Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Comments
-
Johnny Dogs wrote: »It's unreal.
Michael Lowry.
The ongoing Actavo enquiry, ref the water meter contract.
High court orders trying to muzzle speakers in parliament.
Now there's controversy surrounding the broadband plan (Which isn't all new news)
What is FGs infatuations with the man?
I don't think FG tender properly. It's a big world. I can't see why we are whittled down to a few usual suspects in regard to large state contracts. All the likes of O'Brien do is buy up a share in a company related to the tender and then put in offers, (or the other way around?). Surely anybody in business from any where in the world can do that, maybe somebody not having any previous deals investigated? I suppose the water metering went so well...0 -
Fair point...'FG cannot be trusted with major public investment' - Howlin
The Government had previously refused to reveal how much Granahan McCourt is contributing to the deal which will see the private investment company take ownership of the broadband infrastructure.
And today Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe, again said he is not in a position to reveal how much Granahan McCourt will be committing to the project.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0512/1048978-fg-cannot-be-trusted-with-major-public-investment/
Be nice if Labour spoke up on such things when sitting in government alongside them.
I'd go further. Fine Gael don't seem capable or willing to enter into any major public investments unless a private company or consortium stands to benefit and is often shy to reveal details.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Fair point...
Be nice if Labour spoke up on such things when sitting in government alongside them.
I'd go further. Fine Gael don't seem capable or willing to enter into any major public investments unless a private company or consortium stands to benefit and is often shy to reveal details.
Even the shinners are calling for FG to end the spending madness, but I am going to assume Paschal shook down an SF TD one day unbeknownst to the rest of us, and got the GPS coordinates of the "magic money tree"
FG used to continually accuse them of owning.
FF are so outraged at the spending that they're squealing about it, and then going on to support it by propping up their bedfellows.
As for Denis O'Brien, and the broadband infrastructure it's like we learned nothing from the M50.
I'm looking at it as payback for Dinny buying a private hospital, and the government not introducing the much mooted compulsory health insurance back then (few weeks after Dinny acquired his first hospital)
This is a businessman who already acquired a state contract via questionable means with the help of an Fg minister, went on to appear beside an Fg Taosieach at the NYC stock exchange a few years later, and then got given another lucrative state contract (still under an active investigation) - and then tried to silence our very parliament in court (all happening under fg govts) is fairly sinister.
The fact things like this can happen in an apparently first world democracy is unbelievable.0 -
You say 'learned nothing', that suggests the goal is value for the tax payer. They know well what they do when they do it, even if they deny any knowledge yet some how bumble into the same sort of situation with the same people time and again. The similarities between IW and broadband are they both show that if FG want to do something, it gets done and money is no object. I still don't see how either are more important than the housing crisis, but again, that presupposes the goal is for the betterment of the tax payers lot.0
-
Varadkar could have elaborated that due to genuine concerns politicians and the public wanted the whole deal looked at if not scrapped.Responding to Aoibheann, Mr Varadkar said: "I wish we could do things quicker. But my fear is the opposition will stop the contract being signed and we'll be back to square one.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0516/1049842-taoiseach-broadband-inspirefest/
There's form here. Fine Gael shove something through, despite legitimate concerns. Where's this fabled fiscal conservatism? It's reminiscent of Bertie Ahern's quip about the E-Voting machines and how backward we were to be using pencils.
I see PWC are both the experts who said the Children's hospital should go ahead with the overrun and are also the ones investigating if that was a good idea or not. Great stuff.It has now emerged that the same personnel from the consultancy firm who had provided advice to the HSE in November on its decision to proceed with the project, were involved in the review into spending.
At a meeting of the PAC this morning, Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy, said: "The people were essentially being asked if they agreed with themselves, that is what this is."
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0516/1049773-nch_pac/
Obviously trying to keep the location of the magic money tree in house.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Varadkar could have elaborated that due to genuine concerns politicians and the public wanted the whole deal looked at if not scrapped.
There's form here. Fine Gael shove something through, despite legitimate concerns. Where's this fabled fiscal conservatism? It's reminiscent of Bertie Ahern's quip about the E-Voting machines and how backward we were to be using pencils.
I see PWC are both the experts who said the Children's hospital should go ahead with the overrun and are also the ones investigating if that was a good idea or not. Great stuff.
Obviously trying to keep the location of the magic money tree in house.
There are no legitimate concerns about the cost or the process. Any other option will cost more and take longer.
There are serious concerns about the whole idea of broadband to every house in the country, but not a single opposition politician is saying anything about that.0 -
There are no legitimate concerns about the cost or the process. Any other option will cost more and take longer.
There are serious concerns about the whole idea of broadband to every house in the country, but not a single opposition politician is saying anything about that.
How can you say that when they only gave us a sneak peak at the deal the other day, after being pushed? Nobody, including Leo seems to know the costs involved. For a supposed fiscally conservative party they like to play fast and loose with public monies, when it suits. Shouldn't you be talking how there's no magic money tree, it has to come from somewhere etc.?
What do you mean 'about the whole idea'? Broadband to rural areas is a much needed thing IMO. Are you suggesting if they have concerns about costing they don't want it rolled out at all? That's the spin Varadkar was giving the young girl.0 -
There are serious concerns about the whole idea of broadband to every house in the country, but not a single opposition politician is saying anything about that.
Who exactly is come up with these concerns apart from yourself that is? Can you gives a few links and perhaps explain know you are gong to cope with you loose it?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »How can you say that when they only gave us a sneak peak at the deal the other day, after being pushed? Nobody, including Leo seems to know the costs involved. For a supposed fiscally conservative party they like to play fast and loose with public monies, when it suits. Shouldn't you be talking how there's no magic money tree, it has to come from somewhere etc.?
What do you mean 'about the whole idea'? Broadband to rural areas is a much needed thing IMO. Are you suggesting if they have concerns about costing they don't want it rolled out at all? That's the spin Varadkar was giving the young girl.
Broadband to every house in the country is not a much needed thing.
We need to populate villages and towns and stop the one-off housing sprawl. Promising fibre to every house on top of a mountain is a stupid idea. They all know this, but they are afraid to say it.
FG are hoping the opposition stop it so that they can blame them. FF are trying to blame the cost and start again so it never happens. Labour ditto. SF are following the crowd as usual. Not a single one of them has expressed a genuine opinion on the issue.
This is costing €3bn because we are handing over the asset. If we keep the asset, it will cost more because whoever builds it will not get a return so will demand more to build it. The state doesn't have the capacity to build it itself (thanks to FF selling off the Eircom infrastructure) so it would cost about €10bn for the state to do it.
On one thing FG are right - if you want broadband to every house, then this is the only way and the lowest cost. Unfortunately, broadband to every house is the wrong idea.0 -
Just a slight note on this:There are no legitimate concerns about the cost or the process. Any other option will cost more and take longer.
There are serious concerns about the whole idea of broadband to every house in the country, but not a single opposition politician is saying anything about that.
AFAIK the argument is not that every house in the country doesn't need broadband - I think it's generally agreed that this is the ultimate goal. I think the confusion (as with a lot of things in governments of every hue) is the nuance here.
The argument seems to be framed as "fibre" vs "5G" and that "broadband to every home in Ireland" is one or the other. We are aware (or should be aware) that 5G is not the solution - but it is certainly part of the solution. We should be bringing fibre to every town and house in Ireland located in proximity to a town; but we shouldn't be running fibre to really rural locations miles away from the nearest town as they can suffice with 5G.
IIRC 5G quality/speed degradation is likely if we tried to cover all of rural Ireland with just 5G coverage, but not if we were only using it sparingly to fill in black-spots that are too expensive to cover with fibre (i.e. extremely rural locations not near a town).0 -
Advertisement
-
Broadband to every house in the country is not a much needed thing.
We need to populate villages and towns and stop the one-off housing sprawl. Promising fibre to every house on top of a mountain is a stupid idea. They all know this, but they are afraid to say it.
FG are hoping the opposition stop it so that they can blame them. FF are trying to blame the cost and start again so it never happens. Labour ditto. SF are following the crowd as usual. Not a single one of them has expressed a genuine opinion on the issue.
This is costing €3bn because we are handing over the asset. If we keep the asset, it will cost more because whoever builds it will not get a return so will demand more to build it. The state doesn't have the capacity to build it itself (thanks to FF selling off the Eircom infrastructure) so it would cost about €10bn for the state to do it.
On one thing FG are right - if you want broadband to every house, then this is the only way and the lowest cost. Unfortunately, broadband to every house is the wrong idea.
Availability in a country the size of Ireland is achievable and should be a goal, (nobody's talking free broadband).
So we should have kept Eircom over privatising? Interesting.
You say there are "no legitimate concerns" regarding costs, but there is about the rollout. It's quite obviously the opposite.
To suggest FG want the whole thing to go away and hope to blame the opposition is a joke. FG are the ones pushing this through and the opposition and likely public asking for a review. Can you seriously say FG are secretly hoping to stall a Denis O'Brien backed deal? It would be a first for FG to stop and think for a minute over ramming through another ill thought out plan on the tax payer like money isn't an issue and it will all sort itself out, once 'our own' are looked after.0 -
It's like we learnt absolutely nothing from Irish Water.
Government spends more than €14m on consultancy fees for Broadband Plan0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »It's like we learnt absolutely nothing from Irish Water.
Government spends more than €14m on consultancy fees for Broadband Planin February 2015, the same department appointed PwC to provide “strategy development, economic analysis and State Aid advice”.
Can we get a refund?“Regarding the National Broadband Plan, it was KPMG and PwC that recommended the privatisation model that is now due to cost the taxpayer three billion euro for infrastructure the State won’t even own, with serious issues around affordability and the capacity for delivery.
“Since then, we have found out that they have been paid a combined €14m in pursuit of this flawed plan.
“PwC and KPMG are driving the wrong policies with the Government nodding without question.
This is similar to PWC and the CH over run, them advising on it and now investigating if they were right. It's almost funny at this stage.
With all the money on advice and faith they seem to have it's curious how surprised and in the dark they always seem to be when it starts coming apart.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote:It's like we learnt absolutely nothing from Irish Water.
Question how much do you think it should have cost? What area's of the civil service could do the same work and how would would the opportunity cost of the work be for those areas?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Availability in a country the size of Ireland is achievable and should be a goal, (nobody's talking free broadband).
So we should have kept Eircom over privatising? Interesting.
You say there are "no legitimate concerns" regarding costs, but there is about the rollout. It's quite obviously the opposite.
To suggest FG want the whole thing to go away and hope to blame the opposition is a joke. FG are the ones pushing this through and the opposition and likely public asking for a review. Can you seriously say FG are secretly hoping to stall a Denis O'Brien backed deal? It would be a first for FG to stop and think for a minute over ramming through another ill thought out plan on the tax payer like money isn't an issue and it will all sort itself out, once 'our own' are looked after.
FF should have split eircom into the network and the service provider as they did with the ESB. Sell the provider and keep the network as a vital piece of infrastructure.
This process has been going on for years and none of the interested parties that pulled out of the tender are complaining about the value of the contract. That shows that there isn’t a cheaper or better offer on the table. Whether we’ll get value out of the 3bn is another question though.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Can we get a refund?
If you are going to post a quote from a link, at least post it correctly and tell us who said those things.
That quote was entirely verbatim lifted from the article as told by Sinn Féin’s Jonathan O’Brien
As per the sum of money involved, how do you know it was a waste of money?
Or do you subscribe to the idea that we cannot and should not seek outside help when implementing policy decisions? I have no idea if it was a waste or not. Maybe it was, maybe it was a bargain. But the thing is I do not know and I am 100% know that you don't either, but want to jump on the latest 'what the government did now' bandwagon.
Guys like you remind me of the same people years ago, giving out about Enda Kenny going to an EU summit on the government jet.
Well, did they want the leader of the nation checking into a Ryanair flight instead, or maybe he should have swum there?
The anti-intellectual, populist, easy solution making, rent a gob mentality on full display by Sinn Féin’s Jonathan O’Brien.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Availability in a country the size of Ireland is achievable and should be a goal, (nobody's talking free broadband).
If we are talking actual fibre broadband to every home then it is essentially free given the cost of implementing it versus what a lot of rural homeowners would actually pay.
What actual alternatives have been proposed?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Availability in a country the size of Ireland is achievable and should be a goal, (nobody's talking free broadband).
To be honest, that statement goes beyond lands flowing with milk and honey and into the realms of taxing unicorns and rainbows.
How can you say that it is achievable? Do you have any independent evidence to back up this statement?Matt Barrett wrote: »
So we should have kept Eircom over privatising? Interesting.
We should have kept the fixed line infrastructure as when we split ESB and Eirgrid. That is on FF. To be fair, the lesson was learned.Matt Barrett wrote: »You say there are "no legitimate concerns" regarding costs, but there is about the rollout. It's quite obviously the opposite.
Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper.
On the other hand, not a single other country in the world, bar small city states, have pursued a policy of fibre broadband to every home. Why? Because it costs too much and isn't a worthwhile policy.Matt Barrett wrote: »To suggest FG want the whole thing to go away and hope to blame the opposition is a joke. FG are the ones pushing this through and the opposition and likely public asking for a review. Can you seriously say FG are secretly hoping to stall a Denis O'Brien backed deal? It would be a first for FG to stop and think for a minute over ramming through another ill thought out plan on the tax payer like money isn't an issue and it will all sort itself out, once 'our own' are looked after.
Politics is simple. This is how FG see it.
(1) Project goes through - We are bringing broadband to every house in the country while those idiots in the opposition are trying to deny it to you. Result: Votes.
(2) Project doesn't go through - That mean opposition has stopped us bringing broadband to you. They have made us go back to the start and it will cost more and take longer. Result: Votes for FG rather than opposition.
If (2) happens, they don't have to actually spend the €3bn and can spend it on Luas in Cork and DART Underground. Result: Bonus votes.
In response to this scenario, the opposition are playing the mismanagement card as it is the only one they have. It actually doesn't matter to them that going back to start will mean a higher cost and longer delay. They will blame that on FG. It also doesn't matter that this is the wrong idea as there are no votes in that. They hope that the public focus on the mismanagement issue rather than on the subsequent delay. As they are only interested in the next election, the problem in five years time of people living on top of a mountain asking where is my broadband can be dealt with then.
As a result of the political playacting (essentially a result of minority government), the real issue of why should we actually bring fibre to every boreen in the country is being ignored.
It is actually interesting to read the threads on this. You can see clearly those who are just following a party line and parrotting there is no other option (FG) or this is all about consultants, Denis O'Brien and the cost (FF, SF, PBP).
The real independent thinkers are questioning the rationale for the whole project.0 -
Question how much do you think it should have cost? What area's of the civil service could do the same work and how would would the opportunity cost of the work be for those areas?
It use to be carried out by the LA's and contractors, overseen by the Dept. of the Environment, now it's carried out by the LA's and contractors, but with an IW HQ and more money for upgrades. I never saw any point in IW, (and therefore consultants, board, laughing yoga etc.) outside of FG looking after it's own. Not to forget the Sitserv deal is still under investigation.FF should have split eircom into the network and the service provider as they did with the ESB. Sell the provider and keep the network as a vital piece of infrastructure.
This process has been going on for years and none of the interested parties that pulled out of the tender are complaining about the value of the contract. That shows that there isn’t a cheaper or better offer on the table. Whether we’ll get value out of the 3bn is another question though.
We should have maintained control over infrastructure and leased out access much like Eir do. We could have worked in a deal on upgrading.
The broadband deal isn't like an election were we have to have a government so we cobble one together despite it not being ideal. If there's no decent deal, revisit the tendering process, look beyond Denis O'Brien and chums. It's a big world.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Did you think it might have been Pascal? If you can't be bothered following the provided link, that's on you.
Link dumping is against the charter, my friend.0 -
To be honest, that statement goes beyond lands flowing with milk and honey and into the realms of taxing unicorns and rainbows.
How can you say that it is achievable? Do you have any independent evidence to back up this statement?
indeedin I do:Fine Gael will use roadside street lights to introduce high-speed broadband to every part of the country, according to the party's local election manifesto.
A draft copy of the election manifesto, which has been obtained by the Sunday Independent, says Fine Gael will roll out broadband for every home, business or school, "regardless of how remote or rural" their location is.
https://www.independent.ie/ca/irish-news/politics/fg-promises-highspeed-broadband-by-street-light-38035416.htmlWe should have kept the fixed line infrastructure as when we split ESB and Eirgrid. That is on FF. To be fair, the lesson was learned.
I agree, but there was no lesson. As I said to Johnny the other day that presupposes value for the taxpayer is the goal.Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper.
Just yesterday you were saying nobody had legitimate concerns about costing.
I know it's costing is flawed so how do you know it couldn't? Part of the problem is FG pushing ahead with a questionable process and thankfully jack of all trades Denis O'Brien and his consortium were the last men standing willing to brazen out the deal because they care so much I'd imagine. I find it unlikely that the water meter man is in it for kicks and if his consortium see a shilling in it, others might too?
See below:Major value-for-money reports on the National Broadband Plan consistently overestimated by €1 billion costs facing the operator.
The error in the cost-benefit analyses carried out by PwC was discovered only in the weeks before the Government decided to proceed with the plan.
The mistaken figure, which overestimated the costs to the operator by €1.079 billion, was discovered between February and April.
That error, coupled with repeated concerns expressed about the robustness and basis of the study, led the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) to conclude the cost-benefit analysis was not credible.
The €1 billion error is disclosed in the final lengthy submission the department made to Government opposing the project.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/value-reports-on-broadband-plan-overstated-operator-costs-by-1bn-1.3892370On the other hand, not a single other country in the world, bar small city states, have pursued a policy of fibre broadband to every home. Why? Because it costs too much and isn't a worthwhile policy.
I disagree. If we are selling ourselves as a tech savvy nation we need availability to broadband. Not every home would want it, but if they do they should be able to get it IMO. This would help business set up outside of Dublin for instance.Politics is simple. This is how FG see it.
(1) Project goes through - We are bringing broadband to every house in the country while those idiots in the opposition are trying to deny it to you. Result: Votes.
(2) Project doesn't go through - That mean opposition has stopped us bringing broadband to you. They have made us go back to the start and it will cost more and take longer. Result: Votes for FG rather than opposition.
If (2) happens, they don't have to actually spend the €3bn and can spend it on Luas in Cork and DART Underground. Result: Bonus votes.
Pretty much, but it's how Fine Gael works, not politics. We are just battle weary dealing with low grade political parties such as FF/FG to expect any better.In response to this scenario, the opposition are playing the mismanagement card as it is the only one they have. It actually doesn't matter to them that going back to start will mean a higher cost and longer delay. They will blame that on FG. It also doesn't matter that this is the wrong idea as there are no votes in that. They hope that the public focus on the mismanagement issue rather than on the subsequent delay. As they are only interested in the next election, the problem in five years time of people living on top of a mountain asking where is my broadband can be dealt with then.
I would happily go back to square one as Leo put it rather than build on sand with a money hole adjacent. It could well end up like IW/metering, 'our own' will make out like bandits and it all falls apart at great waste to the tax payer.As a result of the political playacting (essentially a result of minority government), the real issue of why should we actually bring fibre to every boreen in the country is being ignored.
It is actually interesting to read the threads on this. You can see clearly those who are just following a party line and parrotting there is no other option (FG) or this is all about consultants, Denis O'Brien and the cost (FF, SF, PBP).
The real independent thinkers are questioning the rationale for the whole project.
Not one person in government anyway.
It's a vote getter for sure but I think if we have access in rural areas it might just breath economic life into some.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I disagree. If we are selling ourselves as a tech savvy nation we need availability to broadband. Not every home would want it, but if they do they should be able to get it IMO. This would help business set up outside of Dublin for instance.
It's a vote getter for sure but I think if we have access in rural areas it might just breath economic life into some.
Ensuring broadband access in every town (or even village) in Ireland would have the benefits you are looking for. The economic benefit of connecting a one-off house in rural Galway to broadband is going to be utterly negligible and is irrelevant to our "tech-savvy" image.
The general argument of that IT article seems to be that the whole project should be scrapped, not that it could be done cheaper.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »indeedin I do:
I agree, but there was no lesson. As I said to Johnny the other day that presupposes value for the taxpayer is the goal.
Just yesterday you were saying nobody had legitimate concerns about costing.
I know it's costing is flawed so how do you know it couldn't? Part of the problem is FG pushing ahead with a questionable process and thankfully jack of all trades Denis O'Brien and his consortium were the last men standing willing to brazen out the deal because they care so much I'd imagine. I find it unlikely that the water meter man is in it for kicks and if his consortium see a shilling in it, others might too?
See below:
I disagree. If we are selling ourselves as a tech savvy nation we need availability to broadband. Not every home would want it, but if they do they should be able to get it IMO. This would help business set up outside of Dublin for instance.
Pretty much, but it's how Fine Gael works, not politics. We are just battle weary dealing with low grade political parties such as FF/FG to expect any better.
I would happily go back to square one as Leo put it rather than build on sand with a money hole adjacent. It could well end up like IW/metering, 'our own' will make out like bandits and it all falls apart at great waste to the tax payer.
Not one person in government anyway.
It's a vote getter for sure but I think if we have access in rural areas if might just breath economic life into some.
Just to remind you, I asked whether anyone had set out whether it could be done cheaper?
This was the key point of my post that you were replying to:
"Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper."
That point remains unanswered, because everyone knows that it will cost at least €3 billion, probably a lot more in the end.
As for breathing life into rural areas, that only works if you end one-off housing and build villages and towns. At the moment, the contribution to climate change problems from one-off rural dwellers is huge, that can't continue.0 -
Ensuring broadband access in every town (or even village) in Ireland would have the benefits you are looking for. The economic benefit of connecting a one-off house in rural Galway to broadband is going to be utterly negligible and is irrelevant to our "tech-savvy" image.
The general argument of that IT article seems to be that the whole project should be scrapped, not that it could be done cheaper.
I don't know what charges will be like for one off connection. Are they obliged to offer connections at a loss? If in the least every town and village have access it would be a good thing IMO.
I was using it to show that any ideas on cost are pretty much based on flawed PWC assessments.Just to remind you, I asked whether anyone had set out whether it could be done cheaper?
This was the key point of my post that you were replying to:
"Again, not a single person has been able to explain how to do it cheaper, not one. No politician, no poster on here. They have whinged and cried about the cost, but haven't been able to say how it could be done cheaper."
That point remains unanswered, because everyone knows that it will cost at least €3 billion, probably a lot more in the end.
In the interest of pedantry, I did not directly answer your question. To clarify, nobody seems to know exactly how much it will cost therefore I cannot say if it could be done cheaper, only that costs, thus far, have been exaggerated. I thought I made that pretty clear in my initial response.
Maybe we should look at who dropped out of the tendering process and if PWC miscalculations on costing played a role. Also what kept Denis O'Brien's consortium in gaining them preferred bidder status, while others dropped out, despite PWC miscalculations?
Not to forget PWC investigating their own advice re the Children's Hospital. The state/FG business phone book must be the size of a post-it.0 -
So Leo and Trump, Dromoland Castle or nowhere? Dont think the Don will meet him anywhere other than Doonbeg, its the bestest golf course in the world, etc and he's not going to give a competitor good publicity. Rumours were circulating that if it Leo doesnt go down to Doonbeg then the trip is off and he'll just visit Scotland instead.0
-
Matt Barrett wrote:It use to be carried out by the LA's and contractors, overseen by the Dept. of the Environment, now it's carried out by the LA's and contractors, but with an IW HQ and more money for upgrades. I never saw any point in IW, (and therefore consultants, board, laughing yoga etc.) outside of FG looking after it's own. Not to forget the Sitserv deal is still under investigation.
I notice in all of what you have posted you have avoided my question cost. Care to answer it?0 -
I notice in all of what you have posted you have avoided my question cost. Care to answer it?
I didn't avoid it. I commented on the topic.
Zero, by the way. It wasn't needed at all. I said as much. Apologies if it wasn't clear enough. The Dept. of the Environment could have continued overseeing the LA's and contractors without setting up IW. The only difference we see is a national improvement plan of sorts and more money, which might have been substantially more if not for IW and the metering farce, consultants, payback, jobs for our own, sweet deal, laughing yoga etc.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,197 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37025
Link dumping is against the charter, my friend.
So is backseat modding. Use the report function if you see a problem.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote:I didn't avoid it. I commented on the topic. Zero, by the way. It wasn't needed at all. I said as much. Apologies if it wasn't clear enough. The Dept. of the Environment could have continued overseeing the LA's and contractors without setting up IW. The only difference we see is a national improvement plan of sorts and more money, which might have been substantially more if not for IW and the metering farce, consultants, payback, jobs for our own, sweet deal, laughing yoga etc.
My comment wasn't about Irish water my comment was about the broadband contract. What was superfluous about the work that was done?
Consultant's exist because they have very specialised skills that are too costly to maintain for most organisations on a normal basis.
On the topic of Irish water unfortunately I disagree. The idea that you wouldn't need to bring in specialists when starting it up and taking over from the 30 odd country councils is completely unrealistic in terms of IT alone, never mind all the other transitional issues which the Irish public sector has a bad reputation of managing. The HSE and Ppars project being stand out examples.0
Advertisement