The framework of the quango was the issue, the many cronyisms and waste of taxpayer money on such 'small things' shouldn't be dismissed. I mean we had no 'magic money tree' for health, housing etc. right? Seems we'd wheelbarrows of dosh for anything IW's little heart desired.

The people brought IW down. Politicians can convince themselves otherwise and if it helps FG/Lab sleep at night, sure it was all Paul Murphy and PBP.... I don't think anyone, including Paul Murphy believes that.

Hitman3000

dense wrote:

Water charges were abolished of course and I don't recall taxes being increased to fill that void.

A poster here was adamant taxes were going to increase and repeatedly asked what taxes we would like to see increased. If I recall correctly income tax fell in the last budget as did usc. Vat remained the same however I believe the hospitality vat rate should be hiked back up to 13.5%. The 9% has served it's reason d' etre.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Is the €120B required spend on the project Ireland 2040 plan coming from the money tree too, aye?

IF we cancelled MetroLink and BusConnects, we would have the money for water infrastructure. Thems the choices.

Unless the magic money tree makes a reappearance.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are misinterpreting my comment.
These things were an aside. A sign we couldn't trust politicians and their cronies to take care of the tax payers best interests. The water infrastructure was third place after 'looking after our own' and a sweet metering deal.

I'm surprised at this stage you still post such comments. The 'small things' such as 70m on consultants and crony appointments all came to light while opposition to the quango was already in full flow, you know this surely? The framework of the quango was the issue, the many cronyisms and waste of taxpayer money on such 'small things' shouldn't be dismissed. I mean we had no 'magic money tree' for health, housing etc. right? Seems we'd wheelbarrows of dosh for anything IW's little heart desired.

The people brought IW down. Politicians can convince themselves otherwise and if it helps FG/Lab sleep at night, sure it was all Paul Murphy and PBP.... I don't think anyone, including Paul Murphy believes that.

Many cronyisms = one board appointment.