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 Another General Election
- Thread starter Sophrosyne
- Start date
- Status
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 How did it happen in UK or other places?
You said something which was completely incorrect an now rather than correcting yourself you deflect. Not good.Yes, yes but how much actual conservation did domestic metering provide and was it cost effective?
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.This is "jumping the shark" ......................I'm done
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
Last edited:
kudos for that.
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
Last edited:
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,944
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,159
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,577
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,944
If the revenue stream only covers the cost of collection, what is the point of it?
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.
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?
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="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.
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.
- Status