Water Charges...back on the agenda!

[WolfeTone]

I certainly have changed my behaviour since bin collection was privatised.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying my behaviour has not changed. Rather it is hard to identify any real significant reduction in waste.
I compartmentalise my waste but that by itself is not reducing waste. I may buy a box of cereal that uses recycled cardboard but I don't consider that a reduction of my waste rather the producer has reduced waste. I still dump a cardboard box into my recycling bin. Recycled or not, my waste level is the same.

 

[Firefly]

No, we just need to tax "the rich". Don't you know that's the solution to everything?

That's not fair though, sure the rich drink & bathe themselves in Evian!

 

[WolfeTone]

State will not be going back to water charges

That clears that up.

 

[Purple]

State will not be going back to water charges

That clears that up.

Another case of the government acting on the basis of political expedience and a fear of the populist left rather than doing what's in the national interest.

 

[Leo]

Fair point, but I was talking specifically about household consumption of water. An underground water leak is a different matter. It not the actual household consuming the water.

When the leak is in their pipework they are consuming it from the supply. The supply side doesn't care whether you use it to drink or pour it into the ground, they still have the costs associated with supplying the volume that you extract from the system.

I never said they did.

What you said was:

If you are attached to the public mains and public sewers you might consider that in purchasing your house, the cost of materials required, the labour, planning, etc to attach you to this system was most probably factored into the overall cost of building the house which you may be paying back over time through your mortgage repayments and the cost of that mortgage.

So which is it, the costs are factored in or they're not?

 

[WolfeTone]

Another case of the government acting on the basis of political expedience and a fear of the populist left rather than doing what's in the national interest.

Who decides what's in the 'national interest'?
You do realise that citizens in a democracy can have varying points of view of whats in the 'national interest'?
My guess is that the government flew the kite of water charges and quickly picked up the mood of the people, which by the way, is broad based support across the political spectrum.
The left may have been organising the protests, but when was the last time the left got more than a few hundred out onto the streets?
The water charges protests were in the tens of thousands across the country.

 

[WolfeTone]

The supply side doesn't care whether you use it to drink or pour it into the ground, they still have the costs associated with supplying the volume that you extract from the system.

I know the supply side doesn't care. That is part of the problem, the leak is not being 'extracted' by the householder from the system. It is being extracted by way of a leak, a hole in a pipe. It is not being 'extracted' by way of personal usage for washing, cleaning, showers etc.

So which is it, the costs are factored in or they're not?

The costs of attaching a house (labour, materials, etc) to the mains system are factored into the cost build of the house. I've already said this.

You mentioned the development levies not being enough to cover the cost, I never suggested they were.

 

[Purple]

Who decides what's in the 'national interest'?

It's an opinion. Generally, in my opinion, a group holding the rest of the country to ransom for personal gain is not acting in the national interest.

You do realise that citizens in a democracy can have varying points of view of whats in the 'national interest'?

Yes.

My guess is that the government flew the kite of water charges and quickly picked up the mood of the people, which by the way, is broad based support across the political spectrum.

The OECD is not the Government.

The left may have been organising the protests, but when was the last time the left got more than a few hundred out onto the streets?

The Water Charge protests. They were headed up by a few Marxist politicians and a failed Trade Unionists who missed the Limelight.

 

[Leo]

I know the supply side doesn't care. That is part of the problem, the leak is not being 'extracted' by the householder from the system. It is being extracted by way of a leak, a hole in a pipe. It is not being 'extracted' by way of personal usage for washing, cleaning, showers etc.

So the pipework with the leak is the property and responsibility of the householder. So it's not being consumed by the householder in much the same way that it's not being consumed when leaving a tap running, but they are fully responsible for the extraction.

The costs of attaching a house (labour, materials, etc) to the mains system are factored into the cost build of the house. I've already said this.

You mentioned the development levies not being enough to cover the cost, I never suggested they were.

Then why did you mention those costs in response to a statement that users need to pay for the service?

 

[WolfeTone]

It's an opinion. Generally, in my opinion, a group holding the rest of the country to ransom for personal gain is not acting in the national interest.

Ah well, of course. Generally, in my opinion, a group trying to impose a public policy against the overriding will of the people is not in the national interest.
Im not sure who it is you are referring to when you say 'holding the country to ransom for personal gain'. If it is the trade union, then what you may find is that they are trying to hold the government to account to implement the governments own stated public policy.

The OECD is not the Government.

True, but my opening comments in this topic were that the Green party were making some noises about this recently. And the Green party are in government.

The Water Charge protests. They were headed up by a few Marxist politicians and a failed Trade Unionists who missed the Limelight.

True, and tens of thousands, far exceeding their support base, came out across the country in support of their campaign.

 

[WolfeTone]

So it's not being consumed by the householder in much the same way that it's not being consumed when leaving a tap running, but they are fully responsible for the extraction.

If you turn on a tap and leave it running, for sure it is your responsibility. But a leak in an underground pipe? Seriously? Will we have to check our meters everyday? Twice a day?
Or a leak that occurs in a property while you are not even in the country as the example was given earlier? Is this the road we want to travel down? I think it is a nonsense.
The water that is leaked, returns back to mother earth, to its natural place of origin. There is no water waste, there is only a loss of water that has been treated and suitable for human use.
As the person has not used it, or the person has not extracted it for use, then why should they bear the cost of a supply that they did not order, ask for, or extract?

Then why did you mention those costs in response to a statement that users need to pay for the service?

Because it was mentioned by another poster that;

If we want clean, safe and reliable water we need to pay for it

Im sure, Firefly understands that the water supply is paid for and that what he really meant was that we need to invest more in our water system to provide for an environmentally sustainable supply?

But lest there be any doubt I responded with this comment.

Just to be clear, the safe, reliable water that is already available for most is paid for, lest anyone think the system arrived by itself on one big great giant freebie!?

 

[Purple]

If it is the trade union, then what you may find is that they are trying to hold the government to account to implement the governments own stated public policy

Vested interest groups act in the interests of the members of their vested interest group. The CIF or Gambling Sector or IBEC or any Union etc are all just looking to gain a relative advantage for their members.

 

[WolfeTone]

Vested interest groups act in the interests of the members of their vested interest group. The CIF or Gambling Sector or IBEC or any Union etc are all just looking to gain a relative advantage for their members.

Yes I know, its why I said in a democracy citizens can have varying views of what's in the national interest, depending on their perspective. We elect a government to make the decisions in the national interest even if such decisions are not agreeable to us all.
You think the trade union in this instance, in acting in their own members interests, is against the national interest.
I think the trade union in this instance, in acting in their own members interests, is in the national interest.

 

[Purple]

Yes I know, its why I said in a democracy citizens can have varying views of what's in the national interest, depending on their perspective. We elect a government to make the decisions in the national interest even if such decisions are not agreeable to us all.
You think the trade union in this instance, in acting in their own members interests, is against the national interest.
I think the trade union in this instance, in acting in their own members interests, is in the national interest.

That's about the size of it. I don't like seeing middle to high income earners suck up State resources that could be used to help the poor and vulnerable. I'm a bit of a socialist, that's why I hate trade unions and other vested interest groups who seek to enrich their members (or conspire on their behalf to waste public money) at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.

 

[Leo]

If you turn on a tap and leave it running, for sure it is your responsibility. But a leak in an underground pipe? Seriously?

If you have a leak in the petrol line in your car, do you thing it's someone else's responsibility to fix it?

Will we have to check our meters everyday? Twice a day?

You're a few years behind the times here, those with obvious leaks on their property have already been contacted.

The water that is leaked, returns back to mother earth, to its natural place of origin. There is no water waste, there is only a loss of water that has been treated and suitable for human use.

So you don't care about the millions that is spent on purifying that water to drinking standards? Now that is nonsense.

 

[Firefly]

If you have a leak in the petrol line in your car, do you thing it's someone else's responsibility to fix it?

You beat me to it. My question was - "What if you go on holidays and leave the emersion on, who pays the bill?"

 

[Purple]

So you don't care about the millions that is spent on purifying that water to drinking standards? Now that is nonsense.

Well take it back a level and we're back to Émilie du Châtelet's law of conservation of energy and we can all crack on doing whatever we like because nothing is ever destroyed, just changed from one form of energy into another.

 

[Leo]

You beat me to it. My question was - "What if you go on holidays and leave the emersion on, who pays the bill?"

Personal responsibility for your own actions / property??? Outrageous, the man should pay for everything and we should be allowed to continue our wasteful practices unhindered by consideration for the rest of society.

 

[Purple]

You beat me to it. My question was - "What if you go on holidays and leave the emersion on, who pays the bill?"

Well you do, at the moment. Now if we just get a failed Trade Unionist and a few Marxist-populists out on the street I'm sure we can get someone else to pay for it.

 

[Purple]

Personal responsibility for your own actions / property??? Outrageous, the man should pay for everything and we should be allowed to continue our wasteful practices unhindered by consideration for the rest of society.

Yes, collective responsibility for everything means individual responsibility for nothing.