# Another General Election



## Sophrosyne (6 Apr 2016)

After 40 days in the wilderness, will we now have to have another general election?

If there are irreconcilable differences between FG and FF, why don’t they just admit it?


----------



## Leo (6 Apr 2016)

Because whoever admits it first might suffer in a re-run.


----------



## Cervelo (6 Apr 2016)

I think its the only option at this moment, I think support would fall for FF, FG and SF and grow for the Independents based on what I have seen on the news


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Apr 2016)

I'm not really into politics but watched some of Claire Byrne's show the other night. A very tired looking Tom McGurk made a very good point that no one can see a difference between the two parties so they should just form a coalition. He told them they were putting their parties before the country... a barb that offends every politician although we all know it to be true. 


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## thedaddyman (6 Apr 2016)

There is a fundamental difference between the 2 parties around Irish Water and how water charges should be handled. I am wondering if FF are trying to create a situation where IW will more or less be the only item on the agenda


----------



## Leo (6 Apr 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> There is a fundamental difference between the 2 parties around Irish Water and how water charges should be handled. I am wondering if FF are trying to create a situation where IW will more or less be the only item on the agenda



Well, FF's proposal seems to be holding off on charges for another 18 months or so while a new utility is set up. So ultimately heading in the same direction, but eliminating the poisoned IW name, and most likely spending many millions abolishing it and moving the staff on.


----------



## 44brendan (6 Apr 2016)

SBarrett said:


> He told them they were putting their parties before the country... a barb that offends every politician although we all know it to be true.


Of course they are and who could blame them if we take the fate of previous minor parties in coalition governments as an example. The broad electorate as a body tend to look for scapegoats in the perceived deficiencies of every Government. We tend to elect the opposition parties on the blind faith that this time will be different and to a large extent opposition parties do not get elected by telling it as it is but by spouting political rhetoric and promises that they know well they can never implement! "Labours way or Frankfurts way" being only 1 recent example!!
SF have avoided this poised chalice by staying out of any Government discussions and rely on the fact that as an untested party in Government they will attract the disaffected and skeptical voters who believe that somewhere out there is a Government who will provide a high level of Health, Education, SW and do all those on the back of a low tax regime for all but the very "high earners!!
My next project is to start up the "Airy Fairy" party of Ireland who will do all of the above plus ensure that all of my ministers commit Hari Kiri every time they fail to achieve those policies that they have promised the electorate. The spectacles themselves will be held in Croke Park on a monthly basis and ticket charges will boost the Government coffers. residents will be given free tickets to avoid protests.

Why do we have to live in real life when our opposition parties never do


----------



## Sophrosyne (6 Apr 2016)

On the point of IW, according to the Fianna Fail manifesto:

“According to the Department of the Environment the net cost of scrapping water charges would be of the order of €210m annually. This would be replaced by a direct state subvention to the new National Water Directorate, which will be run at an approximate cost of €16.2m per annum. We would also fully provide for the costs of winding down Irish Water, at a cost of €9.1m and abolish the government’s botched Water Conservation grant to save the state €110m.”


----------



## Leo (6 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> “According to the Department of the Environment the net cost of scrapping water charges would be of the order of €210m annually. This would be replaced by a direct state subvention to the new National Water Directorate



Not sure how this would meet the requirements of Article 9 of the EU Water Framework Directive.



Sophrosyne said:


> the costs of winding down Irish Water, at a cost of €9.1m



Seems very low when you're talking about thousands of staff.


----------



## Purple (6 Apr 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> There is a fundamental difference between the 2 parties around Irish Water and how water charges should be handled. I am wondering if FF are trying to create a situation where IW will more or less be the only item on the agenda


Why should such a minor side issue be the stumbling block for the formation of a government.
Anyone, and I mean anyone, who cast a vote in the election based on what a candidates position was on Irish water then they are a myopic fool. In the scheme of things that impact on this country and will effect our future Irish Water is utterly irrelevant. If people voted due to the broader message of the AAA/PBP then that's fair enough; they don't understand economics and are delusional but they are not necessarily stupid.
Calling Irish Water a fundamental issue is like calling a disagreement over what colour Taxis should be a fundamental issue.


----------



## Sophrosyne (6 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Why should such a minor side issue be the stumbling block for the formation of a government.
> Anyone, and I mean anyone, who cast a vote in the election based on whether a candidates position on Irish water then they are a myopic fool. In the scheme of things that impact on this country and will effect our future Irish Water is utterly irrelevant. If people voted due to the broader message of the AAA/PBP then that's fair enough; they don't understand economics and are delusional but they are not necessarily stupid.
> Calling Irish Water a fundamental issue is like calling a disagreement over what colour Taxis should be a fundamental issue.



I agree.

Unfortunately, it appears to have become a critical issue for both parties in particular, FF, no matter how ill-judged.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Anyone, and I mean anyone, who cast a vote in the election based on whether a candidates position on Irish water then they are a myopic fool. In the scheme of things that impact on this country and will effect our future Irish Water is utterly irrelevant. If people voted due to the broader message of the AAA/PBP then that's fair enough; they don't understand economics and are delusional but they are not necessarily stupid. Calling Irish Water a fundamental issue is like calling a disagreement over what colour Taxis should be a fundamental issue.



The incompetence with which the coalition handled Irish Water is a fundamental issue for me.
How many threads have there been on this website because people couldn't get a straight answer on landlord responsibilities, or what the charges would be, or the stroke that is the water conservation grant, and to top it all off, at the end of the day, they didn't even pass the EU market capitalization test. First we were told it was absolutely essential that Irish Water had our PPS numbers and you were a paranoid crank for saying anything to the contrary. Tens of thousands of people protest all across the country (and not just AAA/PBP voters) and we have an about turn... Of course Irish Water don't need our PPS numbers, but stop asking awkward questions children, we know what's best.

The coalition's attitude to the public was best exemplified by the gigantic two fingers represented by getting Phil Hogan to set the thing up in as arrogant a manner as he possibly could, then swan off on the EU gravy train so constituents couldn't even express their displeasure about it at the ballot box.
The coalition never tried to win public support for the charges, and with every decision they had to make on it, they alienated even more voters.

All of those were self-inflicted own goals by the coalition and was the main reason why I didn't vote for FG after voting for them last time out.
Is anyone who votes AAA\PBP gonna vote FG? Unlikely. But FG lost 1/3 of the people who did vote for them in 2011. I was one of them. Irish Water played a part in that.

I have no reason to believe that FG back in office will not demonstrate the same level of arrogant incompetence.

Irish Water was a litmus test. They failed it.

Consequently, the public contempt for Irish Water is so great, it has taken on a life of its own out of all proportion to the sums involved. For a large number of voters, business as usual when it comes to Irish Water is not acceptable - the FG position. Irish Water can't continue as it is, spending €60 million a year to get net €40 million in revenue. FF want to press the reset button. Otherwise I see no chance of public acceptance of the current Irish Water regime.


----------



## Agent 47 (6 Apr 2016)

Agree with Odyssey06, shear incompetence by FG and Labour on Irish Water is a big issue for me. I signed up when there was a discount for water use by children, that is now gone, I simply do not trust them. What did it for me was "Let's keep the recovery going", well it certainly is not here. I know quite a number of people have cancelled DD to Irish Water since the election. It is too big an issue to go away.
One could stretch the competency issue further to Enda Kenny and his cohort appointments, the HSE, Mr Shatter and Mr Reilly.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Apr 2016)

SBarrett said:


> I'm not really into politics but watched some of Claire Byrne's show the other night. A very tired looking Tom McGurk made a very good point that no one can see a difference between the two parties so they should just form a coalition. He told them they were putting their parties before the country... a barb that offends every politician although we all know it to be true.



In this instance though, I think we should be wary of the sheer level of media pressure being applied.

Did anyone who voted for FF want them to go into coalition with FG? Clearly those FF voters saw a difference.
Did anyone who voted for FG want them to go into coalition with FF? Clearly those FG voters saw a difference.

I'm not clear what the mandate would be for a grand coalition apart from being media annointed?

The people who voted FF & FG were not voting for a coalition. The arithmetic has come out that those are the numbers that make a stable coalition. But that's not a mandate to govern. Something about the spectacle of people who didn't vote FF or FG urging them to go into power sets off an alarm bell for me. I don't hear the same level of pressure coming from people who did vote FF or FG. 

SF, AAA/PBP et al are positively jumping with excitement at the thought of a FF\FG coalition. If you knew nothing else about the situation, that should give you pause. There's something to be said (per Eoghan Harris) for having two alternating, democratic centrist parties when you have a shadow like SF looming in the background.


----------



## rob oyle (6 Apr 2016)

Well, based on tonight's news it looks like we'll get a FF/FG coalition or another election!


----------



## Leper (7 Apr 2016)

rob oyle said:


> Well, based on tonight's news it looks like we'll get a FF/FG coalition or another election!


I think you might be right there Rob.


----------



## Deiseblue (7 Apr 2016)

Leo said:


> Not sure how this would meet the requirements of Article 9 of the EU Water Framework Directive.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems very low when you're talking about thousands of staff.



The number of employees that may be effected are the 400 staff directly employed by Irish Water , the local authority staff transferred will not be effected in any event.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Apr 2016)

If they can't agree on Irish Water, and want to go into grand coalition together, maybe they should kick the issue to touch with a consultative (i.e. not constitutionally binding) referendum on suspending the charges etc - similar to the 'proposition' type votes you see in other jurisdictions e.g. when cities have to raise taxes to fund an Olympic bid, or new infrastructure, etc


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The incompetence with which the coalition handled Irish Water is a fundamental issue for me.


Really?
So the incompetence they showed in managing the health service or the utterly incompetent taxation policies of SF, AAA/PBP or the utter incompetence shown by the last FF government in just about every managerial decision they made is less important?
For you punishing the last government over Irish water and other similar issues is worth risking communists in coalition with the party who destroyed the economy?
Is going back to pro-cyclical populism a price worth paying in order to avoid paying water charges and punishing the arrogance of James Reilly?
The last government was arrogant, high-handed and showed very bad judgement in the fights they picked and how they communicated many of their decisions. In short they were bad at the politics of governance but they were strong on the economic management of the country.

I don't like Enda Kenny. I don't like James Reilly. I don't like many of them but on balance they did a good job on the big issues. I'd rather that than slick and populist and economically incompetent because those are our options.


----------



## Delboy (7 Apr 2016)

I found it bizarre yesterday that Ruth Coppinger was nominated for Taoiseach and got the predictable handful of votes. But even more bizarre was that Wallace, Daly and Collins didn't vote for her (they were no shows for that vote). And yet she was on the radio this AM saying the people had voted for change and a Left alternative, so she wanted a new election rather than an FG/FF coalition.

Can anyone explain to me why AAA/PBP and Collins/Daly/Wallace would not be supporting each other? Is it Lenin v's Trotsky stuff?


----------



## T McGibney (7 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> maybe they should kick the issue to touch with a consultative (i.e. not constitutionally binding) referendum on suspending the charges etc


How can they do that when a significant minority of several hundred thousand people have already for decades been paying water charges on State-promoted group water schemes?


----------



## Cervelo (7 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> I found it bizarre yesterday that Ruth Coppinger was nominated for Taoiseach and got the predictable handful of votes. But even more bizarre was that Wallace, Daly and Collins didn't vote for her (they were no shows for that vote). And yet she was on the radio this AM saying the people had voted for change and a Left alternative, so she wanted a new election rather than an FG/FF coalition.
> 
> Can anyone explain to me why AAA/PBP and Collins/Daly/Wallace would not be supporting each other? Is it Lenin v's Trotsky stuff?



Because its a farce, no government can be formed until FF and FG sit down and decide what they are doing


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Apr 2016)

I don't think the last government were strong on anything. Anytime they had to make a decision that wasn't Troika directed it was a laughing stock.
It's quite clear that the coalition benefitted from an extremely benign global set of economic circumstances, and the best that can be said was that on economic front they adopted the 'do no harm' hippocratic oath. 
Law and Order, Health, Housing, they did not do a good job on any of those big issues. 
When was the last time any government in this state showed competence in managing the Health service?

Looking at the election promises made in 2002 and 2007 by FG & Labour, I have absolutely zero confidence they wouldn't have led the economy to the same disaster as FF.
I have absolutely zero confidence that when the Troika came to town, they wouldn't have folded exactly as FF folded and left taxpayers carrying an immoral and economically unsound deal.

It's my right as a voter to look at the last 5 years, to look at the debacle that was Irish Water, and say no, this is not something that I can give tacit sanction to by rewarding a party responsible for that with a vote. I don't think we can let a party get away scot free with that kind of conduct. There has to be payback at the voting booth because otherwise it's not entirely clear how I express my displeasure in a democratic system? In that regard, it is a fundamental issue.
The alternative would have to be a hell of a lot worse than FF for me to re-vote FG or even just to abstain.


----------



## cremeegg (7 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> Is it Lenin v's Trotsky stuff?



There was no Lenin vs Trotsky "stuff". Lenin was the political leader, Trotsky was his military commander.

The "vs stuff" was Stalin vs Trotsky after Lenin had died.

They represented deeply different visions of how a society should be organised. Stalin believed in top-down state control of the economy and the political system. Trotsky believed in bottom-up control of the economy and politics by the workers.

AAA/PBP see themselves as Trotskyists, personally I think they are closet Stalinists. That is they favour bottom-up control while they are on the bottom, but if they ever got into power they would quickly want to control everything themselves.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> How can they do that when a significant minority of several hundred thousand people have already for decades been paying water charges on State-promoted group water schemes?



I guess the same way FF were promising to handle it through the DAIL in their election manifesto?
Just instead of FF and FG having a fight over it, they consult the people on it without having another general election - which doesn't seem to be the best way to resolve an issue like this if it's the only thing separating two almost equal parties in terms of seats.


----------



## blueband (7 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't think the last government were strong on anything. Anytime they had to make a decision that wasn't Troika directed it was a laughing stock.
> It's quite clear that the coalition benefitted from an extremely benign global set of economic circumstances, and the best that can be said was that on economic front they adopted the 'do no harm' hippocratic oath.
> Law and Order, Health, Housing, they did not do a good job on any of those big issues.
> When was the last time any government in this state showed competence in managing the Health service?
> ...


+1


----------



## Delboy (7 Apr 2016)

cremeegg said:


> AAA/PBP see themselves as Trotskyists, personally I think they are closet Stalinists. That is they favour bottom-up control while they are on the bottom, but if they ever got into power they would quickly want to control everything themselves.


So Wallace/Daly/Collins are Stalinists 

I don't get all that Marxists/Lenninist etc crap. It's all Russian to me and this is Ireland. We're different





[broken link removed]


----------



## 44brendan (7 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't think the last government were strong on anything. Anytime they had to make a decision that wasn't Troika directed it was a laughing stock.
> It's quite clear that the coalition benefitted from an extremely benign global set of economic circumstances, and the best that can be said was that on economic front they adopted the 'do no harm' hippocratic oath.
> Law and Order, Health, Housing, they did not do a good job on any of those big issues.
> When was the last time any government in this state showed competence in managing the Health service?
> ...


-1.
This opinion is not supported by the actual facts or the commentary of the majority of senior economists. The mantra that the economic recovery over the last few years was incidental to Government action and based on the "rising tide lifting all ships" philosophy is incorrect. This rising tide should also have benefitted the economies of Spain Portugal Greece etc but Ireland's pace of recovery far surpassed other EU countries and this was due to specific government actions.
Yes FG/Labour Government were arrogant and tended to largely ignore public sentiment and opinion but despite some large gaffes (IW being a significant one) they did implement some good policies from which we all benefitted. Personally I find it very difficult to understand why IW has become such a key issue when there are so many more issues in the country that need addressing that affect our Citizens a thousand times more severely than who pays for water ever will. Having said that I accept that the issue needs to be dealt with in order to focus politicians on the more pressing matters and FF/FG etc etc should compromise on whatever deal that needs to be made in order to move IW completely off the priority agenda. MM has hoisted himself on the petard of IW and by calling this a red line issue in the formation of a new Government he will surely be seen as merely pandering to public opinion on the topic as FF are likely to climb on any bandwagon that can generate extra seats.
What is the point in having a new election when the most likely outcome is that FF/FG will be faced with the same choices at the end of it? Do FF see an opportunity to gain traction on FG and emerge as the largest of the 2 parties following a new election? Will FG then assume the FF role and play the same games in any subsequent coalition talks? Politics, politics, politics. That's what it's all about with no focus on the effects of all of this non-action on the economy or the homelessness or hospital waiting lists. Why not send an invite to Donald Trump to come over here and take over as Taoiseach? We need someone with leadership ability and I certainly don't see it in any of the current lot.


----------



## thedaddyman (7 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Why should such a minor side issue be the stumbling block for the formation of a government.
> Anyone, and I mean anyone, who cast a vote in the election based on what a candidates position was on Irish water then they are a myopic fool. In the scheme of things that impact on this country and will effect our future Irish Water is utterly irrelevant. If people voted due to the broader message of the AAA/PBP then that's fair enough; they don't understand economics and are delusional but they are not necessarily stupid.
> Calling Irish Water a fundamental issue is like calling a disagreement over what colour Taxis should be a fundamental issue.



With respect, I didn't call IW a fundamental issue, I said there was a fundamental difference between the parties on the issue itself. For what it's worth, and speaking as a farmers son where we paid for water indirectly all of our lives to the ESB, driller, plumber etc, I agree with you. IW is a townie issue, not an issue for the bulk of Ireland as the performance of the AAA/BPB outside of the 3 major cities showed in the last election.

As for the current impasse, I do think there is a genuine fear within FF of a split if they go into a formal coalition with FG. FF has a modern history of splits, Independent FF and the PD's for example and there is a wing in FF which is closer politically to the Shinners then to the John Bruton "west Brit" element of FG. I think O'Cuiv & co will walk if there is a coalition.

As for those who say we should forget about Civil War Politics and the 2 parties should get together since it is 100 years more or less since the Civil War and it's all history. I look forward to seeing the same people down the pub in June shouting "come on En-gerrrr-land" when the football is on and that they will also be wishing Rangers best of luck following their promotion back to the Scottish Premiership. No I hear you say, people won't do that !! Why not I ask, if FF and FG can get into bed together. ? 800 years ...................


----------



## demoivre (7 Apr 2016)

44brendan said:


> The mantra that the economic recovery over the last few years was incidental to Government action and based on the "rising tide lifting all ships" philosophy is incorrect. This rising tide should also have benefitted the economies of Spain Portugal Greece etc but Ireland's pace of recovery far surpassed other EU countries and this was due to specific government actions.



The recovery was due mainly to exogenous factors such as the soft euro and exceptionally low interest rates. Ireland is a small and very open economy with more exposure to the dollar and sterling than any of the other economies you mention. The other economies, Greece in particular, also faced structural problems that we did not face. The only things I associate with this government are people on trolleys, mortgage arrears crisis, the Irish Water debacle and homelessness. Just for the record I voted for FG in 2011.


----------



## Purple (7 Apr 2016)

demoivre said:


> The recovery was due mainly to exogenous factors such as the soft euro and exceptionally low interest rates. Ireland is a small and very open economy with more exposure to the dollar and sterling than any of the other economies you mention. The other economies, Greece in particular, also faced structural problems that we did not face. The only things I associate with this government are people on trolleys, mortgage arrears crisis, the Irish Water debacle and homelessness. Just for the record I voted for FG in 2011.


They managed to make cuts to public pay and keep them in place without strikes and they managed to keep to the Troika program. What they didn't allow to happen is just as important as what they did. The two men in Finance did a good job.


----------



## rob oyle (7 Apr 2016)

Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio saying a nil chance of a coalition, instead he's talking about minority government. So they can put off another election until the budget comes up.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Apr 2016)

At this stage its hard to see anything other than a re-run. Maybe possibly FG minority government with tacit FF support but wouldnt be that enthuased. If we go again have FG stolen the March in the blame game, didnt they put it on a plate for FF, who now look like the baddies?

Saw earlier "a FF voter didnt vote to keep FG in power" & other corollaries - I think it all depends. A lot of it is whose rhetoric you believe. I dont believe Ireland lurched to the left, the centre is split but we're still centrist. I think politicians should start to see FG & FF voters as people who dont want the lunatic fringe (SF, AAA et al). When we're back in the same place after the next election could everyone please give that theory a run rather than FF dont want FG. OMG that's loike soooo last century .

If its a re-run is there any chance FG could get rid of Inda??, or at least have him kept captive somewhere for 6 weeks, twould do them the world of good, ditto Gerry.


----------



## Conan (7 Apr 2016)

The purpose of an election is form a Government. So it's simply not good enough for almost all the parties - FF, SF, AAA/PBP etc - to refuse to assist in forming a Government. The only way to get one's policies implemented is to be in Government. What's the point in seeking election if you have no intention of implementing (or trying to implement) any policies. 
I can understand that SF are wedded to opposing everything and don't want to make any difficult decisions. They prefer to pander to their support base by pretending that everything would be perfect if only the "rich" would pay for everything.
FF on the other hand seem to be terrified of letting SF become the main opposition and are more concerned about FF than acting in the national interest.  It seems FF want to be "in power" (perhaps by sort of supporting a minority Goverment) but also in opposition (by threatening to put the plug on the same minority Goverment at any stage in the future).
If we have to have an election, perhaps the electorate will make a more sensible decision next time. How many times to we have to vote to get a Government?


----------



## noproblem (7 Apr 2016)

Just watched Simon Harris on 6 News there and I must say FG are coming across in a very arrogant manner. It has also been Enda Kenny's and his ministers MO and doesn't sit right with anyone. Now that the general public have told FG/Lab that they don't want them leading the country, FG are the only ones who have taken no heed of this and feel their so called historic offer to FF has to be taken up. FF were told by the electorate not to go into goverment with FG, so will FG support a minority FF goverment? The thing is, FF will support a FG minority goverment. Is Kenny the Humpty Dumpty in all of this? I think so and if FG were honest, they do too. He's probably a real nice person but whoever "manages" FG have made a mess of him and of the party. Take them out and we'll have a goverment. It's a pity Enda (or indeed Fionuala) doesn't see this and use his own gut instinct to lead the way. At this stage he's got nothing to lose


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Apr 2016)

Conan said:


> The purpose of an election is form a Government. So it's simply not good enough for almost all the parties - FF, SF, AAA/PBP etc - to refuse to assist in forming a Government. The only way to get one's policies implemented is to be in Government. What's the point in seeking election if you have no intention of implementing (or trying to implement) any policies.



Is that really the purpose of an election? What we are really doing is electing public representatives.
After all, we don't just sack all opposition TDs the day after a Taoiseach is elected.
And we've had changes of government without elections (the change from FF-Labour to Rainbow Coalition in mid 1990s).

Representatives stood for election, on a platform and manifesto, seeking a mandate.
And when you stood for office and said, a vote for us is not a vote for coalition with X, people listened and voted on that basis.
What's the point of being in government if you have to jettison your manifesto and campaign promises?

I think it is in the long term national interests for elected representatives to stand by the promises they made seeking election. Anything else is seriously damaging to democracy.
Also, one can certainly argue the point that FF acting as a blocker to SF is more in the national interest than sorting out the next government ASAP.

I would rather see another election - and echoing your comments a more sensible outcome - than have politicians scramble for office without regard to their policies. And of course, I don't agree with a lot of the policies that are there. And there are several elected representatives who I would end up strangling if trapped in a lift with them.
But if people are going to elect people on those platforms then we have to hold the electorate and the elected representatives to that. Otherwise, we may as well just cast our votes at random.


----------



## Sophrosyne (7 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Is that really the purpose of an election? What we are really doing is electing public representatives.



Yes we elect public representatives. But, under the constitution, they must elect a Taoiseach and must form a Government, which must act as a collective authority.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Yes we elect public representatives. But, under the constitution, they must elect a Taoiseach and must form a Government, which must act as a collective authority.



In theory, 'must' sounds very strong and I suppose the consequence of not doing that is standing again for election. 
In theory, the caretaker government could stay in office for the duration of the next Dail while we wait interminably for them to take those steps. In practice, the President would dissolve the Dail if it's clear no Taoiseach will be elected.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Apr 2016)

I think Simon Harris is a smart cookie, but he & Leo might be seen as a bit arrogant together with Enda who, worse, doesnt seem to have any great basis for arrogance. On the other hand the like of Coveney seems a nice gent, as does Richard Bruton, Michael Noonan I like, Shatter was hard to warm to and so on. The arrogance of the likes of Collins & Dooley grates on me worse than FG. I'm not sure another election will give a fundamentally different result, so again I say should we look broader when interpreting the vote, next time at the polls its clear that pretty clear that anything goes in terms of the next government so I hope either a) parties dont start ruling stuff out in advance or b) that no-one believes them if they do. Is the next election just to "clear the air" of the assumed baggage of the electorate from round 1, and let FG & FF go in together after the next time.


----------



## thedaddyman (8 Apr 2016)

Has anyone seen or heard from Enda?. Is it a deliberate policy of FG to keep him quiet in case he makes another faux pax or is it another example of Enda acting arrogantly and thinking he is above all of this?. He is still the Taoiseach and should be talking to the nation about what is going on, not wheeling out spokespeople. I got the impression from listening to FF last night that part of their problem is that they go into a meeting with Enda who says one thing, then Coveney and Leo come out and say something different. Who is actually running FG and is this politics and postioning within FG?


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Apr 2016)

thedaddyman said:


> Has anyone seen or heard from Enda?. Is it a deliberate policy of FG to keep him quiet in case he makes another faux pax or is it another example of Enda acting arrogantly and thinking he is above all of this?. He is still the Taoiseach and should be talking to the nation about what is going on, not wheeling out spokespeople. I got the impression from listening to FF last night that part of their problem is that they go into a meeting with Enda who says one thing, then Coveney and Leo come out and say something different. Who is actually running FG and is this politics and postioning within FG?



I think FG are dreading another election with Enda as leader, he's a lame duck leader right now of both the country and the party ... That's why it's the "next generation" who seem to be doing all the running right now.
The vibe I'm getting is that the party would like a new face before the electorate next time out ... Enda is seen as a political liability; but if the Dail is dissolved without a government being formed they wouldn't have enough time I think (or would they?) to change leaders so it would be Enda again.
I suppose in theory Enda could be caretaker Taoiseach while FG gets a new leader?

ps there's a lot of "I think", "I suppose" and "vibes" in this post so anyone closer to FG or with a better clue of their leadership election process please jump in.


----------



## Sophrosyne (8 Apr 2016)

This is Alison O’Connor’s take on the current political stalemate:

*
ALISON O'CONNOR: Cute-hoorism, political botox and one eye to next general election*

"Does Micheál Martin not see the irony in all this big talk of Dáil reform, all the while shirking what would be the biggest reform of all — a coalition with Fine Gael, writes *Alison O’Connor*

What a charade Fianna Fáil is carrying on with at present. When you see the outraged political virgin act they’ve taken to pedalling it’s hard to know whether to laugh or bang your head against a wall.

You would think we all came down in the last shower and there before us was this delicate political flower, full of injured innocence; all overwhelmed by the pressure it is being put under by the mean big boys. Come on. This is just too hard to take.

These FF guys would buy and sell the lot of us, so it’s a very hard swallow to hear their squealing about unfair tactics and how seriously they take their mandate. As the time has gone on since the general election it has felt like we’re being fed a load of rhetorical manure.

Nobody does a better altar boy impression that Micheal Martin and only he could have stood in the Dáil on Wednesday and said the priority of others had been “power rather than policy”.

He decried the “spin and hype” which has been circulating since the election and the “never-ending stream of unattributed comments designed to influence perception rather than fairly reflect reality”, which had further damaged politics.

There could be no trust and no real change if this approach to politics continued, he thundered.

The “briefings and manipulation” of opinion has to stop if there is to be any reasonable prospect of moving things forward.” Lol, as the youngsters would say.

After all it is Fianna Fáil who wrote the full manual when it comes to all of these approaches, and, as we saw from the masterful general election campaign, they have certainly not lost their touch.

The FF’ers are raging at FG coming out last week and ruling out supporting a minority FF Government. They claim to be fuming at what they see as the utter arrogance of this. But this is how the numbers stack up.

It’s the same in how FF keep insisting that they got a particular mandate in the election and that does not involve coalition with Fine Gael. Actually this is simply how they have chosen to interpret this mandate."


She does not absolve FG either, but claims it is less adept at political cute-hoorism.


----------



## noproblem (8 Apr 2016)

Ms O Connor gives us her opinion of what's happening and seems to think her opinion is exactly what the rest of the country is thinking. God bless her, but her article lacks any sort of depth or indeed analysis. A bit sad really when so called journalists of standing, gives us, the reader, a piece like that article. Why would she not try and get an interview with Mr Martin, ask him some serious questions, get him to back up his version of events, etc, etc. He was given backing from followers based on FF having nothing to do with going into bed with our so called disastrous Taoiseach and FG, maybe she has blinkers on or does not understand politics or how it works, but that's the reality. Why does she not question FG's adamant refusal to back a minority FF goverment? even though FF will facilitate a FG led minority. Amazing bias indeed and a very school girlish version of events in her piece. Enda's and FG's arrogance over the past 5 years is evident in Allison's own arrogant article. Perhaps she missed her vocation?????


----------



## Delboy (8 Apr 2016)

I think it's called an 'Opinion piece'...hence no interview with your esteemed Mr Martin


----------



## noproblem (8 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> I think it's called an 'Opinion piece'...hence no interview with your esteemed Mr Martin



Not my esteemed Mr Martin at all, just pointing out her amateurish attempt to write a political piece. One of my good friends happens to be a FG junior minister and I can assure you there's turmoil in FG over Kenny, the party cannot wait for him to GO and he's well aware of it. In my humble opinion, the people of Ireland would be delighted with that decision too.


----------



## Sophrosyne (8 Apr 2016)

Yes this in an Opinion piece. I have fixed the link in # 42 to the full article.

She also says:

"God knows I’m not buying the FG rhetoric of acting wholly in the interest of the country. It’s approach to re-election showed just how out of touch it was with so many people. Everything Enda Kenny does now has to be tinged with a serious dose of self preservation."

I certainly would not consider Alison O'Connor to be politically ignorant or naive.


----------



## Purple (11 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> I certainly would not consider Alison O'Connor to be politically ignorant or naive.


Her piece was strongly anti-FF. There's no avoiding that. It was an opinion piece so that's fine. She shouldn't have dressed it up as political analysis as it's more a bar stool monologue.


----------



## cork (14 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> She shouldn't have dressed it up as political analysis as it's more a bar stool monologue.



Fills paper - Irish examiner loves opinion pieces.

It has Terry Phone, Gerard Howlin & Fergus Finlay as well - never mentioning their past political associations underneath their respective articles.


----------



## Gerry Canning (14 Apr 2016)

FG & FF , have to get their heads around the obvious fact that coalition type arrangements are turning into the NEW government norm.
Both are petrified that whichever of them are perceived as (minor) parties will suffer the fate of Labour Party or the Greens.
Both are trying to position themselves into a space where both can hold their core voters.

Whichever ends up getting most blame for forcing another election will lose seats.
Or whichever ends propping up an unpopular government and or said government falls , who gets hammered?

As an ordinary voter , I strongly believe that whichever takes a strong line on housing & a longer term sorting of health will show leadership and do well.
Faffing about as they now are doing irritates .!


----------



## dereko1969 (14 Apr 2016)

I hope all those that voted Independent now see the error of their ways, doubt it though.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> As an ordinary voter , I strongly believe that whichever takes a strong line on housing & a longer term sorting of health will show leadership and do well.
> Faffing about as they now are doing irritates .!


A strong position on housing, in our populist political reality, means opposing the very sensible rules on borrowing put in place by the Central Bank.

Populism is what drives Irish politics and as most people don’t understand how the supply and demand of both housing and credit influences prices the following utterly incorrect beliefs are held by the majority of people;

1)  Reducing interest rates will make property more affordable. (It won’t, it will make it more money available for the same housing stock and so make it more expensive).

2)  Relaxing the Central Bank’s loan rules will make property more affordable. (It won’t, it will make more money available for the same housing stock and so make it more expensive).

3)  Taxing Landlords doesn’t increase rents. (Of course it does; businesses have to at least not make a loss and so their costs impact on their price).


If the government want to fix the housing crisis they need to find a way to make the construction sector competitive. The best way is to get large firms from outside Ireland to do the building probably using the superior quality factory built homes which are the norm in most of the rest of Europe.

It also needs to stop taxing renters by proxy through their landlords.


As for Health, well, who is going to say; “Forget about increasing the Healthcare budget; stop wasting money and by the way everyone in the system is part of the problem including doctors and nurses because if they aren’t then they can’t be part of the solution.”


No, populism will continue to reign supreme. The only thing that is up for debate is who will be blamed when the wheels fall off the next time.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> It also needs to stop taxing renters by proxy through their landlords.



I agree largely with everything in previous post, but I don't get this. 
I don't see what material difference it should make to the LPT what the setup of the property is.
The payments made to LPT aren't deductible by owner occupiers.
I don't see why having the relationship as one between landlord and tenant should change that.

If LPT accurately reflects the cost of living in that area, then if rents have to take a bump to pay for it so be it.
If we make LPT, which is a tax, counter tax-deductible, in the end we'll be getting less LPT revenue and will have to raise the LPT rates.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I agree largely with everything in previous post, but I don't get this.
> I don't see what material difference it should make to the LPT what the setup of the property is.
> The payments made to LPT aren't deductible by owner occupiers.
> I don't see why having the relationship as one between landlord and tenant should change that.
> ...



Landlords have to pay income tax on 25% of the cost of their borrowings. For example if the interest element of their mortgage repayment is €600 a month only €450 is allowable as an expense. Therefore €150 is taxable. At the marginal rate that’s around €75. That €75 goes onto the rent so if the tenant is also taxed at the higher rate they have to earn €150 to pay it.


Losses and Capital allowances are also ignored when calculating the amount of USC which is charged on rental income. That is another cost which will be passed onto the tenant.


Between these two items they can account for 10% of the rent charged for a property.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Landlords have to pay income tax on 25% of the cost of their borrowings. For example if the interest element of their mortgage repayment is €600 a month only €450 is allowable as an expense. Therefore €150 is taxable. At the marginal rate that’s around €75. That €75 goes onto the rent so if the tenant is also taxed at the higher rate they have to earn €150 to pay it.



Thanks for the steer.
Ah ok, so because their rental income is taxed at that rate, if the rental income has to rise to cover the cost of the LPT tax then there is a corresponding hit in terms of what they have to pay in tax? Is that it?


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Thanks for the steer.
> Ah ok, so because their rental income is taxed at that rate, if the rental income has to rise to cover the cost of the LPT tax then there is a corresponding hit in terms of what they have to pay in tax? Is that it?


It's not about LTP. It's about the fact that unlike every other business Landlords have to pay tax on some of their gross income rather than just their net income.

Local Property Tax is meant to pay for local services. The renter consumes those local services. The Landlord does not. The reason the Landlord is charged is because Revenue know that they will get the money from the Landlord and may not get it from the Tenant. The net effect is the same though; the tenant pays it through their rent.

Edit: I'm a tenant.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> It's not about LTP. It's about the fact that unlike every other business Landlords have to pay tax on some of their gross income rather than just their net income. Local Property Tax is meant to pay for local services. The renter consumes those local services. The Landlord does not. The reason the Landlord is charged is because Revenue know that they will get the money from the Landlord and may not get it from the Tenant. The net effect is the same though; the tenant pays it through their rent. Edit: I'm a tenant.



I'm agnostic on the "consumes the services" aspects. If you own a property in the area then I think it could be argued you are consuming those local services. You can't just drive the property somewhere else.

But actually, I was thinking more along the lines that the net effect isn't the same... What I mean is, if the Landlord increases the rent per year by the cost of the LPT, do they then have a correspondingly higher rental income liability? So there's kinda double taxation going on of LPT and rental income?


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> But actually, I was thinking more along the lines that the net effect isn't the same... What I mean is, if the Landlord increases the rent per year by the cost of the LPT, do they then have a correspondingly higher rental income liability? So there's kinda double taxation going on of LPT and rental income?


Good point.


----------



## odyssey06 (14 Apr 2016)

dereko1969 said:


> I hope all those that voted Independent now see the error of their ways, doubt it though.



Why? The Independents are willing to work to form a government, it's not their fault that the FF and FG numbers are so low that even with their support it's a minority.
If the numbers had been closer, an Independent TD's voice would be a lot more important than any FF or FG backbencher.


----------



## Delboy (14 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Why? The Independents are willing to work to form a government


I don't think they are. They seem to be trying to straddle 2 horses so to be sure to back a winner at the finish line.
And it's very apparent that some of them will stick with their old tribe regardless of what the other major party proposes in a plan for Govt.


----------



## Delboy (14 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> A strong position on housing, in our populist political reality, means opposing the very sensible rules on borrowing put in place by the Central Bank.


Or it could mean tackling the high cost of housing, bringing down prices for all buyers.
Lets have a referendum on property rights- surely we can draft something that allows for the pricing of development land, that stops hoarding of same etc? We have had referendi for a lot less serious subjects


----------



## Sophrosyne (14 Apr 2016)

We haven’t even got to discussing policies yet, nor are we likely to for some time as this political circus continues.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> Or it could mean tackling the high cost of housing, bringing down prices for all buyers.
> Lets have a referendum on property rights- surely we can draft something that allows for the pricing of development land, that stops hoarding of same etc? We have had referendi for a lot less serious subjects


The cost of housing is set at the bottom end of the price curve by the cost of production and at the top end by demand. Cheap credit increases the cost of housing. Grants for first time buyers increases the cost of housing. 
The major input cost in the price of a house is the construction cost. This should have dramatically reduced through the use of better technology and a reduction in wage demands after the crash. The cost of construction should be a minimum of 25% lower than it was 10 years ago and possibly as much as 50% lower. This hasn't happened. Forget about the government and referendums and all that nonsense and just have the state tender internationally for the large scale construction of state housing. Cut the expensive and inefficient Irish construction sector out of the process completely. When they are competitive again they can get back into the process.

We also need to stop giving out houses for life; social welfare asset transfers should never happen. People should rent their house from the state without owning them and only while they don't have the income to provide housing for themselves.


----------



## Purple (14 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> We haven’t even got to discussing policies yet, nor are we likely to for some time as this political circus continues.


That's hardly a surprise. We don't elect good politicians.


----------



## Ceist Beag (15 Apr 2016)

This is becoming a right shambles. There is unrest in a number of unions (whether that is opportunism or genuine grievances in all cases is a matter of opinion!). FF and FG seem more opposed to each other now than they were at the start of the process. The only option for taoiseach is Enda yet he doesn't seem to be winning much support from anyone outside of FG and even within FG he is on shaky ground. FF now say they won't sign any contract with a FG led minority government should one be formed so they can pull the plug at any stage.
At what point can anyone call a halt to this charade? Can the President intervene or can the politicians keep this going for another 7 weeks if they like? As things stand right now I can't see any way of a stable government being formed so unfortunately it looks like we'll end up with either an unstable government limping along until FF deem to mood and timing is right to pull the plug (and that they will come out well in public opinion by doing so) or else we're back to the polls again. I find the carry on by FG and particularly FF to be quite sickening this past number of weeks tbh. Michael McGrath last night on Prime Time saying they (FF) wanted to show people that politicians could be trusted to keep their pre-election promises ... well Michael one of your promises was for reform and all I have seen is old school politics at it's very worst and it's depressing.


----------



## Gerry Canning (15 Apr 2016)

Purple,
I wasn,t  wanting to be {populist}.

My view is that unless people have a sense of place ,be it rental, ownership,social etc , we are quickly storing up a tsunami of costly social ills, that will well outway the obvious economic costs..
How we square this is down to a Leader taking an overview .
Should it mean , landlords get hit a bit = so be it.
Should it even mean some undeserving leg-lifters get sorted = so be it.
Should it mean solid payers of mortgages pay more to sort this = so be it.

I think we better get ready to pay more to sort ie, swallow that pill !

Delboy.
Agreed , I just don,t get this phobia on property rights.
Surely legislation could be enacted to NOW hit hoarders with a ratcheted annual charge ?


----------



## T McGibney (15 Apr 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> Purple,
> I wasn,t  wanting to be {populist}.
> 
> My view is that unless people have a sense of place ,be it rental, ownership,social etc , we are quickly storing up a tsunami of costly social ills, that will well outway the obvious economic costs..
> ...



Sorry Gerry, I just don't understand how you can fix a housing shortage by "hitting" landlords again?   What do you suggest? Even more of the taxes that have scared so many out of the market? Or more of the over-regulation that has done likewise? Or both? Or something else entirely?

Btw, where are all these hoarders? I don't see any hoarding going on. I see plenty of unoccupied houses though, many in various stages of dereliction, presumably because it is simply uneconomic to restore these to a reasonable standard in the absence of a functioning mortgage market.


----------



## Leper (16 Apr 2016)

The country has an overload of ghost housing estates, shells of houses not completed, laid foundations for years, empty apartment blocks etc.  Most of these are incomplete because of what happened during the recession and property taxes etc. I feel these properties will never be completed and remain a blot on the landscape.

Whatever way we look at these, I reckon it would be reasonably cheap to restart their building.  There will be legal proceedings etc. However, if our politicians are serious about alleviating our housing crisis, these incomplete housing estates appear to be a relatively cheap part of the solution.


----------



## losttheplot (16 Apr 2016)

Leper said:


> The country has an overload of ghost housing estates, shells of houses not completed, laid foundations for years, empty apartment blocks etc.  Most of these are incomplete because of what happened during the recession and property taxes etc. I feel these properties will never be completed and remain a blot on the landscape.
> 
> Whatever way we look at these, I reckon it would be reasonably cheap to restart their building.  There will be legal proceedings etc. However, if our politicians are serious about alleviating our housing crisis, these incomplete housing estates appear to be a relatively cheap part of the solution.



But most of the unfinished houses are in the wrong place. If there was demand for them they would be finished. For the cost of one of the modular houses in Dublin you could buy a block of 6 apartments in places like Longford.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (17 Apr 2016)

Slightly off topic but picking up point re housing crisis. It's obviously an emergency situation for the families involved and the Government... Can the families be moved to where the housing exists - albeit on a temporary e basis. So if Longford for example has 1000 houses- then that's a big dent of the housing list crisis - schools etc are available the dd with local services. If it was for a two/ three year period it might allow the councils to get back building in the interim and by the time the houses are available in the capital some families might even prefer the country - rural resettlement worked for some people before


----------



## Dermot (17 Apr 2016)

Jumpstartdublin said:


> So if Longford for example has 1000 houses- then that's a big dent of the housing list crisis - schools etc are available the dd with local services.
> 
> Longford does not have anything like 1000 houses to spare.  What is available is either in the wrong place/ in bad condition or in unruly estates. The schools are at maximum capacity already. The nearest hospital is almost 50km away and that hospital is just at or about the basic level. The Dr's surgeries are already congested.  It already has both a social and a drug problem.  It has negligible employment.  You would be creating a ghetto.  It already has one of the highest proportions of social housing to private housing in the country.   It has been totally neglected by all Governments for over 20 years.  I do not live in it but I am very well acquainted with it.
> 
> ...



Nothing like this is ever temporary and with the amount of investment that would be involved it should not be temporary.  That is generally what politicians usually do.  Look at the quick fix solution recently where houses that were supposed to be completed at 100k ending up costing 240K


----------



## Delboy (17 Apr 2016)

A lot of those in hotels etc seem to want to be housed where they grew up i.e. D1,3 or 8 for example. Longford or even closer locations such as Kildare are a no no for them


----------



## Dermot (17 Apr 2016)

Never could understand that this could be used as an excuse but I know that it is.   A huge amount of people have to move from one part of the country to another part for job reasons and they do it in order to survive


----------



## Leper (17 Apr 2016)

We know there is shortage of housing in the Dublin area.  But, there is shortage of housing nearly everywhere.  It ain't just Dublin, guys.


----------



## Jumpstartdublin (17 Apr 2016)

If someone in a hotel for a year or 2 is offered a real home in 'Longford' I think a % would be interested ...


----------



## Dermot (17 Apr 2016)

But actually there is a shortage of suitable houses in Longford.


----------



## Gerry Canning (18 Apr 2016)

T Mc Gibney.

I wasn,t having a go @ landlords or indeed anyone .
What I had hoped to get across is that if we wait until , (hoarders)(landlords) (lenders) (renters) etc are all on song ,then nothing substantial will be done.

I see in my own area ,people refusing houses because it doesn,t suit them ! Now that really does my head in !
If you are on housing list and you get a property within your area ,say 4 miles , if you don,t take it ,you drop down the list and rent supplement is cut.

On funding for mortgages. Big issue is affordability , therefore Social Housing with rents that are sensible and importantly rents being collected seems the way to go.

(I ain,t in any way a housing expert just my observations)


----------



## thedaddyman (18 Apr 2016)

losttheplot said:


> But most of the unfinished houses are in the wrong place. If there was demand for them they would be finished. For the cost of one of the modular houses in Dublin you could buy a block of 6 apartments in places like Longford.



I'm aware of one estate outside of Carlow where 18 months ago foundations were laid and the site has been largely sitting there since. I presume that was done to retain planning permission which was nearing expiry. There are plenty of homeless families in the county but the council doesn't have the funds to buy the estate in question and finish it off and allocate it as social housing


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2016)

Gerry Canning said:


> therefore Social Housing with rents that are sensible and importantly rents being collected seems the way to go.


The term of the lease/rental agreement is also an issue; social housing for life is just crazy. The state should not give anyone a house with the expectation they can stay in it for the rest of their life no matter how their circumstances change.


----------



## Gerry Canning (18 Apr 2016)

I don,t have issue with State providing homes even for life , but should their circumstances change for the better so should their rent, in no way should they ever own what we paid for, rents should be realistic indexed  and collected.
In that way there will be little advantage in staying as a Co Co renter in perpetuity, and would (incentivise) people to get their own homes..


----------



## Sophrosyne (18 Apr 2016)

Given where we are at, is it realistic to suppose that a minority government could formulate policies?

How would it agree a budget? Would that also go on for months? Given the intransigence on issues, such as water charges, would a budget ever be agreed?

What if the government had to react quickly to a global crisis?

Are they just delaying an inevitable second general election?


----------



## Leper (18 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne raised a delicate subject amongst our politicians "Are they just delaying an inevitable second general election?"  -  The likes of the TD's who lost their seats because of change of boundaries in their respective constituencies last time want another election.  Having lost their seats they received more publicity than they could buy.  I would say close on 100% of the elected TD's need another general election like Georgia needs another Josef Stalin.

Remember over seven weeks ago our airwaves were filled with TD's screaming for a government to be formed (especially the easy option Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael). Then we had Enda and Micheál talking and then not talking and then talking again.  Now they are agreeing to differ.

You see, despite the moaning of the likes of Michael O'Leary who is just interested in his share price and race-horses (and who would blame him?) appealing to people who are much poorer than him that next time out to forget about the Independents.  Kenny and Martin would want the same. When you read between the lines and watch their squirming body language of most main party politicians you know the last thing they want is another general election.

Michael Healy-Rae is being scoffed at in certain quarters.  Some other Independents are receiving but not as much scoffing too.  Healy-Rae (Michael, at least) is a subtle politician with an agenda that has made him a very rich man.  Next week Michael Healy-Rae will still be rich and the scoffers will still be poor. The Independents are here and will be here for quite some time.  This is mainly due to Fianna Fáil, Labour, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin politicians and their lack of decent representation over the years and one of the mentioned parties nearly broke the country and the others failed to stop them.

So now the whole country is wondering how the Healy-Raes, Halligan etc got elected.  The people are not stupid, you know. I reckon it will be several years before we have another general election.


----------



## Sophrosyne (19 Apr 2016)

Time will tell, of course, but the first big test will be agreeing a budget.

I don’t agree that all elected TDs fear a general election.

I think Fianna Fáil fancies its chances, perhaps also Sinn Fein.

Certainly, the Healy-Raes would have have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Apr 2016)

I see that IW is headed for the State sector.  That is one jolly good thing and thanks to FF for it.  Besides putting a curb on the obscene packages that captains of industry (and agriculture) in the private sector think they are worth, it ensures that any borrowings are on the national balance sheet.  I always thought getting IW debts off the NBS was a dangerous piece of sorcery.


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Apr 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see that IW is headed for the State sector.  That is one jolly good thing and thanks to FF for it.  Besides putting a curb on the obscene packages that captains of industry (and agriculture) in the private sector think they are worth...



The CEO of Irish Water is John Tierney.
Previous occupation: City Manager of Dublin City Council


----------



## Cervelo (21 Apr 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see that IW is headed for the State sector.  That is one jolly good thing and thanks to FF for it.  Besides putting a curb on the obscene packages that captains of industry (and agriculture) in the private sector think they are worth, it ensures that any borrowings are on the national balance sheet.  I always thought getting IW debts off the NBS was a dangerous piece of sorcery.



I would be of the other opinion that the "obscene packages" will remain if not get more "obscene" but now we will pay for it through direct taxation with a government that wont be able to control its spending and costing us more in both the short and long term.


----------



## Sophrosyne (21 Apr 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see that IW is headed for the State sector.  That is one jolly good thing and thanks to FF for it.


 
Therefore, either less funding for water infrastructure or less funding for health, education, etc.


----------



## Delboy (21 Apr 2016)

Wasn't it on the State balance sheet anyways ever since it failed the eurostat test?

I presume the Duke was being sarcastic in his post above re. curbs on obscene packages!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (21 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> Wasn't it on the State balance sheet anyways ever since it failed the eurostat test?
> 
> I presume the Duke was being sarcastic in his post above re. curbs on obscene packages!


Well no. IW have a monoploy; left to their own devices the top 500 execs would be on 7 figure packages on the basis of the huge demand from China for their magical skills.  We might baulk at senior civil servants on safe pensionable salaries getting 6 figure packages but it is in the tuppence hal'penny place compared to the private sector.


----------



## Delboy (21 Apr 2016)

I really don't think that to be the case. ESB is a semi-state but was still paying 750k+ to it's CEO back in 2009.
Coillte also pays top dollar for a very ordinary company in monopoly position

Anyways there are now caps in place for semi-state CEO's pay so they cannot be left to their own devices


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> I really don't think that to be the case. ESB is a semi-state but was still paying 750k+ to it's CEO back in 2009.


That is not a 7 figure sum.  The head of Paddy Power got €3.75m last year and that was by no means an exception.  It is debatable whether the service that a bookie provides to folk is 5 times more important that the electricity supply to the whole community


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Apr 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is not a 7 figure sum.  The head of Paddy Power got €3.75m last year and that was by no means an exception.  It is debatable whether the service that a bookie provides to folk is 5 times more important that the electricity supply to the whole community



Some societies have tried to have that debate. And it didn't end well for anyone except party apparatchiks. I'm sure they could put together a pretty good argument explaining why the workers in Irish Waters should earn more than the CEO, after all, they're the ones doing the work so surely their service is more important to the community than the guy who sits behind a desk?

In a free society people are free to assign the importance they want to the products they purchase. I think some people spend money on all sorts of ridiculous things - fashion fads, concert tickets, sport fads.
And doubtless people may say the same about me, spending money on books, and bottles of wine that cost more than the price of my dinner.

The pertinent question is the effect that a CEO can have on the profitability and survivability of the organisation. Paddy Power operates in a highly competitive environment that has been going through an IT revolution.
The cleaning lady could be promoted to the head of ESB and does anyone think that the company's bottom line would take a hit?


----------



## noproblem (24 Apr 2016)

Almost certain there would be a hit, not guaranteed though. Anyway, what exactly is your point? Is it that only certain people are qualified, or educated, or what? Like, the retired CEO of the ESB was put in charge of Irish Water, what exactly did he know about IW? Then again maybe he knew someone who knew someone else and ?????


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Apr 2016)

noproblem said:


> Almost certain there would be a hit, not guaranteed though. Anyway, what exactly is your point? Is it that only certain people are qualified, or educated, or what? Like, the retired CEO of the ESB was put in charge of Irish Water, what exactly did he know about IW? Then again maybe he knew someone who knew someone else and ?????



It doesn't make commercial sense either to pay over the odds for a CEO - if you can get someone to do the job just as well for 100k or a million less. Irish Water and ESB are in this zone because of their limited commercial decision making.
All the major Irish Water decisions, including pricing, are being made by the government. Irish Water is not in control of its own destiny. It's a government mandated monopoly, a political creation. It will live and die at government whim.
The salaries of its CEOs should be assessed versus civil service department heads etc. They are making administratively important but not commercially important decisions.

But also it's a false economy to try to save 100k or a million on a CEO's renumeration package, who makes the wrong commercial decisions and costs the company tens or hundreds of millions. Paddy Power are in this zone because their are in a dynamic, competitive sector with high scope for commercial decisions to affect the company bottom line.
Paddy Power, commercially, is in control of its own destiny. It will falter or and propser based on its commercial acumen and decisions.

That's the basis for judgement on whether a CEO salary is too high or too low.

Not some impossible to quantify or define or assess 'value' of the 'importance' of the services to the 'community'. One could just as easily argue why should we expect people to value functional things higher than those discretionary items where they can give full flight to their own decision-making? We could be here until kingdom come going down that particular rabbit hole.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (24 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> It doesn't make commercial sense either to pay over the odds for a CEO - if you can get someone to do the job just as well for 100k or a million less.


Couldn't agree more.  But please don't tell me that the CEO of Paddy Power needs £3.75M to do his job.  The fact is that governance of executive pay in the private sector has got completely out of control.


----------



## odyssey06 (24 Apr 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Couldn't agree more.  But please don't tell me that the CEO of Paddy Power needs £3.75M to do his job.  The fact is that governance of executive pay in the private sector has got completely out of control.



In the specific Paddy Power instance I actually don't know... In general, I do think that executives full stop (not just when it comes to pay) seem to be out of control of the nominal owners of the companies i.e. the shareholders.

But, after that sidebar, returning to the main topic, I think we now seem to be heading into another general election. Last week I thought FF and FG were going to do a deal for a FG minority government and finagle some sort of deal on Irish Water that would pacify (if not satisfy) their parties.
The sticking point is coming down to FF's insistence on a suspension of charges for X years. The other aspects - waivers, free allowance, state ownership are not red lines.


----------



## amtc (24 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The CEO of Irish Water is John Tierney.
> Previous occupation: City Manager of Dublin City Council


 
Also an post chair and head of eircode


----------



## Leo (25 Apr 2016)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Couldn't agree more.  But please don't tell me that the CEO of Paddy Power needs £3.75M to do his job.



The only people who can say whether that is good value or not are Paddy Power shareholders.


----------



## 44brendan (25 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> The sticking point is coming down to FF's insistence on a suspension of charges for X years. The other aspects - waivers, free allowance, state ownership are not red lines.


The relevance of IW to the future of this country is both astonishing and alarming. There are 3 issues that the anti pay bodies have raised:

_Water is human right and should be free_ - Probably largely resolvable in that the basic necessary level required per household can be supplied free with any excess use paid for through metering. No reasonable party should oppose this.
_There is an agenda to sell off IW at a future date and we will all be hit with massive bills_. Should be easily resolvable by ensuring IW does not own the infrastructure and has now right to be a monopoly supplier.
_IW as a company has been so undermined that it will never be seen as acceptable to a significant coterie of the populace. _Again simply resolved by implementing some minor structural changes in the organization including a change of name. If I was a business owner I would definitely be making these changes in order to rid my business of the negativities.
FG/FF appear to have hoisted themselves on their own petards over this issue and it has now become the single biggest issue preventing the formation of a stable government. Why is this??? Clearly SF and other so called anti water parties have taken the high moral ground on the issue and FF would view any dilution of their election manifesto on IW as being left open to vulnerability to attack by a Mary Lou uppercut in the Dail. We would end up with farcical Dail debates on the issue and no real work would be done. SF will never accept any resolution to IW as it can only generate additional votes for them.

I am in total despair over this gerrymandering and the potential for it to go on and on until any Government collapses. Politicians have taken entrenched positions and are prepared to ignore the major crisis's of Homelessness and Health as politically these have now assumed a minor importance.

We voted in the lunatics and have only ourselves to blame when they take over the asylum!!!


----------



## Sunny (25 Apr 2016)

Leo said:


> The only people who can say whether that is good value or not are Paddy Power shareholders.



All well and good but the vast majority of shareholders are all large institutional holders who have no desire to raise issues about executive pay when they don't want attention drawn to themselves. Also, look at the number of companies that have non-binding votes on executive pay. Anyone who thinks there isn't an issue with executive pay just needs to look at recent events in BP.


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 Apr 2016)

44brendan said:


> I am in total despair over this gerrymandering and the potential for it to go on and on until any Government collapses. Politicians have taken entrenched positions and are prepared to ignore the major crisis's of Homelessness and Health as politically these have now assumed a minor importance.



An agreement could be reached but this is more about political manoeuvring rather than water charges.

FF is just going through the motions. It has no intention of supporting a FG minority government. It wants another election despite its pronouncements to the contrary.


----------



## Leo (25 Apr 2016)

Sunny said:


> All well and good but the vast majority of shareholders are all large institutional holders who have no desire to raise issues about executive pay when they don't want attention drawn to themselves. Also, look at the number of companies that have non-binding votes on executive pay. Anyone who thinks there isn't an issue with executive pay just needs to look at recent events in BP.



Large institutional holders tend to be better educated and vastly better informed than your average investor. If they're not happy with executive pay, they'll either exert the influence of their large shareholding or move their money elsewhere.


----------



## Sunny (25 Apr 2016)

Leo said:


> Large institutional holders tend to be better educated and vastly better informed than your average investor. If they're not happy with executive pay, they'll either exert the influence of their large shareholding or move their money elsewhere.



Large institutional investors are less inclined to exert their influence of their large shareholding on issues of executive pay because it is in the general interest not to rock the boat and they know it is generally pointless. This is why most items at an AGM about pay are purely advisory so that even if shareholders do vote against them, the company will just shrug their shoulders and say they will examine it for next year. Some large shareholders including Legal & General voted against the pay deal at BP but nothing changed. L&G aren't going to move their investment because they basically can't because they need the stock for index tracking.

This is what L&G said. a lovely wishy washy statement

“LGIM voted against the remuneration report as we felt there was poor alignment between long-term shareholder returns and executive remuneration.

In LGIM’s view the remuneration committee should have used discretion to scale back bonus payments and long term Incentive awards (LTIP) to Executive Directors during the year.

“We welcome the Chairman’s speech to meet leading investors and we will continue to engage with BP to develop a policy better aligned to long term shareholder returns.”

This is the strong response to someone £14m pay package for the chief executive of BP in a year in which it reported record losses, cut thousands of jobs and froze its employees’ pay. And people call Luas workers greedy.


----------



## jim (25 Apr 2016)

It looks likely there will be another general election. If there is will people change their vote or vote the same again? I will probably revise my vote on the basis of whatever/whoever is the root cause for the fiasco we have seen lately with forming a government. Is it possible to identify the individuals that have not played ball and if so I would suggest those individuals should suffer the consequences in a new General Election.

The big question for me though is who is responsible for the shambles we have seen recently with trying to form a government and indeed can it be attributed to specific individuals??


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> The big question for me though is who is responsible for the shambles we have seen recently with trying to form a government and indeed can it be attributed to specific individuals??



As far as I'm concerned, at the moment the ball is in FG's court at least in terms of the FG-FF deal.
Whatever the merits of IW, on a political level, the deal on the table is reflective of the expressed wishes of the electorate based on the party platforms that were voted for.
The majority of TDs in the Dail would vote in favour of the deal. In a hung Dail, to me, that is significant in a way it isn't when there is a clear legislative majority for one party or formal coalition.

It remains to be seen that if FG accept that deal, but still can't form a government, whether the fault would be with FG or particular Independents.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 Apr 2016)

I really don't get the ritual _"the last thing the people want is another GE"_  that we keep hearing.  I love GEs, 4 weeks at least of fun climaxing in 3 or more days of drama at the counts; beats any sport I know for entertainment.

Of course, the elected politicians hardly want another GE, why put your job on the line? and there is the question of expense, and all that "on the doorstep" stuff.


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Whatever the merits of IW, on a political level, the deal on the table is reflective of the expressed wishes of the electorate based on the party platforms that were voted for.



How truthful are anti-water charges politicians being with the electorate though?

It is not at all clear that water charges _can _be abolished or suspended without incurring a hefty fine and daily penalties for breaches of the EU Water Framework Directive.

Some have cited Article 9(4) as giving Ireland a derogation on the basis that Ireland did not have a tradition of water charges.

Even if that were true, the government would still have to come up with a credible alternative method of complying with the "polluter pays" principle and the principle of water conservation.

As far back as 2003, Ireland, under FF, enacted S.I. No. 722/2003 European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003, in which section 11 deal with recovery of costs (water charges) according to the polluter pays principle.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> How truthful are anti-water charges politicians being with the electorate though?
> It is not at all clear that water charges _can _be abolished or suspended without incurring a hefty fine and daily penalties for breaches of the EU Water Framework Directive. Some have cited Article 9(4) as giving Ireland a derogation on the basis that Ireland did not have a tradition of water charges.
> Even if that were true, the government would still have to come up with a credible alternative method of complying with the "polluter pays" principle and the principle of water conservation.



If that was the case, wouldn't FG be making more hay with it and trotting out every former FG diplomat and senior counsel to hammer home the point? It wouldn't be coming down to hardball negotiations, or being kicked to touch of a committee. It would be a full page ad in national newspapers declaring without any shadow of a doubt that it was impossible.
I think there's more than enough 'wiggle' room in that 'tradition' line to push through something along the lines of what FF are proposing so as to fudge the issue enough - without thumbing their noses at the EU enough to bring down any legal ire.
There would still be commercial rates. There would still eventually be water charges encompassing at least 60% of the total IW user base.
They would point out that charges will apply over the free allowance for that 40%, thereby encouraging conservation.
The government would be able to point to growing percentages of leaks fixed and efficiencies in water delivery brought about by the establishment of a national utility.

How, for example, do the UK justify this scheme to cap water charges for people on state support with medical issues or X number of children regardless of usage? 
Granted, Ireland is proposing to exempt a lot more people per capita, but how can the UK scheme be reconciled with an absolute polluter pays principle if they are not paying for all their pollution?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/c...atersure-scheme-help-with-paying-water-bills/

So, on the assumption that water charges come back in 3-5 in some shape or other, would the European Commission (?) in 5 years really take Ireland to court for the limited exemptions for that 40% of residential users?
In the interim period, would the European Commission really intervene to force the introduction of charges in the face of a Irish government that had been publicly formed on the basis of suspending them temporarily, in response to a public mandate to do so?
I'm going to say they'd give Ireland the time, and turn their gaze away from that 40%... unless it wants to lose support in one of the last remaining popularly pro-EU countries.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Apr 2016)

Most countries provide assistance, usually, in the form of waivers to certain groups of its citizens. That is not the problem.

Ireland’s problem is that the majority of the electorate voted for the complete abolition of water charges in the belief that this was possible.

Obviously, in order to capture the anti-water charge vote, Fianna Fáil could not advocate abolition without making a liar of itself – since it signed up to the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003.

So, it is attempting the next best thing - kick the problem down the road for 5 years. Why 5 years - the term of a government?

In the intervening 5 years, investment in our creaking water infrastructure will continue to be as it has been, completely inadequate.

As for Ireland’s influence in the EU, we are a peripheral small fish in a big sea.

The fact that water charges are a red line issue at all is indicative of small mindedness and lack of broad long-term vision.


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Ireland’s problem is that the majority of the electorate voted for the complete abolition of water charges in the belief that this was possible.


Agree with most of your postSophrosyne but I do find it hard to agree with this statement. The thing is we just don't know if this is true or not. Obviously FG will claim that their votes want to keep water charges. FF did not campaign for the abolition of water charges, merely the suspension of them for now, but even then how many FF votes were on the basis of this stance as opposed to any of the other items on their manifesto? To me it is simply not credible that a vote for FF was a vote against water charges. Then you have the independents - you certainly cannot say that all votes for independents were because it was a vote for the abolition of water charges. Labour and Greens - neither of these were votes for the abolition of water charges. Therefore, imho the only true votes we could count as being for the abolition of water charges are the Social Democrats, Sinn Fein, AAA and PBP votes. This amounts to 18% of the electorate - far from a majority. For the remaining 82% we simply do not know what people thing specifically on Irish Water or how many want it abolished.
I find two things really frustrating about this whole formation of a government mess. 
1. It is wrong of both FF and FG to dig their heels in over their positions on Irish Water as they simply cannot claim that 100% of their votes were on the basis of their pre election positions on Irish Water. This is not credible and is not a reasonable stance to take.
2. Irish Water is such a small issue in the overall picture that it has become a question of political pride rather than a crucial issue for the formation of the next government - neither side wants to be seen to conceding anything on this point rather than focusing on the bigger issues.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Apr 2016)

Ceist Beag said:


> Agree with most of your postSophrosyne but I do find it hard to agree with this statement. The thing is we just don't know if this is true or not. Obviously FG will claim that their votes want to keep water charges. FF did not campaign for the abolition of water charges, merely the suspension of them for now, but even then how many FF votes were on the basis of this stance as opposed to any of the other items on their manifesto? To me it is simply not credible that a vote for FF was a vote against water charges. Then you have the independents - you certainly cannot say that all votes for independents were because it was a vote for the abolition of water charges. Labour and Greens - neither of these were votes for the abolition of water charges. Therefore, imho the only true votes we could count as being for the abolition of water charges are the Social Democrats, Sinn Fein, AAA and PBP votes. This amounts to 18% of the electorate - far from a majority. For the remaining 82% we simply do not know what people thing specifically on Irish Water or how many want it abolished.
> I find two things really frustrating about this whole formation of a government mess.
> 1. It is wrong of both FF and FG to dig their heels in over their positions on Irish Water as they simply cannot claim that 100% of their votes were on the basis of their pre election positions on Irish Water. This is not credible and is not a reasonable stance to take.
> 2. Irish Water is such a small issue in the overall picture that it has become a question of political pride rather than a crucial issue for the formation of the next government - neither side wants to be seen to conceding anything on this point rather than focusing on the bigger issues.



I really think you need to take a step back here and think about what you are saying. The stances on IW were one of the main policy differences between the two parties and were called out in their party manifestos. If we cannot assign any votes against them, then how can we say any party has a mandate for any policy?
And then when parties turn around and throw election manifesto policies and promises out of the window, and we are back with a Pat Rabbitte "shure nobody believes them nonsense once the votes are counted, now give me some champagne and a merc" kinda of cute hoorism? Is that good for democracy or good for the country?
We voted for candidates who stood for office on the basis of their platform and manifesto. The parties should try their best to honour that manifesto. Now maybe you disagree with the manifesto, or how people voted. But that's democracy.
I'd rather have parties that looked more to their manifestos than the perks of office during negotiation.

Irish Water is not a small issue in the overall picture. It is the light that illuminates the picture. FG's handling of it during their last term in office has made it a red line issue for many voters.The introduction of a new nationality utility that affects so many people should never be considered a small issue. How can any party that subjected the citizens to such contempt in the setting up of IW (remember the PPS number debacle, the landlord-tenant responsibility debacle, the previously promised generous free allowance that disappeared down the plughole, the Phil Hogan two fingers to the electorate I'm off on the Brussels gravy train moment) be relied upon to fix the health and housing concerns of the same citizens?
There has to be an impact levied on FG and IW for all of that.
It was levied on FG in lost TDs and relegation to minority government or the opposition benches.
It needs to be levied on IW with the suspension of charges and its extinction as a separate company is it.


----------



## Leo (26 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I really think you need to take a step back here and think about what you are saying. The stances on IW were one of the main policy differences between the two parties and were called out in their party manifestos. If we cannot assign any votes against them, then how can we say any party has a mandate for any policy?



You have to factor in also that there are significant portions of the population who will, for historic or other reasons, always vote FF/FG regardless of their policies. Also, particularly in the more rural/ small town constituencies, a significant portion of the population have been paying for their water for years, and would finally like to see an end to what they see as them subsidising those living in cities and towns served by public infrastructure.


----------



## Gerry Canning (26 Apr 2016)

I don,t think Irish Water was {main policy difference} twix fg/ff/sf. They all policy agreed on Water charges until FG made a right mess of it ? and it became a baton to carry in last election.
FG are stuck with being heavy handed and stupid and arrogant, FF are stuck in that looking for votes in election, they  nailed their flag to the slippy mast of how we charge for water, , SF who supported charges ,figured they must follow the mob ie votes.

If we have another election non of these muppets better call to my door !!

To claim Irish Water is a RED LINE  issue  from these boyos is so-so insulting to our intelligence.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Apr 2016)

Leo said:


> You have to factor in also that there are significant portions of the population who will, for historic or other reasons, always vote FF/FG regardless of their policies. Also, particularly in the more rural/ small town constituencies, a significant portion of the population have been paying for their water for years, and would finally like to see an end to what they see as them subsidising those living in cities and towns served by public infrastructure.



If they are that concerned about only paying for the actual cost of services, I'd like to see rural and small town constituencies pay the actual cost of national utilities like ESB, An Post, Telephones instead of having common national charges. But you win some, you some lose. They drew the short straw on water, Dublin drew the short straw on everything else.

I think it is a slippery slope if you start encouraging parties to disregard their manifesto promises. You're voting for a package deal, and their policies on IW were part of the FG and FF package. I live in a city, if I vote for a party who has policies on rural Ireland, I'm giving tacit approval to them.

If it wasn't for the EU angle, I think the best way for the parties to kick IW to touch would be to agree to hold a consultative referendum on the suspension of charges. The Conservative-LibDems did this with proportional representation when it was a bone of contention to them forming a government, even though the Conservatives campaigned against PR in the actual referendum.


----------



## Leo (26 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I think it is a slippery slope if you start encouraging parties to disregard their manifesto promises.



Start? You think this is a new thing?


----------



## T McGibney (26 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> If they are that concerned about only paying for the actual cost of services, I'd like to see rural and small town constituencies pay the actual cost of national utilities like ESB, An Post, Telephones instead of having common national charges.



What are you on about? A rural electricity connection costs way more than an urban one. An Post & telecoms companies can basically charge what they like for their services, subject to rather ineffective regulators, but are subject to external competition who will wipe them out of they gouge users in any given part of the country.

And every rural small town has a "free" public water system, just like the bigger towns and cities.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Apr 2016)

Leo said:


> Start? You think this is a new thing?



True but I don't even remember it to this extent in a situation where you are two parties within touching distance of each other in terms of seats. I think it's understood that in coalition talks that the junior parties have to be realistic. 
I don't see FF or FG as being junior to each other.
Parties who have jettisoned their manifestos - especially senior parties or junior parties who declared that this was a red line for them - have been and should be criticised.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> What are you on about? A rural electricity connection costs way more than an urban one. An Post & telecoms companies can basically charge what they like for their services, subject to rather ineffective regulators, but are subject to external competition who will wipe them out of they gouge users in any given part of the country.



A stamp to deliver a letter to the middle of nowhere costs the same as one to a densely populated suburb. No way is the cost of delivery the same.
What would the true cost of electricity and broadband etc be to rural areas without the economies of scale generated by the large urban user base?


----------



## T McGibney (26 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> A stamp to deliver a letter to the middle of nowhere costs the same as one to a densely populated suburb. No way is the cost of delivery the same.


So what? A litre of milk bought next to the creamery is no cheaper than one transported for sale into the heart of a city. A litre of diesel in a filling station 1km from Rosslare port is no cheaper than one transported to Dublin or Donegal. We could keep this up all day.




odyssey06 said:


> What would the true cost of electricity and broadband etc be to rural areas without the economies of scale generated by the large urban user base?


Ask any rural broadband company. They don't supply urban areas.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> We could keep this up all day



Precisely. Which is why I don't have much time for the rural "we've been paying for X all along" thing. They've also been getting 20% of Dublin's property tax in that time. Either accept that there's a balancing out going on or look for location specific charges for everything.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Precisely. Which is why I don't have much time for the rural "we've been paying for X all along" thing. They've also been getting 20% of Dublin's property tax in that time. Either accept that there's a balancing out going on or look for location specific charges for everything.



Who is "they"? The councils? Every one of them serve urban areas too including providing facilities like free street lighting and even grass cutting.

Many rural dwellers, but not all of them, have indeed been paying the economic cost of water services all along. Others have been getting a free service although they can well afford to pay it. 

That goes way deeper than the concept of location-specific charges - especially as urban water supplies are piped from the regions into the cities in the first instance.

You're at pains to excuse this imbalance up as part of a wider urban v rural swings and roundabouts even though it's way more complex and nuanced than you suggest. If you're going to do that at least get your facts right from the outset.


----------



## 44brendan (26 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I think it is a slippery slope if you start encouraging parties to disregard their manifesto promises. You're voting for a package deal, and their policies on IW were part of the FG and FF package. I live in a city, if I vote for a party who has policies on rural Ireland, I'm giving tacit approval to them.


So in effect you are stating that all parties who go to the electorate with a specific manifesto should/must implement that manifesto if they then form a government. In effect that rules out any possibility of a Government being formed unless 1 party gets an overall majority. A manifesto cannot be written in stone as it's broadly based on circumstances and opportunity. In reality parties when elected should do their utmost to honour their promises ( reality unfortunately has shown us otherwise) but compromise will always be required when circumstances such as a coalition government or economic circumstances require a dilution of election promises.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Apr 2016)

44brendan said:


> So in effect you are stating that all parties who go to the electorate with a specific manifesto should/must implement that manifesto if they then form a government. In effect that rules out any possibility of a Government being formed unless 1 party gets an overall majority. A manifesto cannot be written in stone as it's broadly based on circumstances and opportunity. In reality parties when elected should do their utmost to honour their promises ( reality unfortunately has shown us otherwise) but compromise will always be required when circumstances such as a coalition government or economic circumstances require a dilution of election promises.



I totally agree with you in regard to "doing their utmost". Usually the balance of power in the coalition or the economic circumstances are clearer drivers as you note, but I think we are in a messier situation here...

Party A will not bring down a minority government led by Party B for X years, provided Party B honours a manifesto pledge by Party A which is contrary to a manifesto pledge by Party B. We effectively have a draw \ stalemate there.
Party B is a minority government, reliant on other TDs for support even to operate as a minority government.
Party A and Party B cannot agree on this.

The stalemate should be settled by the broader view of the policy issue among the Dail in general. Have a vote on the suspension of charges. FF and FG can honour their election manifesto promises by voting Aye or Nay respectively. 

If either of the main parties are unwilling to allow the Dail to decide the issue, then they should stop messing about and pull the plug, dust off the posters and get back out canvassing for the next elections. And maybe have another look at that manifesto to see if they still want sth to be a red line.


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Apr 2016)

44brendan said:


> So in effect you are stating that all parties who go to the electorate with a specific manifesto should/must implement that manifesto if they then form a government. In effect that rules out any possibility of a Government being formed unless 1 party gets an overall majority. A manifesto cannot be written in stone as it's broadly based on circumstances and opportunity. In reality parties when elected should do their utmost to honour their promises ( reality unfortunately has shown us otherwise) but compromise will always be required when circumstances such as a coalition government or economic circumstances require a dilution of election promises.


Precisely. Odyssey there is no way both FF and FG can achieve every promise in their election manifestos - there will have to be compromise or else we go for another election. It is disingenuous to suggest that FF and FG should stick rigidly to their manifesto position on IW if they are serious about trying to agree on a minority FG led government supported by FF. Either agree on compromise or stop this charade and go back for another election.


----------



## QED (26 Apr 2016)

The dominance of the Water Charges debate in the past 24 months and its exaggerated importance in the Election campaign is really damaging the country. It is taking the focus away from real problems and most of our Politicians are more focused on getting their personal Water Charges strategy correct to protect themselves, than making any other decisions. 

It is really a very minor issue for most people. A small decrease in Income tax / USC would offset the charges - but then the main Protestors might not get the benefit of this.  

Can the President force an Election date?


----------



## jim (26 Apr 2016)

Nail on the head QED!!

Lets stop talking about IW for a second, take a step back and ask what is wrong with our political system? Why have they failed to form a government since being elected? Who/what is the root cause of this failure?

Lets focus energy positively on debating and rationalising the above rather than wasting time and energy talking about the distraction that is IW. Lets identify where the system is broken and fix it in the next General Election.


----------



## QED (26 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> Nail on the head QED!!
> 
> Lets stop talking about IW for a second, take a step back and ask what is wrong with our political system? Why have they failed to form a government since being elected? Who/what is the root cause of this failure?
> 
> Lets focus energy positively on debating and rationalising the above rather than wasting time and energy talking about the distraction that is IW. Lets identify where the system is broken and fix it in the next General Election.



Furthermore, I think both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are using Water Charges to differentiate themselves and hide the fact that there is very little difference betwen the 2 Partys. It is in both Party's interest to keep the charade that they are different. There are 2 huge Organisations with a huge draw from the public purse, and they need to keep both Organisations up and running. 

It's the Emperors Clothes.


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Apr 2016)

Ceist Beag said:


> Agree with most of your postSophrosyne but I do find it hard to agree with this statement. The thing is we just don't know if this is true or not. Obviously FG will claim that their votes want to keep water charges. FF did not campaign for the abolition of water charges, merely the suspension of them for now, but even then how many FF votes were on the basis of this stance as opposed to any of the other items on their manifesto?



You are right Ceist Beag, I phrased this badly.

Certainly, the electorate would have had many reasons for their choice of candidates. It just happened that most elected TDs favoured abolition of water charges in their manifestos:

AAA,
FF,
PBP,
SD,
SF, and
certain independents.

The FF manifesto, page 38, actually contains a commitment to abolish rather than suspend water charges, despite signing up to the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003.

So, if abolition was put to a Dáil vote, it would likely be carried.

You have to ask why abolition of water charges was so important in the talks that it was placed above more pressing issues.

Some have asked what is wrong with our political system. Surely, this is a case in point.

In whose interest is abolition of water charges and what about the knock-on consequences on ongoing budgets for health, education, housing, policing, etc.?


----------



## monagt (27 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> In whose interest is abolition of water charges and what about the knock-on consequences on ongoing budgets for health, education, housing, policing, etc.?



In whose interest is the retention of Irish Water?

Initial plan was to privatise and sell it off (I wonder to whom?)

Abolition of water charges? - cost of water currently included in General taxation, LPT and Motor Tax.



Sophrosyne said:


> It just happened that most elected TDs favoured abolition of water charges in their manifestos:



No coincidence here I think.......................??

Why do we have a Department of the Environment? It  controls the Local Authorities and all it needs is funding and focus.

I would prefer not to have another ESB with the power to hold the country to ransom with the most well paid workers in the country.

Could the Irish Water unions potentially turn of the water and sewerage treatment plants in a LUAS type dispute.

D/Environment with proper funding and direction could manage Water by the 5 regions with the Councils/LAs doing the work (as now)

Let the DAIL vote now on Irish Water and be done with it.


----------



## Delboy (27 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Initial plan was to privatise and sell it off (I wonder to whom?)


Any evidence for that?


----------



## T McGibney (27 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> D/Environment with proper funding and direction could manage Water by the 5 regions with the Councils/LAs doing the work (as now)



They've been doing that for generations, with reasonably good results in some counties and absolutely atrocious failures, including E. coli outbreaks and boil water notices, in others.  Meanwhile our ageing national water infrastructure continues to creak...


----------



## blueband (27 Apr 2016)

Wollie said:


> Like others, I'm fed up to the teeth with all this claptrap about IW, when there are so many REAL problems facing the country.  I also object to the claims that the last election was a referendum about IW.  The fact is that we need a national water utility.  Full stop.  IW's introduction has been appallingly badly managed.  That's a separate matter; it doesn't take from the fact that the country needs the utility, and we should  pay for it, broadly in proportion to how much water we use, with appropriate (limited) exemptions.  I heard someone on the radio this morning say that he was thinking of starting a protest movement FOR the retention of IW.  I'd be happy to join that particular protest.    Any volunteers to organise it?


Think you might struggle to find very much support that cause! ....


----------



## 44brendan (27 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Initial plan was to privatise and sell it off (I wonder to whom?)


This was something used as a scaremongering tactic by PPP/AAA etc. IW do not own the infrastructure and would not be entitled to interfere with water supply/waste disposal in any dispute.
Also, I am open to correction on this but IW are unlikely to hold any monopoly from the State in respect of water supply. I.e. I just don't envisage a scenario where IW could be sold and new buyers immediately turn off all the taps & demand an enormous premium to turn them on again.
It would be interesting to discover exactly what rights IW currently have other than a contract with the State to maintain/repair the infrastructure!!! Would the company have any intrinsic value to an external purchaser if these contracts were renewable annually?


----------



## Ceist Beag (27 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> In whose interest is the retention of Irish Water?


In the interest of the economy of this country



monagt said:


> Initial plan was to privatise and sell it off (I wonder to whom?)


Where did you get this story - anywhere credible?



monagt said:


> Abolition of water charges? - cost of water currently included in General taxation, LPT and Motor Tax.


In other words, paid for by those paying tax only. I would prefer everyone pays for the cost of providing water in this country, not just tax payers.


----------



## jim (27 Apr 2016)

right that enough about irish water - its boring. lets discuss the forum's title.


----------



## monagt (27 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> right that enough about irish water - its boring. lets discuss the forum's title.



Agree.

Stephen Donnelly, Social Democrats TD talked about the need to remove the decision on Irish Water out of government negotiations. 
This issue must come before the entire Dáil where a democratic vote can take place in order to truly reflect the mandate of the electorate on this particular issue.

Let the elected representatives vote on the future of Irish Water with a proper debate, instead of being railroaded through as before (lest people forget)

........Thats democratic


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> Lets stop talking about IW for a second, take a step back and ask what is wrong with our political system? Why have they failed to form a government since being elected? Who/what is the root cause of this failure?
> 
> Lets focus energy positively on debating and rationalising the above rather than wasting time and energy talking about the distraction that is IW. Lets identify where the system is broken and fix it in the next General Election.



What is preventing you from discussing what you feel is the reason for the failure to form a government or from identifying where the system is broken?


----------



## Leper (28 Apr 2016)

It probably suits Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to keep Irish Water to the fore.  The real issues, poverty, homelessness, the economy, restless public servants, organised crime etc can take a back seat but not Irish bloody Water. You see, they can resolve the water issue, but not the others.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Apr 2016)

Leper said:


> It probably suits Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to keep Irish Water to the fore.  The real issues, poverty, homelessness, the economy, restless public servants, organised crime etc can take a back seat but not Irish bloody Water. You see, they can resolve the water issue, but not the others.


Good point, and we should probably give more focus to matters of policy that are entirely within their control, and not 'attempts' to control, or 'statements' to predict, forces external to then. Not saying politicians can't do anything about the above matters, but they are more plans of attack than what will actually happen.


----------



## Cervelo (28 Apr 2016)

Leper said:


> It probably suits Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to keep Irish Water to the fore.  The real issues, poverty, homelessness, the economy, restless public servants, organised crime etc can take a back seat but not Irish bloody Water. You see, they can resolve the water issue, but not the others.



But their not resolving the water problem they are just kicking the problem down the road for somebody else to deal with


----------



## monagt (28 Apr 2016)

"The main argument for domestic charges has been that the money is needed for additional investment but this is a false argument. The economics of the water charge are such that the money raised more or less covers the cost of raising the money so not a single euro paid out by Irish households is being used to invest in the water system, nor is it being used to provide people with water. It covers the cost of taking the money from them. Nevertheless, capital investment is happening. This is much needed and welcome but how is it happening if the domestic water charge is not raising any money to make it happen? It is happening because Irish Water is borrowing.

The second argument put forward by the Government for a domestic water charge is that a domestic water charge allows Irish Water to borrow this money, which means we do not have to shrink the fiscal space.

However, Irish Water is borrowing on balance sheet so the Irish State can borrow on balance sheet, but at a much lower cost, to do exactly the same thing. It costs approximately twice as much money in Ireland per capita to supply water as it does in the UK, including in Northern Ireland where there is a similar geography and population density. Therein lies the answer to finding the several hundred million euro per year required for capital investment in the system."    
Extract from Stephen Donnelly. DAIL.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> However, Irish Water is borrowing on balance sheet so the Irish State can borrow on balance sheet, but at a much lower cost, to do exactly the same thing. It costs approximately twice as much money in Ireland per capita to supply water as it does in the UK, including in Northern Ireland where there is a similar geography and population density. Therein lies the answer to finding the several hundred million euro per year required for capital investment in the system."
> Extract from Stephen Donnelly. DAIL.



So Donnelly wants the State, which is already indebted to the point of ruination, to borrow even more, with the taxpayer again left to meet the cost of repaying these additional borrowings.


----------



## Firefly (28 Apr 2016)

QED said:


> _It is really a very minor issue for most people. A small decrease in Income tax / USC would offset the charges - but then the main Protestors might not get the benefit of this._



100% agree. Those most vocal about water charges are those used to getting everything else for free. Notice how it's become almost uncool to talk about water charges now? Most people agree that we should pay to protect water. It's just the usual case of a segment in society wanting the rest of us to pay for them yet again.


----------



## monagt (28 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> So Donnelly wants the State, which is already indebted to the point of ruination, to borrow even more, with the taxpayer again left to meet the cost of repaying these additional borrowings.



I am confused by the above. It all comes from the taxpayer in the end.

His point was the method and costs involved, maybe better to include it in the LPT after LPT is sorted out.(*ability to pay, city valuations, etc)

Maybe if Fine Gael allowed a proper debate in the DAIL on Water at the start we would have a different outcome today.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> I am confused by the above. It all comes from the taxpayer in the end.



No, it doesn't. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers don't use  or have access to public water supplies. Hundreds of thousands of public water consumers don't pay taxes. 



monagt said:


> His point was the method and costs involved, maybe better to include it in the LPT after LPT is sorted out.(*ability to pay, city valuations, etc)



See above.


----------



## monagt (28 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> No, it doesn't. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers don't use  or have access to public water supplies. Hundreds of thousands of public water consumers don't pay taxes.
> See above.



More Confused, I am 

Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers don't use or have access to public water supplies. (Group Scheme or Wells, I presume, maybe the low LPT makes up some of the difference here and I won't mention the scourge of Ribbon Development here) also you miss out on the Fluoride poison.

Hundreds of thousands of public water consumers don't pay taxes. -> Name one (Every one pays Taxes)


----------



## 44brendan (28 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> (Every one pays Taxes)


I think the point here was based on income tax rather than transaction taxes monagt. While everybody pays VAT and all motorists pay or should pay car tax these taxes are utilized in supporting the existing Gov spend and would be difficult to adjust to cover water infrastructure changes and repairs.
Neither piped water/sewage nor electricity are "god given rights" and have to be paid for (waste disposal would be another example). If central tax revenue needs to be allocated now to cover expenditure on water it means that either funds have to be diverted from other much needed areas or alternatively some element of tax needs to be adjusted upwards to pay for the services.
Without meaning to be in any way controversial on the issue it seems to me that it makes perfect sense to apply an appropriate charge to the user for these services. Obviously taking ability to pay into account.
FF have now stated that they are against the concept of "the user pays". They are perfectly entitled to take that stance but would need to put forward a properly costed and funded alternatively proposal which I have not seen (perhaps one is available!!!).


----------



## monagt (28 Apr 2016)

Everyone pays taxes..............  ............into ONE POT. (That why the Government was able to raid the National Pension Reserve, it was set aside but its really only a label)

For conservation purposes then have a meter and charge for use, by all means, is its about conservation. Its not, its a revenue generating game.
A better way would be to scrap LPT, call it a community charge and add it an item for water, garbage, councils and let people see what they are paying for and how much.
Lets keep the number of bills people have to pay as low as possible.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers don't use or have access to public water supplies. (Group Scheme or Wells, I presume, maybe the low LPT makes up some of the difference here



Maybe it does. But you tell me how LPT can be flexed in order to discourage wilful waste of potable treated water and I'll gladly concede your point. Incidentally group water schemes charge by metered use and such schemes saw consumers drastically cutting their water usage when usage-based charging was introduced.




monagt said:


> and I won't mention the scourge of Ribbon Development here)



But you did. Look up the definition of ribbon development. It's an urban phenomenon and ribbon development homes in Irish towns and villages are usually connected to public water utilities.




monagt said:


> Hundreds of thousands of public water consumers don't pay taxes. -> Name one (Every one pays Taxes)



This is a silly point. Huge numbers collect more in direct financial payments from the State than they pay in taxes.


----------



## monagt (28 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Maybe it does. But you tell me how LPT can be flexed in order to discourage wilful waste of potable treated water and I'll gladly concede your point. Incidentally group water schemes charge by metered use and such schemes saw consumers drastically cutting their water usage when usage-based charging was introduced.



----> Until 2001, I was on GWS and paid water rates to Meath, no meter so it must be a new thing.



> But you did. Look up the definition of ribbon development. It's an urban phenomenon and ribbon development homes in Irish towns and villages are usually connected to public water utilities.



----> And I thought it related to a string of Bungalows along a country road rather than in a village/town where services were more economical to provide.



> This is a silly point. Huge numbers collect more in direct financial payments from the State than they pay in taxes.



-----> Ah Here, Perhaps they actually need the payments, then they pay a lot of back in indirect taxes, will agree there are a lot who should not be getting it but thats not the point.

Full Disclosure: I am not a supporter of FF, FG or Labour. (or AA/PBP etc)


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Maybe it does. But you tell me how LPT can be flexed in order to discourage wilful waste of potable treated water and I'll gladly concede your point. Incidentally group water schemes charge by metered use and such schemes saw consumers drastically cutting their water usage when usage-based charging was introduced.



Please provide examples of wilful (that is deliberate, intentional, conscious, purposeful) waste of water by Irish citizens.
The figures that I have seen indicate an expected drop in consumption of 10% due to charging. I would not call that a drastic reduction, nor would I necessarily classify the additional 10% consumption seen without charges as 'wilful waste' as opposed to carelessness. Any claims for larger reductions usually include reductions due to leak repairs, which do not necessarily require a national charging structure for typical domestic water usage.


----------



## Sophrosyne (29 Apr 2016)

Similar specious argument could be made for funding electricity or gas charges through general taxation. 
They are as necessary for human life as water.

This is rubbish economics.

The Irish tax base is too narrow. There are too few carrying the burden.

Talks should have concentrated on increasing taxpayer numbers by exploring ways to support meaningful job creation and reduce those relying on welfare.

They should also cast a cold eye on other matters.

The black economy undermines legitimate business. That and criminal activity, at all levels and in all forms, is fleecing the Irish State and its citizens.

If politicians are serious about reform, they need get over short-term expediencies, which cost more in the long run.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Similar specious argument could be made for funding electricity or gas charges through general taxation.
> They are as necessary for human life as water. This is rubbish economics.



I think this thread has jumped the shark.
I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that human life only started with the ESB!
Humanity seemed to get along fine for 99% of their existence without electricity or gas 
But you've been led to that conclusion but the contagious madness that is IW, which has now taken hold on the thread and refuses to release its grip.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

> I think this thread has jumped the shark.


 - Agree, my last comment 



odyssey06 said:


> I think this thread has jumped the shark.
> I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that human life only started with the ESB!



Hold on.......I'm 99% electricity and need 3 charges per day 

To summarise and a person can be in one or more of these groups.

FG, Labour, Taxpayer, Good Honest Virtuous Person beyond reproach, Religious = Pro Irish Water + Pro Water Charges

FF, SF, AAA/PBP, Marxists, Criminal, Tax Dodger, Sinner, Black Economy, Leninist, Social Welfare Freeloaders & Parasites, Trouble makers = Anti Irish Water + Anti Water Charges

E&OE


----------



## Delboy (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> -
> 
> FF, SF, *AAA/PBP*, Marxists, Criminal, Tax Dodger, Sinner, Black Economy, Leninist, Social Welfare *Freeloaders & Parasites*, Trouble makers = Anti Irish Water + Anti Water Charges
> 
> E&OE


I see Paul Murphy TD (c90k salary + very very generous expenses + gold plated pension) got his request for legal aid granted yesterday for his upcoming water protest/illegal detention legal case.
Only in Ireland


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

Delboy said:


> I see Paul Murphy TD (c90k salary + very very generous expenses + gold plated pension) got his request for legal aid granted yesterday for his upcoming water protest/illegal detention legal case.
> Only in Ireland



How can this happen?  Any legal eagles here who can explain this travesty?

He has income well beyond the average..............


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> ----> Until 2001, I was on GWS and paid water rates to Meath, no meter so it must be a new thing.



2001 is 15 years ago.



monagt said:


> ----> And I thought it related to a string of Bungalows along a country road rather than in a village/town where services were more economical to provide.


The vast majority of these developments are on the edges of towns and villages, which are served by public water utilities.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> Please provide examples of wilful (that is deliberate, intentional, conscious, purposeful) waste of water by Irish citizens.
> The figures that I have seen indicate an expected drop in consumption of 10% due to charging.



You've just answered your own question.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> 2001 is 15 years ago.



--> Good with figures, eh..... 



> The vast majority of these developments are on the edges of towns and villages.



--> True, but you do but you see a lots of Bungalow Bliss houses lined along county roads


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> You've just answered your own question.



Not really, 50% of water is lost to leaks and equals the water they are going to take from the shannon.

Meters at every house is are not required required to identify the leaks so the meter money/IW/€80M consultancy fees should have been spent fixing them.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> --> True, but you do but you see a lots of Bungalow Bliss houses lined along county roads


Doesn't alter my point though.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> This is a silly point. Huge numbers collect more in direct financial payments from the State than they pay in taxes.


 Most people are net recipient from the state. Only 30% of people are net contributors.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Meters at every house is are not required required to identify the leaks


 How are they currently identified?


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Not really, 50% of water is lost to leaks and equals the water they are going to take from the shannon.
> 
> Meters at every house is are not required required to identify the leaks so the meter money/IW/€80M consultancy fees should have been spent fixing them.



Untreated leakages & neglected connections are the main source of wilful water waste. Of course meters are hugely helpful in detecting leaks. That's why private group schemes have invested millions in meters. They certainly didn't do it for the hell of it.


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 Apr 2016)

Quite how FF can credibly state that they are against water charges when they are the party who first agreed to them back in 2009 is quite hard to believe tbh. I can absolutely see how they might have an issue with how Irish Water was set up with the amount of money wasted there (don't we all if we're honest) and even how they might have concerns over the charging structure. But let's remind ourselves that FF are the party who first raised the idea of water charges in the budget of 2009 and who agreed to it's inclusion in the memorandum of understanding on the conditions of the €85 billion EU-IMF bailout. To have them now turn around and say they are against the very notion of water charges and Irish Water suggests they are completing going back over their previous beliefs. Either you agree that water should be managed via a Utility and the public should be charged or you don't. Their statements now suggest they don't agree to these fundamental points whereas a mere 6 years ago they very much did. So are FF capable of governing or are they just interested in populist politics?


----------



## Cervelo (29 Apr 2016)

Ceist Beag said:


> So are FF capable of governing or are they just interested in populist politics?



History has proven that FF are not capable of governing and from their pre election budgets and their current stance it is populist politics
but don't forget FF are not abolishing water charges as promised in their manifesto before the election but rather suspending them in the short term


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Untreated leakages are the main source of wilful water waste. Of course meters are hugely helpful in detecting leaks.



Helpful yes but I read somewhere that they did not need house meters to detect most of the leaks, perhaps estate or area meters did the job and If I can find it I will post it.



> That's why private group schemes have invested millions in meters. They certainly didn't do it for the hell of it.



Perhaps the group schemes had other reasons such as some members doing Farming, Horticulture, other businesses taking a large share of the flow.

In the interest of fairness:  Full Disclosure: I have no party or protest group affiliation.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Apr 2016)

Does anybody think that FF wish this FG min gov well?  Of course not. They are waiting for the inevitable collapse and will be plotting their position to be able to march in and mop up the spoils.  Not that FF are particularly wicked in that regard, that is simply the political condition.

So why did FG walk into this trap?  Well two years with mercs and percs is better than none.  But the real reason is that the big winner is Henda.  This is beyond what he should have expected from his disastrous GE performance - first FG Teashop to be re-elected.  Not that Henda is particularly wicked in that regard, that is simply the human condition.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> ... but I read somewhere that they did not need house meters ...  If I can find it I will post it.



Please do, because it's frankly daft.



monagt said:


> Perhaps the group schemes had other reasons such as some members doing Farming, Horticulture, other businesses taking a large share of the flow.


Ah come on, businesses have paid water charges for years. We're talking about households here - all of which are metered separately from connected businesses, farms etc in any case.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

[broken link removed]

"However, international research shows that installing domestic water meters is unlikely to make any real difference to the amount of water used by families. For example in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands it has been found that metering each home makes little difference to the amount of water used by families. Researchers have found that while consumption dropped initially following the installation of meters, after a relatively short time this was more or less reversed with families returning to the pre-metered level of consumption. For the taxpayer to receive a return on the investment in the installation, maintenance, administration, and replacement of domestic water meters there would need to be a significant re- duction in domestic consumption. Given the experience already referred to in similar European countries this is unlikely to materi- alise. Therefore, the €500 million which is the conservatively esti- mated cost of the installation programme for domestic meters would provide little or no return to the taxpayer. "




Purple said:


> How are they currently identified?



I assume meters at different points within the network that can detect large leaks in different sections.

Why did they not install large area meters first, local meters next, estate meters and then domestic meters on thus getting getting a better return phased over a 5 year period?
Fix the big leaks first and then refine down to individual dwellings. (and bringing people on board showing the savings and benefits as the whole exercise succeeds)

The rush to install over a 2 year period, privatise it and sell it off resulted in poor planning and execution and typical of FG arrogance when they get into Government (Listen to no one, allow no debate and railroad the peasants)

FG in 4 years become as arrogant as FF in 16.................but we elect them all again and again, so its a reflection on us.

In the interest of fairness: Full Disclosure: I have no party, union or protest group affiliation.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> "However, international research shows that installing domestic water meters is unlikely to make any real difference to the amount of water used by families. For example in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands it has been found that metering each home makes little difference to the amount of water used by families. Researchers have found that while consumption dropped initially following the installation of meters, after a relatively short time this was more or less re- versed with families returning to the pre-metered level of con- sumption. For the taxpayer to receive a return on the investment in the installation, maintenance, administration, and replacement of domestic water meters there would need to be a significant re- duction in domestic consumption. Given the experience already referred to in similar European countries this is unlikely to materi- alise. Therefore, the €500 million which is the conservatively esti- mated cost of the installation programme for domestic meters would provide little or no return to the taxpayer. "



That "report" wasn't even strong enough for its author to put their name to it. It's simply SIPTU pandering to its target market



> Why did they not install large area meters first, local meters next, estate meters and then domestic meters on thus getting getting a better return phased over a 5 year period?
> Fix the big leaks first and then refine down to individual dwellings. (and bringing people on board showing the savings and benefits as the whole exercise succeeds)
> 
> The rush to install over a 2 year period, privatise it and sell it off resulted in poor planning and execution and typical of FG arrogance when they get into Government (Listen to no one, allow no debate and railroad the peasants)
> ...



All very good points.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Please do, because it's frankly daft



In his presentation to the seminar local authority Senior Executive Engineer for Water, Gerry Concannon, estimated that the cost of unmetered water is currently about €350.00 p.a. per domestic unit. When all of the costs of metering involving installation, maintenance, administration and replacement are considered he pointed out that this cost almost doubles in the medium term. With no return on the investment in water metering it makes more sense to invest this money in the mains network to reduce leaks and to promote water conservation.

See previous SIPTU post.

According to the UK water supply boards, where they have had domestic water charges in place since the 1980s, the average end user uses 68,405 litres of water per year. Yet, according to Irish Water, that figure in Ireland is 54,750 litres. So the evidence shows that water charges actually increase water consumption by up to 20%. 


In the interest of fairness: Full Disclosure: I have no party, union or protest group affiliation.


----------



## 44brendan (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> FG in 4 years become as arrogant as FF in 16.................but we elect them all again and again, so its a reflection on us.


Now that's a fair comment and one that in all probability has cost them the last election. The main difficulty for the broad electorate is that we have no reasonable middle party left to vote for. To a large extent this explains the rising number of independents getting elected. A new election is likely to see a rise in independent numbers as the analogy of "2 bald men bickering over a comb" is very applicable to the recent FF/FG discussions.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

The EU says that households account for only 10% of all water usage. 
The biggest users of water are agriculture and commercial companies, using 90% of all water. 

Yet, a quick look at the breakdown of the new water billing structure shows that householders will initially be expected to pay up to 78% of all costs, and that figure will no doubt rise in the immediate future.

Commercial companies will be expected to pay 22% of the costs for using 90% of the product, yet at this point in time, evidence shows they already have a non-compliance rate of 37% and €50m in water debt has been written off for them.

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70% of all water consumption, compared to 20% for industry and 10% for domestic use. In industrialized nations, however, industries consume more than half of the water available for human use. Belgium, for example, uses 80% of the water available for industry.

The data on water consumption in the world is provided by the United Nations (UN, UNESCO, and FAO, see list of publications below).

http://www.worldometers.info/water/


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Why did they not install large area meters first, local meters next, estate meters and then domestic meters on thus getting getting a better return phased over a 5 year period?
> Fix the big leaks first and then refine down to individual dwellings. (and bringing people on board showing the savings and benefits as the whole exercise succeeds)
> 
> The rush to install over a 2 year period, privatise it and sell it off resulted in poor planning and execution and typical of FG arrogance when they get into Government (Listen to no one, allow no debate and railroad the peasants)
> ...


As others have said, good points, hard to argue with any of that.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Why did they not install large area meters first, local meters next, estate meters and then domestic meters on thus getting getting a better return phased over a 5 year period?
> Fix the big leaks first and then refine down to individual dwellings. (and bringing people on board showing the savings and benefits as the whole exercise succeeds)


Good points.



monagt said:


> The rush to install over a 2 year period, privatise it and sell it off resulted in poor planning and execution and typical of FG arrogance when they get into Government (Listen to no one, allow no debate and railroad the peasants)


 There is no plan and never was any plan to sell it off. Just because people like Paul Murphy, the Shinners and other loony-left politicians who want a soviet style republic say it doesn't make it so. Stick to the facts or at least opinions based on facts.



monagt said:


> According to the UK water supply boards, where they have had domestic water charges in place since the 1980s, the average end user uses 68,405 litres of water per year. Yet, according to Irish Water, that figure in Ireland is 54,750 litres. So the evidence shows that water charges actually increase water consumption by up to 20%.


 Can you give a source for that please? [broken link removed] suggests that it's 54,750 liters.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> The EU says that households account for only 10% of all water usage.
> The biggest users of water are agriculture and commercial companies, using 90% of all water.
> 
> Yet, a quick look at the breakdown of the new water billing structure shows that householders will initially be expected to pay up to 78% of all costs, and that figure will no doubt rise in the immediate future.
> ...


Are you talking about treated drinking quality water or just water?
When you say "commercial companies" are you including farmers?


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> Good points.
> 
> There is no plan and never was any plan to sell it off. Just because people like Paul Murphy, the Shinners and other loony-left politicians who want a soviet style republic say it doesn't make it so. Stick to the facts or at least opinions based on facts.
> 
> Can you give a source for that please? [broken link removed] suggests that it's 54,750 liters.



There is no plan and never was any plan to sell it off -> intent then - lets see the consultants report ...........


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/105667

http://www.*****************.com/average-water-usage-figures.html

I have no connection with either site.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> There is no plan and never was any plan to sell it off -> intent then - lets see the consultants report ...........
> 
> 
> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/105667
> ...


From the Indymedia link "_This article by David Gibney from the Right2Water website has been republished here in light of the upcoming water charges protest on this Sat 23rd Jan in advance of the election due in the next few weeks. It highlights the scam and lies around Irish Water and how it is fully intended to privatise it. If and when the TIPP agreement is signed between the EU and USA, privatisation will be unstoppable not just for our water but for all services right across the board. "_
Indymedia can hardly be accused of being a balanced or impartial or even rational source of information.

Your second link, money guide ireland, shows that a figure of 68,405 is for a single occupancy household but that the average usage is in fact 54,750. In other words the link you posted shows that your assertion is incorrect.
From the link;
" On our sample – the average usage for a *single person *_medium usage_ household was 68405 l per year.
With  two people in a house the average household usage was  113609  l (which is 56804 per person per year ). With 3 people in a house the average usage was 138115 l  (46038 l per person per year )"


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

―PwC suggest that once Irish Water is well established as a self- funding utility the Government and Regulators may wish to assess international experience of the introduction of competition in water and sewerage services to identify whether Ireland could benefit from competitive markets in the water sector at a later date. With this in mind, PwC recommend that, when undertaking the detailed design of the new organisational structure for Irish Water, the possibility of future retail competition should be taken into account.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/final-water-report.pdf

Again, let see all Irish Water Planning documents allowing for the fact that Phil Hogan et al did not keep minutes of their meetings.

No minutes...........very unprofessional and raises many questions


----------



## 44brendan (29 Apr 2016)

Water infrastructure is not owned by IW so what would they be selling???


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> From the Indymedia link "_This article by David Gibney from the Right2Water website has been republished here in light of the upcoming water charges protest on this Sat 23rd Jan in advance of the election due in the next few weeks. It highlights the scam and lies around Irish Water and how it is fully intended to privatise it. If and when the TIPP agreement is signed between the EU and USA, privatisation will be unstoppable not just for our water but for all services right across the board. "_
> Indymedia can hardly be accused of being a balanced or impartial or even rational source of information.
> 
> Your second link, money guide ireland, shows that a figure of 68,405 is for a single occupancy household but that the average usage is in fact 54,750. In other words the link you posted shows that your assertion is incorrect.
> ...



Yes, yes but how much actual conservation did domestic metering provide and was it cost effective?  

This is "jumping the shark" ......................I'm done , good exploration of different views, though  takes all sorts, I guess


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

44brendan said:


> Water infrastructure is not owned by IW so what would they be selling???



How did it happen in UK or other places?


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Yes, yes but how much actual conservation did domestic metering provide and was it cost effective?


 You said something which was completely incorrect an now rather than correcting yourself you deflect. Not good.



monagt said:


> This is "jumping the shark" ......................I'm done , good exploration of different views, though  takes all sorts, I guess


 It wasn't a "good exploration of different views", it was you offering opinion as fact and offering facts which have been shown to be completely incorrect.
Smiley faces and references to "Happy Days" doesn't disguise that.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

Purple said:


> You said something which was completely incorrect an now rather than correcting yourself you deflect. Not good.
> 
> It wasn't a "good exploration of different views", it was you offering opinion as fact and offering facts which have been shown to be completely incorrect.
> Smiley faces and references to "Happy Days" doesn't disguise that.



Ok point taken, I did say E&OE but apologies offered as I'm not an expert and not involved with any of the sides in the debates.

But I will do some research... 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Water_statistics


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Ok point taken, I did say E&OE but apologies offered as I'm not an expert and not involved with any of the sides in the debates.



kudos for that.


----------



## Leo (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> Helpful yes but I read somewhere that they did not need house meters to detect most of the leaks, perhaps estate or area meters did the job and If I can find it I will post it.



They don't need individual meters to identify that there likely is a leak, or indeed multiple leaks in an area, but without the individual meters, it is impossible pinpoint leaks. The first round of leak identification singled out more than 55,000 properties with leaks in excess of 6 litres per hour, more than 46 million litres per day was attributed to leaks on domestic properties. 

Even once the individual property is identified, it can be quite difficult locate the source of the leak, as previous threads on here have covered.


----------



## jim (29 Apr 2016)

Apparently P Murphy only receives 40k per annum approx. and not the full TD salary. The balances going to a Party Pot. So in fairness to him with that income isn't he entitled to free legal aid? I think so.


But anyway, in a probably vain attempt to get back to the threads topic and away from the constant sh*te talk about IW - Shouldn't FF and FG suffer in a possible new General Election, as a result of their shoddy tactics over the last number of weeks instead of getting down to business in the interest of the country? I think so.


----------



## QED (29 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> Apparently P Murphy only receives 40k per annum approx. and not the full TD salary. The balances going to a Party Pot. So in fairness to him with that income isn't he entitled to free legal aid?



His Salary is the full TD amount (I think €85k). It's up to him how he chooses to spend it and he has chosen to donate a significant % to a Politcal Organisation. If he has to pay legal fees, he needs to cut back on other expenditure - i.e. his donations.


----------



## 44brendan (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> How did it happen in UK or other places?


Fair comment and one that is difficult to respond to. Water privatization was introduced to the UK in 1989 and today they have one of the most expensive water/sanitation charges in the World despite having a metering ratio of c33%.
This is a relevant issue to those who fear a similar situation arising in Ireland and one that would need to be openly and properly addressed by FG in their defense of IW retention. I cede the point on this issue


----------



## jim (29 Apr 2016)

Fair point QED - I think its an agreement of sorts with his Party. But I take your point that ultimately his salary is his TD's salary. But even on that salary his legal fees were €50k I believe. Wonder what the criteria/salary threshold is for receipt of free legal aid..


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

44brendan said:


> Fair comment and one that is difficult to respond to. Water privatization was introduced to the UK in 1989 and today they have one of the most expensive water/sanitation charges in the World despite having a metering ratio of c33%.
> This is a relevant issue to those who fear a similar situation arising in Ireland and one that would need to be openly and properly addressed by FG in their defense of IW retention. I cede the point on this issue



Very simple. The Thatcher government decided to privatise the State water infrastructure. Irish Water won't own the Irish water infrastructure so its development is moot to any suggestion of a similar privatisation in Ireland.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

T McGibney said:


> Very simple. The Thatcher government decided to privatise the State water infrastructure. Irish Water won't own the Irish water infrastructure so its development is moot to any suggestion of a similar privatisation in Ireland.



You can't be sure of that in the future......... worldwide crash, major recession, war(s)

Another bailout and No Pension Reserve, still the Gov can always raid the private pensions again or do a "Bail In" like Cyprus where deposits were stolen.

Or maybe the IMF will make us privatise the water infrastructure so its worth buying by the huge water corporations.


----------



## newirishman (29 Apr 2016)

monagt said:


> You can't be sure of that in the future......... worldwide crash, major recession, war(s)
> 
> Another bailout and No Pension Reserve, still the Gov can always raid the private pensions again or do a "Bail In" like Cyprus where deposits were stolen.
> 
> Or maybe the IMF will make us privatise the water infrastructure so its worth buying by the huge water corporations.



None of which are reasons for not putting in meters for every household and charging for water usage. If for whatever reasons the IMF would insist that we sell the water infrastructure nothing would stop them insisting. certainly not the lack of water meters.

I utterly fail to understand how anyone would object metering water usage and charging based on the same so you can properly pay for upkeep.

By all means if you want to keep your "the state pays for everything" socialist politics put in even more generous free allowance or whatever, and make sure that water infrastructure and provisioning keeps in public ownership via legislation.
But arguing against metering water usage at point of consumption and have a charging mechanism for it makes no sense in my opinion. 

Water doesn't have to be "free", and certainly not in a fully developed European country.


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

newirishman said:


> I utterly fail to understand how anyone would object metering water usage and charging based on the same so you can properly pay for upkeep.



I object to a profligate quango, set up without a Proper Dail debate, organised in meetings with NO minutes taken and which the public or the Dail has no confidence in.



newirishman said:


> By all means if you want to keep your "the state pays for everything" socialist politics put in even more generous free allowance or whatever, and make sure that water infrastructure and provisioning keeps in public ownership via legislation.



I think I said "we (the people) pay for everything" and all taxes go into a Gov pot which is managed on our behalf by the representatives we elect.

No Socialist Politicos there AFAIK

Full Disclosure: I am not a declared supporter or affiliated to any party


----------



## Sophrosyne (29 Apr 2016)

Whether or not there will be another general election has now come down to ongoing talks between FF and FG and also to the support of independents.

The shark jumping relates to the discussion about the rights and wrongs of water charges. That is not the issue. It is rather the fact that it became a deal-breaker before the talks began.

Parties and individuals can campaign on promises, but whether these promises are deliverable depend upon whether their estimates of costs set aside to do x, y or z are adequate.

Any objective outsider would think it strange that a pre-condition to any talks would be the elimination of a revenue stream, *whatever that might be*, without first discussing overall budgetary strategy.

This strategy is usually formulated in consultation with the Tax Strategy Group, which more or less informs governments about what they can and cannot do.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> But even on that salary his legal fees were €50k I believe.



Come on!!! He was facing a criminal charge in a public court. Does every defendant in every case in that court incur legal fees of €50K?


----------



## jim (29 Apr 2016)

No idea tommy but i read somewhere yesterday that his legal fees were that.seems crazy tho!


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

Sophrosyne said:


> Any objective outsider would think it strange that a pre-condition to any talks would be the elimination of a revenue stream, *whatever that might be*, without first discussing overall budgetary strategy.



If the revenue stream only covers the cost of collection, what is the point of it?



T McGibney said:


> Come on!!! He was facing a criminal charge in a public court. Does every defendant in every case in that court incur legal fees of €50K?



Surely he is articulate enough to defend himself or have a like minded Legal Eagle defend him Pro Bono. Its a disgrace that he gets Free Legal Aid.


----------



## jim (29 Apr 2016)

But if the court decides he is entitled to free legal aid based on their criteria who the heck are you or i to pass judgement and say he shouldnt be getting it? Also he isnt a solictor so you cant suggest that just because he isnt a dope or destitute then he shouldnt be getting the free legal aid.

Let me put it to you like this and i look forward to your reply on this: why do you think "its a disgrace" that he Is getting free legal aid, assuming that he is entitled to it?


----------



## monagt (29 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE="Let me put it to you like this and i look forward to your reply on this: why do you think "its a disgrace" that he Is getting free legal aid, assuming that he is entitled to it?[/QUOTE]

Hard to answer that one JIm but maybe I'm thinking of news like "Socialist MEP Paul Murphy replaced Mr Higgins, and has accumulated salary and expenses costs of €1,343,117 for the period." Pub: 21/05/2014



He must have a few bob left from that + 2015 + 20i6 to date.

However this looks like the justification:
[broken link removed]

Let Coppinger and the rest contribute to his legal costs.

Free Legal Aid...........Its just wrong...........my opinion.


----------



## Delboy (29 Apr 2016)

jim said:


> But if the court decides he is entitled to free legal aid based on their criteria who the heck are you or i to pass judgement and say he shouldnt be getting it? Also he isnt a solictor so you cant suggest that just because he isnt a dope or destitute then he shouldnt be getting the free legal aid.
> 
> Let me put it to you like this and i look forward to your reply on this: why do you think "its a disgrace" that he Is getting free legal aid, assuming that he is entitled to it?


It's a disgrace that someone on a TD's package can get legal aid. Full stop.
Is there some sort of 'Universal legal aid' in place that we weren't aware of...perhaps based on the Dutch model


----------



## jim (29 Apr 2016)

I dont support PM. Your anger at his receipt of legal aid is misguided. If he is legally entitled to it as an individual based on the legal criteria then end of story. Your anger perhaps should be directed at the criteria that allows him to claim it as an individual.

I dont know what the criteria is but if he falls within it then who cares. Good luck to him. Cant be throwin muck at him just because of his profession (public rep) his circumstamces have been deemed to fall within the criteria allowing him to receive legal aid in the same way as it would for any ither individuals. Get off his case and direct your frustration at the legal system allowing him to receive it but im sure there are well thought out legal grounds allowing an individual to get legal aid so all in all this is a silly thig to be debating/getting annoyed at.


----------



## Delboy (29 Apr 2016)

It's not the legal system that sets the levels for legal aid, it's the political system. Of which Paul Murphy is part of.

If Murphy 'gives away' some of his salary, then more fool him. But that shouldn't be taken into account when deciding if he's eligible for legal aid


----------



## jim (30 Apr 2016)

He doesnt give it away he doesnt donate it. Its effectively taken from him by his party.of course its the legal sustem that sets it. How would would the polital sysyem have anything to do with it!!

In this situation murphy is an individual seeking legal aid based on his means. The court obviously assess that and make a decision. It doesnt matter what his profession is all the court are interested in, and riggtly so, is his means. If they deem it such that he is entitled to legal aid then thats the end of the matter!!


----------



## Deiseblue (30 Apr 2016)

Suspension of water charges , a review of public sector pay , rent supplement increases et al - at least the thought of a centre right party is rapidly disappearing !


----------



## Purple (3 May 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> Suspension of water charges , a review of public sector pay , rent supplement increases et al - at least the thought of a centre right party is rapidly disappearing !


As is a sustainable economy which can pay for it all in the longer term.


----------



## Delboy (3 May 2016)

As if a Centre right party truly ever existed.

Money for all by the looks of it. What could go wrong


----------



## Cervelo (3 May 2016)

Delboy said:


> Money for all by the looks of it. What could go wrong



Well that's FF for you, they still haven't learned from their past mistakes


----------



## Purple (3 May 2016)

Cervelo said:


> Well that's FF for you, they still haven't learned from their past mistakes


Either have FG or Labour or any of the other parties. That's because the electorate haven't learned either and they elect the TD's. We get the government we deserve.


----------



## Cervelo (3 May 2016)

Purple said:


> Either have FG or Labour or any of the other parties. That's because the electorate haven't learned either and they elect the TD's. We get the government we deserve.



This is true, so what is the answer vote for independents only, who are really only interested in their local area rather then the country as a whole


----------



## Leper (4 May 2016)

Cervelo said:


> This is true, so what is the answer vote for independents only, who are really only interested in their local area rather then the country as a whole



The alternative is to vote Sinn Féin.  That is what FF and FG are really afraid of happening.  When you look hard and cold at the political landscape in Ireland, Sinn Féin is becoming the new Fianna Fáil.  How long the SF bandwagon will keep rolling is the issue not the Independents. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing, but it is the issue - forget the smakescreen that is Irish Water.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 May 2016)

Cervelo said:


> This is true, so what is the answer vote for independents only, who are really only interested in their local area rather then the country as a whole


I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't that is really true of Shane Ross, Finian McGrath, or Katherine Zappone, to name a few?
Has anyone told Michael Ring of FG, for example, or Sean Haughey of FF, for example, that there is an Ireland outside their constituencies? 
I'm sure people could name other big party TDs renowned for their 'local' touch.

Even with the big parties, you have situations where party colleagues run against party colleagues, this encourages 'localism'. 
Even a TD or minister who wants to be a national not a local politician can't afford to take eye off the constituency.


----------



## Purple (4 May 2016)

odyssey06 said:


> I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't that is really true of Shane Ross, Finian McGrath, or Katherine Zappone, to name a few?
> Has anyone told Michael Ring of FG, for example, or Sean Haughey of FF, for example, that there is an Ireland outside their constituencies?
> I'm sure people could name other big party TDs renowned for their 'local' touch.
> 
> ...


FG proposed moving to a list system at the election before last but once in power ignored the idea.
As long as we have the current electoral system we will keep electing local councillors to our parliament. 

That doesn't change the other problem which is that the populace want the state to be their mammy.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 May 2016)

Purple said:


> FG proposed moving to a list system at the election before last but once in power ignored the idea.
> As long as we have the current electoral system we will keep electing local councillors to our parliament.



I think that's a symptom as much as a cause. We have a broken local system here whereby local TDs are having to get involved to get county councils to do things. Things that county councils should be doing already, even without councillors (or TDs) having to get them to do it. 
I'm not keen on a pure list system and while that could change, I just can't see Irish people ever voting for it in a constitutional referendum. 
I think multi-seat constituencies need to go, but there should still be a place for a single constituency elected TD and all other TDs on a list system, and that might be passed in a referendum. You get two votes, one for a national party list and one for a candidate in your own constituency.


----------



## Sophrosyne (5 May 2016)

Looks like we have white smoke, but at what cost?

This is the plan.


----------



## Leper (6 May 2016)

Purple said:


> FG proposed moving to a list system at the election before last but once in power ignored the idea.
> As long as we have the current electoral system we will keep electing local councillors to our parliament.
> 
> That doesn't change the other problem which is that the populace want the state to be their mammy.



Of course the populace want the state to be their mammy.  Ireland has the same relevance in the EU as Bedfordshire. In the wash of the 1916 centenary celebrations recently lots of us think we are members of a political world force. The reality is we are an EU backwater.  Sooner or later we will become a playground of the rich (look at the way we're churning out golf courses). Also look at the voting population of County Kerry.  It is not a county of gombeens; they know how to vote and probably have less pot-holes per capita than say Cork city where I dodge road jacuzzis every morning while driving to work. If I could vote for a Healy-Rae instead of a Martin or Coveney, I would.  Isn't God on their side?


----------



## Deiseblue (6 May 2016)

Leper , " road jacuzzis " - brilliantly descriptive !

In an effort to defang the various parties of the left the prospective Government & FF have veered substantially to the left in the agreed plan for Governance


----------



## Cervelo (6 May 2016)

Leper said:


> Of course the populace want the state to be their mammy.  Ireland has the same relevance in the EU as Bedfordshire. In the wash of the 1916 centenary celebrations recently lots of us think we are members of a political world force. The reality is we are an EU backwater.  Sooner or later we will become a playground of the rich (look at the way we're churning out golf courses). Also look at the voting population of County Kerry.  It is not a county of gombeens; they know how to vote and probably have less pot-holes per capita than say Cork city where I dodge road jacuzzis every morning while driving to work. If I could vote for a Healy-Rae instead of a Martin or Coveney, I would.  Isn't God on their side?



My father was an economist/accountant and he came out with a comment in the early eighties that has always stuck with me about the relevance of Ireland in the EU
"Ireland will become to Europe what the Aran Islands are to Ireland"


----------



## monagt (6 May 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> Leper , " road jacuzzis " - brilliantly descriptive !
> 
> In an effort to defang the various parties of the left the prospective Government & FF have veered substantially to the left in the agreed plan for Governance



Hang on a bit there "veered"................. Bertie was a Socialist.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> Leper , " road jacuzzis " - brilliantly descriptive !
> 
> In an effort to defang the various parties of the left the prospective Government & FF have veered substantially to the left in the agreed plan for Governance


Is pure populism a move to the Left or just buying people with their own money?


----------



## Purple (6 May 2016)

Leper said:


> Of course the populace want the state to be their mammy.  Ireland has the same relevance in the EU as Bedfordshire. In the wash of the 1916 centenary celebrations recently lots of us think we are members of a political world force. The reality is we are an EU backwater.  Sooner or later we will become a playground of the rich (look at the way we're churning out golf courses).


 What's that got to do with anything, even if it's correct?



Leper said:


> Also look at the voting population of County Kerry.  It is not a county of gombeens; they know how to vote and probably have less pot-holes per capita than say Cork city where I dodge road jacuzzis every morning while driving to work. If I could vote for a Healy-Rae instead of a Martin or Coveney, I would.  Isn't God on their side?


 Not gombeens... maybe, but they have given two fingers to the rest of the people of Ireland by electing those two gombeens to the Dail.


----------



## Deiseblue (6 May 2016)

monagt said:


> Hang on a bit there "veered"................. Bertie was a Socialist.


 
But now FF have taken FG down the socialist path with them


----------



## monagt (6 May 2016)

Deiseblue said:


> But now FF have taken FG down the socialist path with them



"The 70's will be Socialist"         Name the person who said that, anyone? .......


----------



## Deiseblue (6 May 2016)

How strange that the Labour party had to wait decades to see that prophecy come to fruition & then in the most unlikeliest of scenarios it was brought about by FF & FG


----------



## 44brendan (6 May 2016)

monagt said:


> "The 70's will be Socialist" Name the person who said that, anyone? .......


Was it a train driver?


----------



## cremeegg (11 May 2016)

Cervelo said:


> My father was an economist/accountant and he came out with a comment in the early eighties that has always stuck with me about the relevance of Ireland in the EU
> "Ireland will become to Europe what the Aran Islands are to Ireland"



I remember that quote, and I was very impressed by it at the time. However it simply has not come to pass.

Membership of the EU has brought huge social change to Ireland. It has brought freedom of  movement, to work not just holiday, to Irish people. Which has given us mobility in Europe beyond the UK. It has allowed us to attract foreign investment and the associated employment on a vast scale.

The Aran Islands still have the best scenery though.


----------



## Purple (11 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> Membership of the EU has brought huge social change to Ireland. It has brought freedom of  movement, to work not just holiday, to Irish people. Which has given us mobility in Europe beyond the UK. It has allowed us to attract foreign investment and the associated employment on a vast scale.


It has also allowed us to grow the biggest airline in Europe.


----------



## Sophrosyne (11 May 2016)

I think the question is more about influencing decision-making.

I heard one economist, in discussing a possible Brexit, say that the UK has often found itself taking the same position as Ireland on various matters.

He felt that a UK departure would weaken Ireland's influence in the EU.


----------



## Delboy (11 May 2016)

What influence!


----------



## Sophrosyne (12 May 2016)

Well, that is rather the point!

Many EU decisions benefited Ireland only because they were also in the interest of the UK, which does have influence over decision-making.


----------



## Cervelo (12 May 2016)

cremeegg said:


> I remember that quote, and I was very impressed by it at the time. However it simply has not come to pass.
> 
> Membership of the EU has brought huge social change to Ireland. It has brought freedom of  movement, to work not just holiday, to Irish people. Which has given us mobility in Europe beyond the UK. It has allowed us to attract foreign investment and the associated employment on a vast scale.
> 
> The Aran Islands still have the best scenery though.



As far as I remember the quote was from an article in the Economist magazine and while it hasn't come to pass I think the time frame was 2020 to 2050.

I don't think anybody would disagree that we have done very well out of the EU, the freedom of movement is a double edged sword that has also seen a lot of migration for our citizens because there simply isn't enough well paying employment here.

The foreign investment you so rightly refer to is also going to be a challenge for our future governments when we wont be able to offer the generous tax breaks and associated perks that attracts them to our shores for our highly skilled and costly employees.

The Aran Islands might have the best scenery but do you really want to or could you live there, Ireland is a medium sized island on the very west side of Europe with a relatively small population and while we at the moment punch well above our weight class, sometime in the future as the EU expands we will get knocked back by our bigger brothers.


----------



## Purple (12 May 2016)

Cervelo said:


> I don't think anybody would disagree that we haven't done very well out of the EU



I disagree with the proposition that we haven’t done very well out of the EU. There has been a massive net transfer of wealth into Ireland in the form of welfare payments to farmers via the CAP as well as structural funding for infrastructure.




Cervelo said:


> , the freedom of movement is a double edged sword that has also seen a lot of migration for our citizens because there simply isn't enough well paying employment here.


 Again, large numbers of people have moved here from Eastern Europe and further afield to take up low paid and high paid jobs. If people want high paid jobs then they need to be high skilled. That’s where we fall down.




Cervelo said:


> The foreign investment you so rightly refer to is also going to be a challenge for our future governments when we wont be able to offer the generous tax breaks and associated perks that attracts them to our shores for our highly skilled and costly employees.


 Yes, we might actually have to compete based on skills, efficiency and value. How will we cope!




Cervelo said:


> The Aran Islands might have the best scenery but do you really want to or could you live there, Ireland is a medium sized island on the very west side of Europe with a relatively small population and while we at the moment punch well above our weight class, sometime in the future as the EU expands we will get knocked back by our bigger brothers.


 We are a small island of the coast of another island off the coast of Europe. As more people get the opportunities we have the world becomes a fairer and more equitable place. That is a good thing. I dislike protectionism as it involved the exploitation of those not being protected.


----------



## Cervelo (12 May 2016)

Purple said:


> I disagree with the proposition that we haven’t done very well out of the EU. There has been a massive net transfer of wealth into Ireland in the form of welfare payments to farmers via the CAP as well as structural funding for infrastructure.



Yes you're right my opening line should have read "have" and not "haven't", an early morning typo have corrected it now


----------



## Purple (12 May 2016)

Cervelo said:


> Yes you're right my opening line should have read "have" and not "haven't", an early morning typo have corrected it now


Too many double negatives


----------



## cremeegg (12 May 2016)

Oh dear, I find myself agreeing with Purple. I think I will have to go and have a little lie down.


----------



## Leper (13 May 2016)

We are all caught up in what the EU did for us.  We keep looking to Europe.  Colin from college hops out of bed every morning and amidst a volley of flatulence thanks God that he is a member of the Decision Making Sex. The presidents of most of the main world powers are male and they decide if some country should be invaded, or who should get famine relief or if NATO needs another base in the north Atlantic or if another mission to Mars should be launched.

Colin's breakfast is waiting for him prepared by his ever loving Irish mother who thinks Colin is God.  Even Colin's sisters iron his clothes and help nurse his weekly hangover every Friday morning.  Colin heads off for Friday's lectures confident in himself that nothing will stand in his way for his future. Over the weekend it dawns on Colin that the most important people in his life are female and they make the decisions on what he has for dinner, breakfast and tea.  It is they who prepare him for his onslaught on the pub scene. Colin is astute and the most important things in his life are not what nation should be invaded or another mission into Space etc. The main decision making people reside in his own house. They decide what he will have for dinner, they kit him out, they humour him, they are there (repeat they are there).

So it is with the people of County Kerry.  The Healy-Rae's decide what kind of roads will greet motorists, how much internet we should have, planning permission for the bungalow, Childrens Allowance for the new mother.  Who in Kerry gives a whit about Brussels, Paris, London, Rome or Dublin?  As long as they can have an easier life, they are happy to vote for Michael and Danny Healy-Rae.  

But, the rest of us Colins can fart into the next millenium hoping somebody in europe will throw us a few husks before they have eaten the nuts.  The people of Kerry got it right.  The thing is none of us is any the wiser.


----------



## Purple (13 May 2016)

Leper said:


> We are all caught up in what the EU did for us.  We keep looking to Europe.  Colin from college hops out of bed every morning and amidst a volley of flatulence thanks God that he is a member of the Decision Making Sex. The presidents of most of the main world powers are male and they decide if some country should be invaded, or who should get famine relief or if NATO needs another base in the north Atlantic or if another mission to Mars should be launched.
> 
> Colin's breakfast is waiting for him prepared by his ever loving Irish mother who thinks Colin is God.  Even Colin's sisters iron his clothes and help nurse his weekly hangover every Friday morning.  Colin heads off for Friday's lectures confident in himself that nothing will stand in his way for his future. Over the weekend it dawns on Colin that the most important people in his life are female and they make the decisions on what he has for dinner, breakfast and tea.  It is they who prepare him for his onslaught on the pub scene. Colin is astute and the most important things in his life are not what nation should be invaded or another mission into Space etc. The main decision making people reside in his own house. They decide what he will have for dinner, they kit him out, they humour him, they are there (repeat they are there).
> 
> ...




I have lived in important places, times
When great events were decided, who owned
That half a rood of rock, a no-man's land
Surrounded by our pitchfork-armed claims.
I heard the Duffys shouting "Damn your soul!"
And old McCabe stripped to the waist, seen
Step the plot defying blue cast-steel -
"Here is the march along these iron stones."
That was the year of the Munich bother. Which
Was more important? I inclined
To lose my faith in Ballyrush and Gortin
Till Homer's ghost came whispering to my mind.
He said: I made the Iliad from such
A local row. Gods make their own importance. 
- Patrick Kavanagh


----------



## Leper (17 May 2016)

Up to five minutes ago, I thought this government would stay intact for at least two years.  Having listened to an early news report and the Garda Commissioner's apparent conflicting statements over the past week re Whistleblower's "malice or no malice" , I think the government is creaking already.


----------

