Water ownership...It hasn't gone away you know.

James Brown

charlie14 wrote: »

Not just costed 1 Billion euros.

Absolutely squandered 1 Billion euros on a complete and total fiasco.

It was not u-turns from FG and Labour in 2011.
It was both lying through their teeth in order to get into government.

More a seismic shift of priorities. Who would have thought in the wake of a historic financial crisis a metering contract and quango would be such an urgency?

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More a seismic shift of priorities. Who would have thought in the wake of a historic financial crisis a metering contract and quango would be such an urgency?

Denis unbelievably just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Good loser

charlie14 wrote: »

Not just costed 1 Billion euros.

Absolutely squandered 1 Billion euros on a complete and total fiasco.

It was not u-turns from FG and Labour in 2011.
It was both lying through their teeth in order to get into government.

A conspiracy?

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More a seismic shift of priorities. Who would have thought in the wake of a historic financial crisis a metering contract and quango would be such an urgency?

The conspiracy? Number 28?

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Denis unbelievably just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

A conspiracy?

Quin_Dub

Good loser wrote: »

A conspiracy?

Good loser wrote: »

The conspiracy? Number 28?

Good loser wrote: »

A conspiracy?

##Mod Note##

Cut out the one liners please .

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Not just costed 1 Billion euros.

Absolutely squandered 1 Billion euros on a complete and total fiasco.

It was not u-turns from FG and Labour in 2011.
It was both lying through their teeth in order to get into government.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More a seismic shift of priorities. Who would have thought in the wake of a historic financial crisis a metering contract and quango would be such an urgency?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Denis unbelievably just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

It is an interesting read to see these types of myths persist despite no hard evidence ever having been presented to back them up.

The internet revolution, like the print revolution and the newspaper revolution before it, has led to the proliferation of information, much of which is uniformed speculation at best. The resulting effects on our political discourse are plainly evident in the likes of Brexit and the rise of Trump, but closer to home, the illogical opposition to water charges is our own Irish contribution.

When historians look back on this period, they will have a lot to say.

FreudianSlippers

pearcider wrote: »

3 quid a week. 150 a year not bad!! Yeah sure! It’s 450 a year now in the UK. About 1300 a year in USA. The price will go up when it’s privatised. That’s the whole point.

charlie14 wrote: »

No credible evidence in 2011 that tax payers were going to be scalped for a clusterf**k that cost north of 1 Billion euro either.
Just shows what a stroke of a government minister`s pen can do.

All parties have admitted there is no danger of privatisation. Even if the government wanted to privatise it, no rational sane person would purchase Irish Water.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

It is an interesting read to see these types of myths persist despite no hard evidence ever having been presented to back them up.

The internet revolution, like the print revolution and the newspaper revolution before it, has led to the proliferation of information, much of which is uniformed speculation at best. The resulting effects on our political discourse are plainly evident in the likes of Brexit and the rise of Trump, but closer to home, the illogical opposition to water charges is our own Irish contribution.

When historians look back on this period, they will have a lot to say.

When historians look back on the period of water charges I doubt they will miss the fact that the two parties elected to govern that attempted to impose them were elected on a policy off one of no water charges, and of the other that they would not come into force until we had a world class water and waste water service.
I doubt they will also miss that not only having lied, both parties then proceeded to waste I Billion euro, (while simultaneously imposing severe austerity measures), on a domestic water metering programme that with full compliance wouldn`t contribute a cent to services. Nor I doubt they will miss that there was a further free money waste of taxpayers money on a water conservation bribe that had no connection too water conservation.


Throw in a CEO that had previously left a trail of disasters in his wake, the re-emergence of an old friend getting a lucrative contract to install meters and the minister to oversaw the fiasco being elevated to a position of EU commissioner and I imagine there will be a lot of historical speculation as to just what the hell they were at.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

All parties have admitted there is no danger of privatisation. Even if the government wanted to privatise it, no rational sane person would purchase Irish Water.

No rational sane person would have thought a few years ago that any government would come up with the policy FG attempted with water charges. Yet here we are and a fortune of taxpayers money wasted.

James Brown

Not even ten years ago anyone with the idea of buying, (albeit at a bargain) a company to enter into the world of metering domestic water supply in Ireland would be called insane, but some people are just lucky I guess.

Water will be bigger than oil quicker than most are willing to acknowledge.

Water set to become more valuable than oil
He cited projections that by 2035 some 40 per cent of the world population will live in areas facing water scarcity. This would put companies in competition with people and farming for supplies.
https://www.ft.com/content/fa9f125c-0b0d-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43

Water Is The New Oil
Water is visibly showing through as a root cause of nearly every headline issue transforming the world order and planetary environment: Freshwater scarcity is a key reason why 3.5 billion people are projected to live in countries that cannot feed themselves by 2025. Earth’s freshwater ecosystems are critically depleted and being used unsustainably, reported the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, for today’s 6.5 billion population much less for the 9 billion we’ll be by 2050. Extreme droughts, floods, melting glaciers and other water cycle-related effects of global warming are why there’ll likely be 150 million global climate refugees within a decade. Diplomats warn that 21st century conflicts will be fought over water as they were for oil in the 20th.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-solomon/water-is-the-new-oil_b_380803.html

It wouldn't be long before we've some young bright lights in FG/FF saying how we could be making money for hospital beds and schools if we privatised our water. All the while conducting inappropriate behaviour with private concerns. That's unless they have a complete change or character which is a hell of a lot more unlikely than privatisation IMO.

Sure it falls from the sky and we've oceans full of it...

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Even if the government wanted to privatise it, no rational sane person would purchase Irish Water.

Irish Water had a ready made customer base, sure haven't we been getting reminded weekly on how "water charges haven't gone away" and how legislation own these to ensure compliance etc etc etc.

That wasn't the case with siteserv mind you, but they still found a buyer for it.

And juicy government contracts soon followed.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not even ten years ago anyone with the idea of buying, (albeit at a bargain) a company to enter into the world of metering domestic water supply in Ireland would be called insane, but some people are just lucky I guess.

Water will be bigger than oil quicker than most are willing to acknowledge.

The Huffington Post article you reference is from 2011. It is out-of-date because of progress on desalination.

http://www.iwa-network.org/desalination-past-present-future/

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/desalination3.htm

"If the desalination process improves, it could have the potential to change entire water-poor regions for the better."

https://www.ecowatch.com/bill-nye-solar-powered-desalination-could-be-key-to-the-future-1882195012.html

"Israel already supplies 40 percent of its drinking water from desalination. That number is projected to climb to 70 percent by 2050."

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/research-development-global-desalination-industry/

"As a climate-independent source of water, however, desalination remains the best option for the most climate-sensitive parts of the world. Further research and development is likely to make it an increasingly attractive option."


You keep using out-of-date references and scaremongering in relation to water wars. The reality is that technological advances in relation to desalination are making your scary future melt away long before it happens.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It wouldn't be long before we've some young bright lights in FG/FF saying how we could be making money for hospital beds and schools if we privatised our water. All the while conducting inappropriate behaviour with private concerns. That's unless they have a complete change or character which is a hell of a lot more unlikely than privatisation IMO.

Sure it falls from the sky and we've oceans full of it...

This is completely irrational and has no basis in reality. There never was a privatisation agenda, and certainly not one where people were conspiring to enrich private concerns as you so clearly imply.


Edit: Another excellent article on desalination:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/03/desalination-answer-water-crisis/

"Finally, we must still stress conservation and using existing water supplies more thoughtfully and efficiently. However, conservation and reuse alone will not avoid water crises around the world. Desalination and point of use systems must supplement conservation."

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not even ten years ago anyone with the idea of buying, (albeit at a bargain) a company to enter into the world of metering domestic water supply in Ireland would be called insane, but some people are just lucky I guess.

Water will be bigger than oil quicker than most are willing to acknowledge.





It wouldn't be long before we've some young bright lights in FG/FF saying how we could be making money for hospital beds and schools if we privatised our water. All the while conducting inappropriate behaviour with private concerns. That's unless they have a complete change or character which is a hell of a lot more unlikely than privatisation IMO.

Sure it falls from the sky and we've oceans full of it...

You've again confused the commodity with the provision of service.

Beyond laughable at this point that we're still stuck on the absolute most basic of facts.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The Huffington Post article you reference is from 2011. It is out-of-date because of progress on desalination.

http://www.iwa-network.org/desalination-past-present-future/

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/desalination3.htm

"If the desalination process improves, it could have the potential to change entire water-poor regions for the better."

https://www.ecowatch.com/bill-nye-solar-powered-desalination-could-be-key-to-the-future-1882195012.html

"Israel already supplies 40 percent of its drinking water from desalination. That number is projected to climb to 70 percent by 2050."

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/research-development-global-desalination-industry/

"As a climate-independent source of water, however, desalination remains the best option for the most climate-sensitive parts of the world. Further research and development is likely to make it an increasingly attractive option."


You keep using out-of-date references and scaremongering in relation to water wars. The reality is that technological advances in relation to desalination are making your scary future melt away long before it happens.






This is completely irrational and has no basis in reality. There never was a privatisation agenda, and certainly not one where people were conspiring to enrich private concerns as you so clearly imply.


Edit: Another excellent article on desalination:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/03/desalination-answer-water-crisis/

"Finally, we must still stress conservation and using existing water supplies more thoughtfully and efficiently. However, conservation and reuse alone will not avoid water crises around the world. Desalination and point of use systems must supplement conservation."

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make, but when it comes to your apparent favouring of desalination, especially in a country that spends half the year virtually under water, you look to be in agreement with the poster that water will become a valuable commercial entity.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make, but when it comes to your apparent favouring of desalination, especially in a country that spends half the year virtually under water, you look to be in agreement with the poster that water will become a valuable commercial entity.

I apologise that I have failed to explain it clearly to you.

A poster has claimed repeatedly that the world is facing wars over water, and hence it is important to have a constitutional amendment to protect ownership of the water service. The most recent mention included a link to a 2011 article.

I could have pointed to the lack of such water wars since 2011, but rather I have explained (through the links I have produced) that the technologies behind desalination and solar power are advancing at a rate so as to make the scarcity of freshwater much less of an issue. One of the countries often mentioned as being under a water threat - Israel - will be producing 70% of its water needs from desalination by 2050. Other countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia in a similar situation are also well advanced. Even the USA is getting on board.

The threat, as portrayed on here, of water becoming as scarce a commodity as oil is fast receding. Technology is proving the answer, rather than war.

pearcider

blanch152 wrote: »

I apologise that I have failed to explain it clearly to you.

A poster has claimed repeatedly that the world is facing wars over water, and hence it is important to have a constitutional amendment to protect ownership of the water service. The most recent mention included a link to a 2011 article.

I could have pointed to the lack of such water wars since 2011, but rather I have explained (through the links I have produced) that the technologies behind desalination and solar power are advancing at a rate so as to make the scarcity of freshwater much less of an issue. One of the countries often mentioned as being under a water threat - Israel - will be producing 70% of its water needs from desalination by 2050. Other countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia in a similar situation are also well advanced. Even the USA is getting on board.

The threat, as portrayed on here, of water becoming as scarce a commodity as oil is fast receding. Technology is proving the answer, rather than war.

Israel is a tiny and very rich country. Most countries will be struggling for water. This is one of the key drivers of the migration trends. Anyway if you focus on peer countries like the US and UK their water bill have exploded. So the 3 euro a week being peddled by the establishment is absolute rubbish. Thankfully most people have the common sense to realise bills only go one way.

James Brown

charlie14 wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make, but when it comes to your apparent favouring of desalination, especially in a country that spends half the year virtually under water, you look to be in agreement with the poster that water will become a valuable commercial entity.

Seems to be arguing water isn't a valuable commodity because those without it are going to various lengths to produce it, which is an odd point to attempt.

If there's money in it FF/FG will take full advantage to the detriment of the tax paying public, case in point, IW/Metering and any major policies you wish to look at re housing, IMO. The idea that FF/FG would never privatise is the height of naivety considering their character and track record.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I apologise that I have failed to explain it clearly to you.

A poster has claimed repeatedly that the world is facing wars over water, and hence it is important to have a constitutional amendment to protect ownership of the water service. The most recent mention included a link to a 2011 article.

I could have pointed to the lack of such water wars since 2011, but rather I have explained (through the links I have produced) that the technologies behind desalination and solar power are advancing at a rate so as to make the scarcity of freshwater much less of an issue. One of the countries often mentioned as being under a water threat - Israel - will be producing 70% of its water needs from desalination by 2050. Other countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia in a similar situation are also well advanced. Even the USA is getting on board.

The threat, as portrayed on here, of water becoming as scarce a commodity as oil is fast receding. Technology is proving the answer, rather than war.

No need to apologise.

You made the point very clearly just how valuable water as a commodity is becoming worldwide, and like any valuable commodity private enterprise by its nature will be more than eager to attempt to exploit it for profit.
Have already in other countries in fact.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

No need to apologise.

You made the point very clearly just how valuable water as a commodity is becoming worldwide, and like any valuable commodity private enterprise by its nature will be more than eager to attempt to exploit it for profit.
Have already in other countries in fact.

Quite the opposite. Because of improving technology not only in terms of lower cost of purification and lower cost of desalination but also in terms of efficient and effective methods of lowering usage, water is no longer as valuable a commodity.

Private companies aren't interested in diminishing profits and increased competition, so I really don't understand the basis of the privatisation paranoia.

pearcider

It’s not paranoia at all. Look at the UK. Water bills are massive over there around a grand per household. So when the blue shirts tell us we will only be paying a few hundred they are lying. The major water companies make hundreds of millions per year and are worth tens of billions. They are mostly owned by hedge funds and big banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. These boys kill each other to buy them out. Because they are monopolies that provide essential services. If you think these boys have value for money for the taxpayer and citizens interests at heart I can only assume you are trolling. Thankfully the Irish can still call out a scam when they see one.

Larbre34

I must agree with the honourable and learned member above. The University of Greenwich, London published a report late last year into the current state of play of the UK private water industry, given the debate on re-nationalisation of same prompted by UK Labour.

In the decade to 2017, the combined 25 private water companies generated over Stg £40 billion in profits and dividends for shareholders. In the case of the biggest, Thames Water, these investors were mainly an Australian bank and a Canadian pension fund.

So while water bills in the UK are running at 40% above inflation since privatisation in 1989 and 2 million households now require payment support just to meet their water bill, the profits generated on their backs are leaving Britain to feather far flung nests.

Now its clear to see how this sort of situation feeds into the febrile brexit feelings in the UK, but thats a whole other thread. The takeaway point is that Irish people can see this stuff on the horizon (in fact we already experience it in other sectors) and the easiest way to avoid it with water, is to not risk going down that road in the first place. Given nobody can trust our politicians and cosseted mandarins not to flog family silver for political expediency, we have to put this particular temptation beyond their reach and permanently nationalise the resource and the management of conservation and distribution.

In the past decade, we have seen the 'remunicipalisation' of water services, in Berlin, Paris, a bunch of other French cites and in other notable spots around the World, while Italy and Greece soundly rejected further privatisation, even in the face of EU and IMF pressure. These were expensive and fraught exercises in these places and indeed a harsh lesson, one that Ireland can still, and looks like will, avoid.

The EU Commission has been so bashed up on the topic of water, even having its own treaty innovation, the 'European Citizens Initiative' turned on it in anger in the matter, that it has a new policy of remaining neutral on all national decisions concerning the ownership of water.

Celia Blauel, boss of publicly owned 'Eau de Paris' puts it succinctly - "Private firms cannot manage a common good like water in the public interest. The success of the Paris remunicipalisation, has convinced many other cities, whatever their political colour, that public water is an option"

Ireland can certainly mirror that model. A constitutional protection will be the motivation, the compulsion even, to make a success of it. On reaching Mexico, Hernan Cortes burned his own fleet so his men would have just two options, conquer or die. Obviating the option for future private interests to creep into water will similarly focus our public representatives and their bureaucrats.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Because of improving technology not only in terms of lower cost of purification and lower cost of desalination but also in terms of efficient and effective methods of lowering usage, water is no longer as valuable a commodity.

Private companies aren't interested in diminishing profits and increased competition, so I really don't understand the basis of the privatisation paranoia.

Again I have no idea of what you are attempting to say here on desalination.
Are you actually suggesting that in this country where we are virtually under water for much of the year, that it makes some kind of financial and practical sense to establish desalination plants rather than process rainwater.


You appear to have very little understanding of how private companies operate. Especially if they have cornered the market on a particular commodity.
It is not in their interests to reduce consumption and thus reduce their profits. If consumption of a commodity they have cornered the market on is reduced, then they simply increase the unit price.

James Brown

charlie14 wrote: »

Again I have no idea of what you are attempting to say here on desalination.
Are you actually suggesting that in this country where we are virtually under water for much of the year, that it makes some kind of financial and practical sense to establish desalination plants rather than process rainwater.


You appear to have very little understanding of how private companies operate. Especially if they have cornered the market on a particular commodity.
It is not in their interests to reduce consumption and thus reduce their profits. If consumption of a commodity they have cornered the market on is reduced, then they simply increase the unit price.

Calling valid concern 'Paranoia' is either naivety or actively trying to close down debate IMO.

McMurphy

charlie14 wrote: »

Again I have no idea of what you are attempting to say here on desalination.
Are you actually suggesting that in this country where we are virtually under water for much of the year, that it makes some kind of financial and practical sense to establish desalination plants rather than process rainwater.


You appear to have very little understanding of how private companies operate. Especially if they have cornered the market on a particular commodity.
It is not in their interests to reduce consumption and thus reduce their profits. If consumption of a commodity they have cornered the market on is reduced, then they simply increase the unit price.

Wasn't that one of the initial plans Irish Water had in place, something about increasing unit costs if consumption levels decreased?

That called out their conservation guff right there.

Good loser

Larbre34 wrote: »

I must agree with the honourable and learned member above. The University of Greenwich, London published a report late last year into the current state of play of the UK private water industry, given the debate on re-nationalisation of same prompted by UK Labour.

In the decade to 2017, the combined 25 private water companies generated over Stg £40 billion in profits and dividends for shareholders. In the case of the biggest, Thames Water, these investors were mainly an Australian bank and a Canadian pension fund.

So while water bills in the UK are running at 40% above inflation since privatisation in 1989 and 2 million households now require payment support just to meet their water bill, the profits generated on their backs are leaving Britain to feather far flung nests.

Now its clear to see how this sort of situation feeds into the febrile brexit feelings in the UK, but thats a whole other thread. The takeaway point is that Irish people can see this stuff on the horizon (in fact we already experience it in other sectors) and the easiest way to avoid it with water, is to not risk going down that road in the first place. Given nobody can trust our politicians and cosseted mandarins not to flog family silver for political expediency, we have to put this particular temptation beyond their reach and permanently nationalise the resource and the management of conservation and distribution.

In the past decade, we have seen the 'remunicipalisation' of water services, in Berlin, Paris, a bunch of other French cites and in other notable spots around the World, while Italy and Greece soundly rejected further privatisation, even in the face of EU and IMF pressure. These were expensive and fraught exercises in these places and indeed a harsh lesson, one that Ireland can still, and looks like will, avoid.

The EU Commission has been so bashed up on the topic of water, even having its own treaty innovation, the 'European Citizens Initiative' turned on it in anger in the matter, that it has a new policy of remaining neutral on all national decisions concerning the ownership of water.

Celia Blauel, boss of publicly owned 'Eau de Paris' puts it succinctly - "Private firms cannot manage a common good like water in the public interest. The success of the Paris remunicipalisation, has convinced many other cities, whatever their political colour, that public water is an option"

Ireland can certainly mirror that model. A constitutional protection will be the motivation, the compulsion even, to make a success of it. On reaching Mexico, Hernan Cortes burned his own fleet so his men would have just two options, conquer or die. Obviating the option for future private interests to creep into water will similarly focus our public representatives and their bureaucrats.

The arguments for privatising water services are marginal. Don't see in any circumstances an Irish parliament pushing one through.
If there was a referendum I would certainly oppose putting a prohibition in the Const. I would expect such a ref to be defeated.


Otherwise the FF decision to remove water charges was an example of party opportunism at its most shameful.

Larbre34

Good loser wrote: »

The arguments for privatising water services are marginal. Don't see in any circumstances an Irish parliament pushing one through.
If there was a referendum I would certainly oppose putting a prohibition in the Const. I would expect such a ref to be defeated.


Otherwise the FF decision to remove water charges was an example of party opportunism at its most shameful.

In any circumstances? Quite a lot of folk would've said the same about abortion rights, yet here we are. Do you really think a referendum would be defeated? The people have no real reason to defeat it and theres nothing to lose by passing it. I hardly think given the mass participation in action against the charges that there'll be many of joe public going to bat for potential commercial interests in this climate.

You fail to see your own point, that opportunism is a feature of the political landscape at any time in Ireland, but even moreso in this time of populism and no clear majority on the horizon. Love or loathe the motivation behind it, it remains the reality.

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

The arguments for privatising water services are marginal. Don't see in any circumstances an Irish parliament pushing one through.
If there was a referendum I would certainly oppose putting a prohibition in the Const. I would expect such a ref to be defeated.


Otherwise the FF decision to remove water charges was an example of party opportunism at its most shameful.

I would not have seen any circumstances where an Irish government would have pushed the fiasco on water charge FG pushed through the Dail. Yet they did.

Other than the absolute astronomical waste of taxpayers money while said taxpayers were being cut to the bone with austerity measures, people learned a very costly lesson on just what the stroke of a ministerial pen can do. Especially when a minister has no mandate from the electorate to do so.

If only on that basis alone I very much doubt a constitutional referendum proposal put to the people on ensuring water is never privatised would not pass with a very large majority.

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

In any circumstances? Quite a lot of folk would've said the same about abortion rights, yet here we are. Do you really think a referendum would be defeated? The people have no real reason to defeat it and theres nothing to lose by passing it. I hardly think given the mass participation in action against the charges that there'll be many of joe public going to bat for potential commercial interests in this climate.

You fail to see your own point, that opportunism is a feature of the political landscape at any time in Ireland, but even moreso in this time of populism and no clear majority on the horizon. Love or loathe the motivation behind it, it remains the reality.

Several unintended consequences have been identified multiple times on this thread, so hardly nothing to lose.

Good loser

Larbre34 wrote: »

In any circumstances? Quite a lot of folk would've said the same about abortion rights, yet here we are. Do you really think a referendum would be defeated? The people have no real reason to defeat it and theres nothing to lose by passing it. I hardly think given the mass participation in action against the charges that there'll be many of joe public going to bat for potential commercial interests in this climate.

You fail to see your own point, that opportunism is a feature of the political landscape at any time in Ireland, but even moreso in this time of populism and no clear majority on the horizon. Love or loathe the motivation behind it, it remains the reality.

Don't think abortion issue is comparable - society had moved on.


The water thing would be going backwards - it's a complete waste of money too. I would expect fears about private property rights could easily be engendered by the opposition.


I agree opportunism is rife in politics (everywhere?) and I can live with a large amount of it. For me the water charges was a bridge too far - the arguments were farcical and FF gained nothing by their poltroonery.