Rip-off Republic Episode 3
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Tender documents recognise the possibility of cost overruns and specifically include agreed details of how cost overruns and amendments to specification are to be handled. There is no golden rule which states that the tender price must always equal final cost as there will always be uncontrollable factors that cannot be quantified with certainty at the outet
Who is ripping off who? Did Vincent Salaffia (spell??) rip off the Irish public by pursuing a campaign against the M50 construction at Carrickmines? He would certainly deny it. To go back to Brendan's definition, there is no evidence of "theft", "exploitation" or "the charging of an exorbitant price" on his part.
Whatever his flaws, bear in mind that he didn't stand to gain financially by his objection. Equally if I object to the new public abattoir or sewage plant on my doorstep, am I guilty of ripoff?
I don't know what you are getting at here. Dismantling the planning laws to disallow objections to future developments is hardly a good idea in any democracy, although it would save money. It would hardly be constitutional either - perhaps this is what McDowell was getting at?
avantarklu
Registered User
- Messages
- 52
I do not believe rip-off Republic is about a €15 mixed grill or a €5 pint – we all have the ability to make the choice as to whether value for money is being received. It is where that choice is removed and the single biggest example of this is the payment of taxes. Where is the value for money ?
For example, every major infrastructural announcement is made following an extensive process which inevitably involves the use of expensive “outside” consultants from all walks of life. This process must involve some estimation of the cost of the project (Mr Smith next door would not engage the services of an expert to ascertain whether he could build a house in his garden \ field without wanting to know what it will cost). The Government (of the day) then announce that, following this process, they have decided to proceed with this project, and they have been informed that it will cost €x million or billion (based on the criteria given to the consultants and experts). However, when they go to tender, it is suddenly discovered that building a road, tunnel, hospital whatever wherever was not as simple and straightforward as original envisaged, presumably because the initial criteria was made up by civil servants with no concept or care of how things operate in the real world and with the comfort of knowing that they will suffer no repercussions as a result of their errors or oversights. The tenders come back and the actual budgeted cost is significantly higher. The Powers that be then say, fine, we got it wrong, it’s actual going to cost 1.5 times what was initial announced (except no reminder will be offered as to the original figure announced). The tender is awarded and any potential downside is heavily weighted on the side of the taxpayer in terms of what will eventually be paid because no Government wants a half-finished road, tunnel, hospital and a contractor walking away because he can’t get paid for all the unforeseen extras (unforeseen on his part of the tendering process). This is why over-expenditure on major infrastructural projects in this country runs at 86% while the average everywhere else in 20%. If Mr Smith was presented with a figure of €200k to build his house according to the specification provided to his builder, you can be sure he would expect to pay as close to that as possible for a house built to that specification. He wouldn’t be prepared to pay €372k (unless the finished product was 86% bigger and better !!!). At the beginning of the process, Mr Smith has made an informed decision that that €200k represents value for money for the expected return, same way as the taxpayer is informed that the initial cost of a project represents value for money for the expected return. The final outcome at 86% above budget cannot represent value for money.
End rant.
For example, every major infrastructural announcement is made following an extensive process which inevitably involves the use of expensive “outside” consultants from all walks of life. This process must involve some estimation of the cost of the project (Mr Smith next door would not engage the services of an expert to ascertain whether he could build a house in his garden \ field without wanting to know what it will cost). The Government (of the day) then announce that, following this process, they have decided to proceed with this project, and they have been informed that it will cost €x million or billion (based on the criteria given to the consultants and experts). However, when they go to tender, it is suddenly discovered that building a road, tunnel, hospital whatever wherever was not as simple and straightforward as original envisaged, presumably because the initial criteria was made up by civil servants with no concept or care of how things operate in the real world and with the comfort of knowing that they will suffer no repercussions as a result of their errors or oversights. The tenders come back and the actual budgeted cost is significantly higher. The Powers that be then say, fine, we got it wrong, it’s actual going to cost 1.5 times what was initial announced (except no reminder will be offered as to the original figure announced). The tender is awarded and any potential downside is heavily weighted on the side of the taxpayer in terms of what will eventually be paid because no Government wants a half-finished road, tunnel, hospital and a contractor walking away because he can’t get paid for all the unforeseen extras (unforeseen on his part of the tendering process). This is why over-expenditure on major infrastructural projects in this country runs at 86% while the average everywhere else in 20%. If Mr Smith was presented with a figure of €200k to build his house according to the specification provided to his builder, you can be sure he would expect to pay as close to that as possible for a house built to that specification. He wouldn’t be prepared to pay €372k (unless the finished product was 86% bigger and better !!!). At the beginning of the process, Mr Smith has made an informed decision that that €200k represents value for money for the expected return, same way as the taxpayer is informed that the initial cost of a project represents value for money for the expected return. The final outcome at 86% above budget cannot represent value for money.
End rant.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
My example above referred to the cost of buying a site AND building a house.
You obviously didn't buy a site and build a house in the late 90s or early 00s! Many people who did so found that the project costs doubled between initial planning and completion.
Again the assumption that civil servants are collectively "stupid" and the rest of us are collectively "smart" is simplistic in the extreme.
avantarklu
Registered User
- Messages
- 52
ubiquitous said:
"Many people" were still able to make an informed decision as to what represented value for money.
There is no such assumption, but someone has to take responsibility for there actions. Joe Citizen can take his responsibility by voting for change next time round.
Last edited by a moderator:
In what way was it not worth the price charged in your view? Presumably this only came to light after the fact otherwise you would not have made the purchase? Did it come to light when you were presented with the dish or only after consuming it? If you felt that it was not worth it then you presumably voiced your opinion on this? If not why not? Do you really consider that you were ripped off?RS2K said:
RS2K said:
But isn't this one of the problems in our country now.
You may think that €10 is top fair price for a mixed grill, whereas I may be happy to pay €15 or more for a mixed grill in the Merrion Hotel while I'm watching Brendan pay €5 for his Guinness.
Value for money is subjective, and therefore lots of the items argued about with regards to rip-offs aren't really justified - food/drink - basically anything surrounding a service and a location.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Don't assume that a single civil servant or a single civil service practice will change if the Taoiseach or Govt changes. Fine Gael took control of many local councils across the country 14 months ago and have yet to implement even a single reduction in local taxes or charges.
ubiquitous said:
That's fine, but I expect a greater degree of accuracy than has been the case to now. Like I said above, there appears to be evidence that things are getting better in recent weeks.
ubiquitous said:
Yes I feel 'ripped off' by his actions, despite what he might say to the contrary. These court actions etc. have certainly made the price of the M50 'exorbitant' in my view.
ubiquitous said:
I don't really care whether he stood to gain financially or not, but I know that taxpayers lost financially as a result of his actions. That's my concern.
ubiquitous said:
No, I'm not trying to stereotype here, but objecting to something like an abbatoir or sewage plant on your doorstep isn't quite the same thing, is it? Mr. Salafia is a serial objector to major public projects, none of which are as detrimental to his quality of life as abbatoirs or sewage plants being sited on his doorstep. I don't deny people their right to object, as long as it's within the legal framework for doing so. However, I would take issue with their motives, and with the legal framework that allows them to do so. But that's my own opinion.
ubiquitous said:
What I was getting at was that this was seriously considered by the current government, but was abandoned (cafe bar style????) on the intervention of McDowell. Was he getting at the constitutionality of it? Maybe. Or was he acting as TD for an area that was due to house an incinerator that could have been 'fast tracked' under the proposed legislation? Who knows?
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
You would not get a mixed grill for stg£ 6.50 or €10 in the North.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
CC
Eh?
Do you think he should be locked up? Otherwise, what do you propose should be done with him?
Eh?
I watched this programme. I think it is unfortunate that the phrase "rip-off" is used. When I lived here in 1989 (making comparisons with Perth, WAustralia) my experience of Dublin was of an extremely expensive place to live. With the exception of the price of housing, perhaps Dublin now is somewhat more expensive.
Again, I recall the first drive from Dublin Airport, and thinking that the road system was very good. As soon as we left the airport dual carriageway, that impression rapidly changed. Now, with the opening of, for eg, the M1, which is not too far from us, I can't justifiably argue that the roads I frequently travel are dangerous. Likewise, our journey to Kilmore Quay from north county Dublin involves travelling along some very good roadway.
I wouldn't argue with anyone returning with, "Yes, but it is very, very expensive roadway." Why is that? The programme, for me, didn't successfully deconstruct such a perception. Certainly, more expensive compared to construction costs in WA, but HM more expensive than the European average? ROR seemed to take some vicarious pleasure in excessively criticising the personalities involved in one (important) section of the decision-making process.
This is a very small, and in some ways a very old marketplace. An historical legacy seems to accompany every present decision. However, I don't recall a programme (however unfocussed) like ROR 3 back in 1989 here in Dublin, so bully for the people behind the programme. Perhaps it is a starting point. Eg petrol prices here are far, far higher than in Perth (how do the prices compare with other Euro economies?) Petrol companies are required to submit the following days retail prices to a watchdog authority and will be substantially fined if the notified price is not charged at the bowser. I recall penalty points were recently introduced here. Such a scheme has been in operation in Perth since 1983.
Again, I recall the first drive from Dublin Airport, and thinking that the road system was very good. As soon as we left the airport dual carriageway, that impression rapidly changed. Now, with the opening of, for eg, the M1, which is not too far from us, I can't justifiably argue that the roads I frequently travel are dangerous. Likewise, our journey to Kilmore Quay from north county Dublin involves travelling along some very good roadway.
I wouldn't argue with anyone returning with, "Yes, but it is very, very expensive roadway." Why is that? The programme, for me, didn't successfully deconstruct such a perception. Certainly, more expensive compared to construction costs in WA, but HM more expensive than the European average? ROR seemed to take some vicarious pleasure in excessively criticising the personalities involved in one (important) section of the decision-making process.
This is a very small, and in some ways a very old marketplace. An historical legacy seems to accompany every present decision. However, I don't recall a programme (however unfocussed) like ROR 3 back in 1989 here in Dublin, so bully for the people behind the programme. Perhaps it is a starting point. Eg petrol prices here are far, far higher than in Perth (how do the prices compare with other Euro economies?) Petrol companies are required to submit the following days retail prices to a watchdog authority and will be substantially fined if the notified price is not charged at the bowser. I recall penalty points were recently introduced here. Such a scheme has been in operation in Perth since 1983.
These discussions on ROR are far more informing than the programme, most likely because here the opposing view points get equal opportunity to air. But I do think Eddie has a message to spread and in the main he is causing more awareness despite leaving himself wide open for criticism with dodgy math and odd examples.
The definition of rip-Off is broad, as pointed out here already it means different things to different people.
There are different kinds of rip offs that don’t compare well. The broad rip-off themes appear to be as follows:
1. How much tax we pay to the Government.
Are we ripped-off, yes if they waste it, maybe not if they spend it wisely to our benefit. This will require constant vigilance on our part as voters and tax payers. The proportion of tax paid by different sections of society is another aspect, everyone has their own opinion on this, and personally I think the low paid pay too much tax as a proportion of their earnings.
2. How we are taxed Stealth Vs PAYE.
They call it taxing by stealth and a rip off, I call it paying additional tax based on my level of consumption. If I can cycle to work I don't pay additional tax on petrol, if I abstain from drink I save paying additional tax there also. I understand that there are areas I can't control, for example in my case I have to drive to work and so have to buy petrol but I do have a level of control over a large proportion of my spending so I have choice in many areas. I don't have control over where I get me electricity, gas etc. and VAT has to be paid here so as a voter and tax payer I have work to do here to make my voice heard so that we might have some competition.
3. How that tax is spent.
We need to insist on value for money and I think we are, certainly consumer groups are more vocal and because of the over runs of infrastructure projects the past all eyes are on existing ones and how they are costed and structured, we as voters and tax payers have effected change here as well.
3. How we as consumers are ripped off by business.
Except in the case of monopolies we have alot of control here, if you make a resolution not to be ripped off again you will avoid it most of the time. As other posters have suggested this is as simple as bringing a sandwich on the train or your own pop corn to the cinema or having your friends over for dinner instead of meeting them at a restaurant etc.
It's all about awareness, I wouldn't have written a letter to Michael Martin about the Groceries order if it I had not been made aware of it through Eddie's programme so I'll forgive him his shortcomings and take responsibility for my own spending where I can.
The definition of rip-Off is broad, as pointed out here already it means different things to different people.
There are different kinds of rip offs that don’t compare well. The broad rip-off themes appear to be as follows:
1. How much tax we pay to the Government.
Are we ripped-off, yes if they waste it, maybe not if they spend it wisely to our benefit. This will require constant vigilance on our part as voters and tax payers. The proportion of tax paid by different sections of society is another aspect, everyone has their own opinion on this, and personally I think the low paid pay too much tax as a proportion of their earnings.
2. How we are taxed Stealth Vs PAYE.
They call it taxing by stealth and a rip off, I call it paying additional tax based on my level of consumption. If I can cycle to work I don't pay additional tax on petrol, if I abstain from drink I save paying additional tax there also. I understand that there are areas I can't control, for example in my case I have to drive to work and so have to buy petrol but I do have a level of control over a large proportion of my spending so I have choice in many areas. I don't have control over where I get me electricity, gas etc. and VAT has to be paid here so as a voter and tax payer I have work to do here to make my voice heard so that we might have some competition.
3. How that tax is spent.
We need to insist on value for money and I think we are, certainly consumer groups are more vocal and because of the over runs of infrastructure projects the past all eyes are on existing ones and how they are costed and structured, we as voters and tax payers have effected change here as well.
3. How we as consumers are ripped off by business.
Except in the case of monopolies we have alot of control here, if you make a resolution not to be ripped off again you will avoid it most of the time. As other posters have suggested this is as simple as bringing a sandwich on the train or your own pop corn to the cinema or having your friends over for dinner instead of meeting them at a restaurant etc.
It's all about awareness, I wouldn't have written a letter to Michael Martin about the Groceries order if it I had not been made aware of it through Eddie's programme so I'll forgive him his shortcomings and take responsibility for my own spending where I can.
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
MoodyToo,
Thats an excellent post, if you don't mind me saying so!
Thats an excellent post, if you don't mind me saying so!
ubiquitous said:
See below. I don't think (well at least I won't say
) that anything should be done with him.In my view, the legal framework needs to be changed. As long as people are allowed to object to projects on what I consider to be frivolous grounds, I'm sure they will continue to do so.ubiquitous said:
ubiquitous said:
And I'll agree with you on that one Ubi.
I also think Balga made some good points above, especially:
- Eddie is taking too much pleasure at poking fun at personalities, and this takes away from the credibility of the message.
- It was good to see a programme like this being made, and fair play to the producers for making it.
But I think the 'problem' is that this is essentially entertainment as opposed to a documentary type programme (but we have Prime Time for that), and so is sensationalist, humorous, and simplistic. To expand and justify some of the assertions made in the show would require a lot more airtime (and would be interesting to see, e.g "Eddie Investigates-The Port Tunnel"). And it will be interesting to see if Eddie and Co. are called to account for these assertions by the government. There is an article in the Irish Times today that suggests that it is not clear cut:
"Government advisors are cautious about such an approach (referring to Ministers being more active in countering claims made in the programme), fearing that a ministerial response could not compete with the impact of such a populist (my own emphasis) programme, and might only make matters worse for the Government"
So I guess they'll just invite him to Inchydoney
.Either way, I'm enjoying and learning a lot from the discussion that RoR has provoked on this site and in the media.
- Status