Reason you wont be protesting on the 10th December

Hi Flowerman, I agree but I believe a lot worse has happened and it hasn't warranted the reaction that the Water Charge has. Blueband, has mentioned its the last straw with people but I simply cannot comprehend how people could have allowed the situation get to the stage its at now before they got off their proverbial; so, so much worse has already happened.

Rent allowance recipients have been cushioned by their landlords i.e. LPT. Did the RA recipients give a dam about home owners paying LPT?

Leper, believes I am unchristian - this is simply untrue.
 

Hi Marion,

Very well made points and I agree with them all, especially how it is benefiting the shinners.

However, I have the following issues with the whole thing:

The set up costs and fees to consultants.
Bonuses to staff (withdrawn under pressure) when a single invoice hadn't been issued!
The low cap on charges - essentially proving that this is just another tax rather than a water preservation exercise.

The whole exercise is simply to move the debts off the national debt - an accounting sleight of hand if you will.

I think the turnout on the 10th will be a lower than previous turnouts though, the whole issue doesn't seem to dominate the press anymore....most people are sensible and realise that water costs money and probably feel like they've had a victory and just want to get on celebrating Christmas. It's probably a pity though as it's clear what can be achieved if enough people get behind something...

Firefly.
 

+1 Firefly and Marion. Add to the list of issues I have with Irish Water is the fact that over twice as many staff are employed as are required, simply because the unions would not allow it any other way - funny enough those same unions will be represented on the 10th no doubt arguing against Irish Water!
 
Patrick,

I agree with Socrates in that “Group 2” has despicably and hypocritically hijacked a movement about what was a genuine last straw for those in desperate circumstances.

However, I think your resentment is misdirected.

There was nothing to stop people, including you, organising themselves and taking to the streets in protest about the things you mentioned.
 
Many will view the march as an opportunity to protest against the incompetence and dishonesty of FG/Lab.
 
This set-up costs ire unreasonable and knee-jerk. In terms of the set up - it is a one-off cost and based on the size and complexity of the organisation it was never going to come cheap. Anyone have much experience dealing with wayleaves and transferring a country-load of them from multiple county councils and corporations while at the same time those self-same councils are being re-organised on a scale that has not been undertaken in the history of the State? Or how about sorting out all the planning permission questions? Let alone the jobs of collecting data not previously held about service users and building the business processes and technical solutions to allow you to manage that data on an ongoing basis? All of that before you even take a peek at the day-to-day work of what Irish Water has been established to do.

The reason to bring in consultants and contractors to do something is that the expertise or manpower (or both) does not exist in house and that the activity is one you don't want to become an expert in. I for one am happier for a (probably) expensive consultant to be brought in temporarily than for them to become (probably) slightly less expensive employees.
 
It is somewhat ironic that certain groups (e.g. Unions) have on the one hand complained about hiring temporary Consultants and yet they were the ones that insisted on all Council staff transferring to Irish Water on a permanent basis. The same Unions who are leaders of the anti Irish Water campaign are also complaining about Irish Water staff not getting bonuses.
In my opinion, the likes of Paul Murphy, Ruth Copponger etc are nothing more than populist "ambulance chasers". Their political objective is simply to cause as much unrest as possible and they will take whatever opportunity they can to grap headlines. I heard Murphy say on Vincent Browne that his policy was to have a "wealth tax" which would be 5% p.a. on assets. So after 10 years the State would own over 50% of all private businesses, farms and other assets. Sounds like we are heading back to the USSR (which is in line Ruth Coppinger's Marxist political beliefs).
So I hope the 10th is a damp squib.
 
Clean water is expensive to treat and deliver; surely it is reasonable for the consumer to pay for it.
I should point out that I live in England, was employed in the water industry for many years and paid the appropriate charges. I am still paying now that I'm retired.
 
We have being paying for years....
 
I won't be protesting for a number of reasons:
1) It's reasonable to pay for water
2) I'll be working
3) the economy is recovering, no good will come from endangering that
4) There have been far bigger impacts for me from USC, etc
5) The tax will be spread across everyone, not just top-rate taxpayers
6) I won't be duped into the most unashamedly obvious political stunt of a generation. Anyone who thinks the anti-water charge politicians are doing this for reasons other than cynical self interest is naive in the extreme.
 

Actually it was the Government who undertook that there would be no compulsory redundancies if the Unions agreed to accept both the Croke Park & Haddington Road agreements , natural attrition & a mooted voluntary severance package will reduce the amount of local authority employees dramatically in the coming years - apparently the average age of transferred employees is 49 !

Although the Unions & in particular the right to water campaign have probably succeeded beyond their dreams in reducing the charges to a trickle there is probably a feeling that further concerted pressure will ensure votes for left wing parties going forward & a more compliant Government when it comes to pay increases across both sectors - given the IPSOS poll in today's Times it would appear that the Government may have to buy the next General Election.
 
DerKaiser said:
6) I won't be duped into the most unashamedly obvious political stunt of a generation. Anyone who thinks the anti-water charge politicians are doing this for reasons other than cynical self interest is naive in the extreme.
Click to expand...
hate to burst your bubble, but that's the only reason every politician dose anything...
 
The charge is now €3 a week for 2 adults, or to put it in context that's a pack of 20 cigarettes every 3 weeks, or one slab of Dutch Gold every 2 months. I dont see that as open desolation.

Ok it was set up poorly, and there are many things wrong with the country, but why must every cause be wrapped around a reasonable water charge??

Is it a case of last straw or first straw?

If this is such a worthy cause why cant the protesters make any cogent arguments against the water charge as introduced??, as opposed to every other populist nonsense thrown it. What I mostly hear is "We're paying for it already" and "I dont care, I'm not paying".

Unfortunately, outside of the fairytale land of Sinn Fein economics, things must be paid for. If the "I dont care I'm not paying" brigade dont pay then who, pray, will pay? It'll be the taxpayer of course.

Just how far should the welfare state go???, there's absolutely no reason anyone should be paying bin charges (to go by the logic of the protesters) - oh sorry, maybe "the rich", those root of all evil crowd, lets make them pay. Some absolute ninny (Socialist Fantasist Party or some such) wanted to nationalise Dell last week - you just have to wonder what planet these people live on.

There's only 1 solution, hand it over to Revenue, they did the biz on LPT, hard to believe we'd be asking the Revenue to save the taxpayer but if the lunatics (SF) take over the asylum that's where we'll be.
 


Now is the important word there.

Wait for 4 years and lets see how high the CER ramps up the cost and decreases the usage allowence.

Look at what the CER did with gas and electricity prices over the last number of years.

Then lets wait and see when IW is sold off how high the charges go.This is FG and Labours master plan and ultimate goal is,to sell it off,as per the exact wording and draughting of the IW act which they oversaw.




Either way it will be a lot lot more than a packet of ciggies,I can tell you that much.
 

Instead of complaining about things,why dont you get out there and march and stand up to FG and Labour.

Yes,Irish people are guilty of not doing much in recent times with regards to protests,but Id say now is the time to stick it to FG and Labour and tell them exactly what you think of them.

You wouldnt go to McDonalds to buy a big mac burger and let be charged for it twice over,so why allow it to happen with water.You allready pay for the water through general taxation so stand up to FG,Labour and IW.Now is the time to do it.

As Ice Cube says,"you can do it put your back into it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6auk1TkGtVQ
 

Largely reflects my own view, although I don't think we should be going to the Revenue every time there's an issue. I think water should be paid for in the same way as electricity and gas. As the years go by, the state subsidy for IW should be reduced, which will probably mean an increase in the charges, which can be matched by a reduction in taxation. Those that want to use more can pay more as a result. I don't want to pay for my neighbours leaving their lights on or their taps running.
 
Last edited:
flowerman said:
Now is the important word there.

Wait for 4 years and lets see how high the CER ramps up the cost and decreases the usage allowence.
Click to expand...

Sure why dont you "just not pay" once you have determined, after a full appraisal of the costs of delivering treated water and dealing with sewage, that it has become too expensive? AFAICS there's no great point of principle at play here, just wanting someone other than the person consuming the utility to pay for it, sure why not let someone pick up the ESB bill too??
 
 


My point is that it's clear for all to see now that this is primarily a tax. The low capped rates confirm that water preservation is not the goal here. Surely as a result, hundreds of millions could have been saved by just adding say 50e per quarter to the household charge and directing this to the local councils for water?

How long do you (not you personally!) think it will take Irish Water to even recoup the set up costs, never mind upgrade the network?
 

Thats very disingenuous of you there. Imagine if the Govt had said there would be compulsory redundancies (Cork Park, Haddington or not), the Unions would have gone nuts and blocked the whole set-up for years.
There was no Croke Park etc back when the HSE was set up, but no compulsory redundancies then either.
So to paint the Unions as innocents in this is totally incorrect, though par for the course with yourself!

Why is the average age so high I wonder? Perhaps I could have a stab at that.
If I were a Local Authority manager and 2 years or so ago I knew IW was being set up and they were going to take over all aspects of Water Mgmt from all Local Authorities including the staff in those sections, well I would have started planning!
I would have enticed all those in the Local Authority that were surplus or beyond useless or awkward to deal with, into moving into the Water section. That would have meant giving some of them a re-grading or even promotion (so more money!) to ensure they made the move. I would have done this early so they were firmly in position before the transfer date, though I doubt IW cared if they were only put in the week before judging on how IW seem to spend their money so easily.
(didn't the CSO point out that the staffing levels in IW were double what they should be - I believe this helps explain why)

A lot of those staff were then put on to the 'bonus' scheme in IW after negotiations with the Unions, meaning they gave up their previously automatic increments. So I presume some more money was given to the staff in question to accept this.
'Bonuses' are now gone but the staff certainly won't give up whatever sweetner they got originally to accept that new pay deal.

So a lot of the transferred staff will have done well on the double here. Promoted or regraded within their local authority before they left, and giving a pay off of some sort to accept the new payscale regime in IW.
All for doing no extra work, or changing their way of 'working' (which for some I no doubt use that term loosely!)

And that is how we do business in Ireland!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register