Water charges for excessive usage

pablo128

Let's see how this goes.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112164398&postcount=1

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

You believe that it’s not plausible. That’s your opinion, which you’re entitled to. The beauty of Boards is that discussion and differences are allowed and encouraged.

How do you know that it wouldn’t work?

And, no. I’m not Married “too” a plumber.

For one I`m a civil engineer, and two when posters explained to those, other than you, why it would not make practical or economic sense they did not have a problem with why it would not work.

I hope your career in the Nazi grammar police is more successful than backing Fine Gael wasting taxpayers money has been.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You believe that it’s not plausible. That’s your opinion, which you’re entitled to. The beauty of Boards is that discussion and differences are allowed and encouraged.

How do you know that it wouldn’t work?

And, no. I’m not Married “too” a plumber.

True it is a discussion forum but surely if you make a specific and detailed claim the onus is on you to back it up or others can safely assume you are a spoofer.

Bass Reeves

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I was asked for my suggestion as to how to pay for water. I suggested similar to what you suggest. Simple method everyone pays no escaping Revenue.
Makes you wonder why FG took the route they did, although I strongly suspect it was a privatisation ideology that created the mess we have now.

charlie14 wrote: »

Others may have paid it lip-service but none were dumb enough to attempt it.
FG were not following the Green agenda in introducing metering.
The Greens did not even have a TD in the 31st. Dáil.

It was FG`s own brain fart. Labour had campaigned against water charges, but played ball to get their behinds on cabinet seats. Something they got their just rewards for in 2016, but FG didn`t go unscathed either.

They could have used revenue, but then there would have been no possibility of privatisation down the line, Something that FG ideologically are very favourable towards

My understanding is that some in FG wanted to go with. Flat rate for 2-3 years. It was as Labour that wanted water meters not to be outflanked by the Greens. Phil Hogan was minister in charge and backed them.

There was an element of trying to get a large labour intensive construction type project to get people from that area jobs. Biggest problem was quango set up was top heavy and FG and Labour were remiss in not making sure costs were kept in check and that realistic water charge rate were I acted. However the whole project snowballed out of control.

However they have not gone away and I expect that they will come back into play again in the next 5-10 years as our underfunded water supply continues to creak and break

emo72

How does Maryanne still post here with a straight face? The poor girl defending the indefensible. Is she Leo's boyfriend?

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

My understanding is that some in FG wanted to go with. Flat rate for 2-3 years. It was as Labour that wanted water meters not to be outflanked by the Greens. Phil Hogan was minister in charge and backed them.

There was an element of trying to get a large labour intensive construction type project to get people from that area jobs. Biggest problem was quango set up was top heavy and FG and Labour were remiss in not making sure costs were kept in check and that realistic water charge rate were I acted. However the whole project snowballed out of control.

However they have not gone away and I expect that they will come back into play again in the next 5-10 years as our underfunded water supply continues to creak and break

I don`t know where this understanding of yours comes from. It sound like an attempt to re-write history tbh.



Labour campaigned on a manifesto in 2011 of opposing water charges. FG`s Enda Kenny promised only to introduce them when we had a world class service.
It was FG`s baby that Labour went along with to their detriment. Plain and simple.



Labour were not being "outflanked" by the Greens. The Greens were wiped out in 2011.



I do not know what area this was supposed to provide jobs for. Water metering was nationwide. I don`t see how Labour or anyone else was going to just employ people from a particular area to install water meters countrywide.


Don`t kid yourself, water metering was a financial and political disaster. Nobody will touch it for generations.


Even the arguement of metering freeing up money for other uses has lost any credibility it may have had with the Children Hospital and the National Broadband Plan being so far off the original estimates with the broadband network that the state is investing 3 Billion in, when the single bidder for the contract will own the network.

charlie14

emo72 wrote: »

How does Maryanne still post here with a straight face? The poor girl defending the indefensible. Is she Leo's boyfriend?

Her big FG hero was Enda Kenny. Probably still is.

I can see why.

Both spend time in their own fantasy world far removed from reality.

Bass Reeves

charlie14 wrote: »

I don`t know where this understanding of yours comes from. It sound like an attempt to re-write history tbh.



Labour campaigned on a manifesto in 2011 of opposing water charges. FG`s Enda Kenny promised only to introduce them when we had a world class service.
It was FG`s baby that Labour went along with to their detriment. Plain and simple.



Labour were not being "outflanked" by the Greens. The Greens were wiped out in 2011.



I do not know what area this was supposed to provide jobs for. Water metering was nationwide. I don`t see how Labour or anyone else was going to just employ people from a particular area to install water meters countrywide.


Don`t kid yourself, water metering was a financial and political disaster. Nobody will touch it for generations.


Even the arguement of metering freeing up money for other uses has lost any credibility it may have had with the Children Hospital and the National Broadband Plan being so far off the original estimates with the broadband network that the state is investing 3 Billion in, when the single bidder for the contract will own the network.

What did Labour not oppose in the 2011 Election especially in the last few days as FG surged to within an overall majority. They promised no cuts in public service pay, no imposition of third level fees, no cuts to health or social welfare. They promised reform and they promised jobs.

Too many older politician in Labour wanted there legs under that cabinet table one last time. Yes the Green were wiped but Labour did not see the rise of Sinn Fein and the hard left in the early part of that government until too late. it was more focused on the Greens what it taught might be a Green agenda. Just like nobody say the Green surge in the last local election.

The Childrens Hospital has been driven by an ideology that wanted it in Dublin City Center rather than looking at a greenfield site ( not just FG but FF, Labour and the Greens all bought into this agenda) and the NBP is a disgrace as well.


But trying to blame water charges on an ideology is not looking at the facts. FF only withdrew from water charges after SF out flanked. SF was outflanked by RBB and PBP. The Greens are all for water charges and Labour never really had an issue but opposed everything in 2011 as it saw FG heading for an overall majority.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Her big FG hero was Enda Kenny. Probably still is.

I can see why.

Both spend time in their own fantasy world far removed from reality.

Instead of trying to target Mary with non relevant posts and trying to shoehorn anti FG commentary into almost every post you produce,maybe it would be more sensible to adopt a more mature balanced response.

Some folk might form the opinion of a very biased, jealous, one track, tiresome,individual.

Benedict

Time and time again this thread has demonstrated that the claim by IW that metered and non-metered homes can be treated equally when it comes to charging for water is farcical. IW appear to be buying time while praying that they can figure out some way of convincing the metered half of society that they must comply with the quota rules while the non-metered half sit back and smile.

They need to pray much harder.

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Instead of trying to target Mary with non relevant posts and trying to shoehorn anti FG commentary into almost every post you produce,maybe it would be more sensible to adopt a more mature balanced response.

Some folk might form the opinion of a very biased, jealous, one track, tiresome,individual.

Thanks, Brendan. I was actually a bit shocked at their last couple of posts, but decided to ignore them given the time posted.

Bass Reeves

Benedict wrote: »

Time and time again this thread has demonstrated that the claim by IW that metered and non-metered homes can be treated equally when it comes to charging for water is farcical. IW appear to be buying time while praying that they can figure out some way of convincing the metered half of society that they must comply with the quota rules while the non-metered half sit back and smile.

They need to pray much harder.

And that is because half the houses are non-metered because of the it being used as a political football by the hard left. At some stage in the next 5-10 years the government will start by bringing in a flat rate water charge,

It is interesting that co-op run group water schemes are being pressurized to meter all houses and encouraged to charge for excessive water usage, As well they can set the excessive usage figure at way below the excessive water figure of IW.

Benedict

Bass Reeves wrote: »

And that is because half the houses are non-metered because of the it being used as a political football by the hard left. At some stage in the next 5-10 years the government will start by bringing in a flat rate water charge,

It is interesting that co-op run group water schemes are being pressurized to meter all houses and encouraged to charge for excessive water usage, As well they can set the excessive usage figure at way below the excessive water figure of IW.

It seems reasonable that a private water scheme could charge for excessive usage. So if you don't like the rules, leave the club. Once it's the same rule for all users. With IW not all users are treated the same. Those with meters are told they must stick to the rules while those without meters can do what they like.

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks, Brendan. I was actually a bit shocked at their last couple of posts, but decided to ignore them given the time posted.

I wouldn’t let it bother you too much MaryAnne.

I have no problem in posters defending their view, but when some start putting words into your mouth and using every post to ‘misinterpret’ your posts and throw in the ‘almost obligatory’ anti FG, anti Taoiseach hackneyed rhetoric,it gets quite tiresome.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Instead of trying to target Mary with non relevant posts and trying to shoehorn anti FG commentary into almost every post you produce,maybe it would be more sensible to adopt a more mature balanced response.

Some folk might form the opinion of a very biased, jealous, one track, tiresome,individual.

Maryanne`s posts have been non relevant for a long time now. Lately they have even become a bit narky. I give them the respect they deserve.

I am an ex Labour supporter with now no allegiance to any party and as such, especially on the matter under discussion feel I express my opinion in a mature balances way.
Unlike some others here who are still blindly biased cheerleaders for an attempted failed political scam that is dead and buried. Even to the stage of some attempting to re-write history.

Benedict

The extraordinary fact is that if you go to the IW official site right now, you will see that they are still running with the notion that all users - with or without a meter - who go over the quota will get a bill - but not before Jan. 2022. (They've given us an extra year.)

When are they going to revise this stuff and join us in the real world?

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What did Labour not oppose in the 2011 Election especially in the last few days as FG surged to within an overall majority. They promised no cuts in public service pay, no imposition of third level fees, no cuts to health or social welfare. They promised reform and they promised jobs.

Too many older politician in Labour wanted there legs under that cabinet table one last time. Yes the Green were wiped but Labour did not see the rise of Sinn Fein and the hard left in the early part of that government until too late. it was more focused on the Greens what it taught might be a Green agenda. Just like nobody say the Green surge in the last local election.

The Childrens Hospital has been driven by an ideology that wanted it in Dublin City Center rather than looking at a greenfield site ( not just FG but FF, Labour and the Greens all bought into this agenda) and the NBP is a disgrace as well.


But trying to blame water charges on an ideology is not looking at the facts. FF only withdrew from water charges after SF out flanked. SF was outflanked by RBB and PBP. The Greens are all for water charges and Labour never really had an issue but opposed everything in 2011 as it saw FG heading for an overall majority.

First you claim that it was Labour who were in favour of water metering rather than FG and now "Labour really never had an issue".

Your premise that Labour were worried about being outflanked by the Greens makes little sense either.
As part of the then FF/Green Party government the world and it`s mother knew they were going to be hammered, and if they were chasing Green votes why would they oppose water charges in their 2011 election manifesto.

The simple facts are FG were the only party going in to that election campaigning on introducing water charges but "only when we had a world class service in place"or words to that effect.
Labour went along because it got them cabinet seats. It was a shambles of FG`s own making. Simple as that.

The ideology of a greenfield site is no excuse for the estimated cost of the Children`s Hospital being so far out that nobody even has a clue what the final cost will be is every bit as disgraceful as the NBP imo.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

The extraordinary fact is that if you go to the IW official site right now, you will see that they are still running with the notion that all users - with or without a meter - who go over the quota will get a bill - but not before Jan. 2022. (They've given us an extra year.)

When are they going to revise this stuff and join us in the real world?

They are not the only ones in a fantasy world on water metered charges.

There are still a few knocking around that somehow still believe they will live to see it happen for every household and apartment in the state.

Nevin Parsnipp

charlie14 wrote: »

Her big FG hero was Enda Kenny. Probably still is.

I can see why.

Both spend time in their own fantasy world far removed from reality.

In fairness Kenny was one of those who brought the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

Give the lad some credit Dude ...

Wanderer78

Nevin Parsnipp wrote:

In fairness Kenny was one of those who brought the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

The banks were bankrupt, the country wasn't doing too bad at all, public expenditure and public debt was well under control before the crash

McMurphy

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

In fairness Kenny was one of those who brought the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

Give the lad some credit Dude ...

Under the Troikas directorship.

In other words, a trained bonobo would have obtained the same results - Kenny just happened to be the leader of the largest opposition party after the crash.

You're giving him too much credit, dude.

christy c

Wanderer78 wrote: »

public expenditure ...... was well under control before the crash

No, the expenditure was based on completely unsustainable levels of income. When income returned to normal, it showed how out of control spending was.

Nevin Parsnipp

McMurphy wrote: »

Under the Troikas directorship.

In other words, a trained bonobo would have obtained the same results - Kenny just happened to be the leader of the largest opposition party after the crash.

You're giving him too much credit, dude.

I did say he was "one of those" which indicates there were others...including the Troika.

As for the trained Bonobo...if the likes of Bullhorn Murphy or private School Mary -Lou was in charge ...might be a bit more difficult than the "trained Bonobo" ?

Plumbthedepths

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

In fairness Kenny was one of those who brought the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

Give the lad some credit Dude ...

Actually Kenny and co followed a blueprint agreed by the previous government and the Troika.

Wanderer78

christy c wrote:

No, the expenditure was based on completely unsustainable levels of income. When income returned to normal, it showed how out of control spending was.

Expenditure was based on unsustainable taxes such as stamp duty, strangely enough, so is our current situation with corporate tax.

The crash had little or nothing to do with government spending, the banks were over leveraged, we all know the story, it was the rapid rise of private debt caused largely by the deregulation of the financial sector, which in its great wisdom decided to plough cheap credit across the planet, which in turn caused the rapid rise in asset prices, particularly in housing, and blah blah blah blah

christy c

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Expenditure was based on unsustainable taxes such as stamp duty, strangely enough, so is our current situation with corporate tax.

Well it's a bit silly then to say that that expenditure was under control then? Spending, followed the huge unsustainable rise in income.

McMurphy

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

As for the trained Bonobo...if the likes of Bullhorn Murphy or private School Mary -Lou was in charge ...might be a bit more difficult than the "trained Bonobo" ?

Yeah, and If my granny had balls she'd be my granda.

The fact is, Kenny just followed directions laid out for him by others, including FF.

I repeat - trained bonobo.

Nevin Parsnipp

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Actually Kenny and co followed a blueprint agreed by the previous government and the Troika.

A good decision then ...given it was the correct Blueprint.

Looks like a "Country before personal ego" decision to this poster...which is the sign of a Statesman rather than the usual gombeenism and ego driven decisions you get .

Credit to Kenny for that and bringing the Country with him on a difficult but necessary austerity path.

charlie14

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

In fairness Kenny was one of those who brought the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

Give the lad some credit Dude ...

Kenny government of 2011 stuck to the already agreed programme with the Trioka more or less with a few notable exceptions. That programme of austerity is basically what brought us back from the brink.
I will give him and Fine Gael credit for that.



For squandering a fortune during that period of austerity on the subject under discussion, water metering, I fail to see where any credit is due I`m afraid.

Nor can I give him or Fine Gael credit on his promise of a new way of doing politics.

Nevin Parsnipp

charlie14 wrote: »

Kenny government of 2011 stuck to the already agreed programme with the Trioka more or less with a few notable exceptions. That programme of austerity is basically what brought us back from the brink.
I will give him and Fine Gael credit for that.



For squandering a fortune during that period of austerity on the subject under discussion, water metering, I fail to see where any credit is due I`m afraid.

Nor can I give him or Fine Gael credit on his promise of a new way of doing politics.

Can't disagree with any of the above ...just thought Kenny should get at least SOME credit and the o p was being a tad harsh.

Sorry if I contributed to a little derailing of the thread....