Another General Election

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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??
 
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??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leo said:
Start? You think this is a new thing?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Ask any rural broadband company. They don't supply urban areas.
 
T McGibney said:
We could keep this up all day
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register