So they are overstaffed, just like every other semi-state, what did you expect?But that's exactly what I mean, that's how the Coalition setup Irish Water. When I look at Irish Water, that's what I see.
So they are overstaffed, just like every other semi-state, what did you expect?
Unlike many other semi-states they are doing a good job.
So they are overstaffed, just like every other semi-state, what did you expect
<sigh> It was never going to be a clean slate. The services were already in existence and people employed across the country running them. There was ALWAYS going to be a staff transfer to deal with and rationalisation to occur.This was a BRAND new set up, clean slate so to speak. It was an opportunity to exceed expectations of the general population. A "statement enterprise" by the government to say "although we are stuck with setting up Irish water, lets do the best job we can"
They could have redefined what a "state body" could be / should be. Yet, from the outset they stumbled along, shooting themselves in the foot, and continue to stumble, surprised they have any toes left to shoot!
Your post actually made me sad Purple as it is so true. I'm a high earner with a private pension and I feel monumentally screwed over. It seems that using the high earners in the nations time of need was a one-way release valve. High earners were first hit (which I was okay with at the time) but there seems to be no question of reversing any of the hit as this would be seen now as enriching 'the rich' and 'regressive'.If anyone was mugged it was high earners and people with private pensions.
We are now closer to a communist state than at any time in our history. Equality now means equality of outcomes; if you work hard the state takes over half your income. If you never work the state gives you all of your income. People who work for 40 years and lose their job get the same, or more likely less, than people who have never worked. There is no individual responsibility and our new "rights based society" means that nobody has a duty to work and contribute to society if they don't want to but if they choose to do so they will be punished relative to how hard they work.
The options are to maintain this system or make it even worse. I hope my children emigrate.
For me, voting will mean starting with the least bad option and working down from there.
We did need meters. Otherwise usage based charging was not going to be an option. We need to see what it is we are using and start becoming properly aware of our precious water supply and stop taking for granted the process that converts rain into a potable supply piped directly to your house and business.
Good post and I agree but with the clarification that the people who shouldered the largest burden and were hit most, were high earners. Not the so-called squeezed middle, most of whom are net recipients from the state. That's as it should be but the notion that removing that disproportionate emergency burden would somehow be unjust is nonsense. The state should never take more than half of anyone's income in tax, no matter how much they earn.Exactly what makes you think that metering is only about reduction in usage?
Water charges were not "introduced to pay back the banks". We didn't "pay back" the banks. We yanked them out of a gaping hole that they had fallen into. And water charges alone would be a very, very, very, very, very long time managing to put a filling in that particular cavity. Water charging was included in the agreement concluded with the Troika because it was one of the REALLY obvious gaps they identified. Something that should have been in place a long time ago but was never politically expedient for FF to implement. We had a tax system that was insufficiently broad and was too dependent on property transactions.
I can't agree you have presented any tenable case. if you are the prosecution you are hardly fit to present in any court. Your entire case is based on the fact that you are in no doubt it is true - hardly a convincing argument. "It's true cos I say so"
FF agreed the bailout, FG/Lab largely implemented it. Protection for the vulnerable and the lowest waged was one of the things Labour in particular endeavoured to ensure. The burden of paying the cost of austerity (despite what the loony left would assert) fell largely on your so-called "middle class". That does not mean they were "mugged" - a particularly emotive word frankly. We all form the state, those of us in a position to pay were largely "middle-class". In large part, by September 2010 the banks were close to (or already) insolvent. What that means is that they did not have money. There was ZERO point in attempting to extract money from them. By nationalising them and keeping them running we managed to have a country that didn't descend into widespread anarchy (much to the chagrin of the Anti-Reality Alliance - they'd have loved a nice revolution handed to them on a platter). When they are sold off the state will be in a position to recoup at least some of that. In the meantime, the banks have actually been paying back monies the government provided to back them.
it is silly and ill-informed to assert they never touched the banks. After all, some have been destroyed (Anglo), most others were nationalised (AIB) and even the one that wasn't nationalised had a large lump taken on by the state (BOI). All of the banks were touched. (Some might say many of the bankers had probably been touched in the head for years but that is a different tale). But there was no pot of gold there for any government to draw on. And even if there was - that pot of gold would have still been the middle class who actually use the banking system.
You have not proven anything. Get yourself some facts first.
How could they start with a clean slate when Unions insisted all water staff in the Co Co's had to be transferred (probably paid 'relocation money' as well even if they didn't physically move work locations) no matter whather they were needed or not. And if I was a Co Co Manager I would have been moving my worst and most troublesome staff into the water section for at least a year before the transfer was due to take place.This was a BRAND new set up, clean slate so to speak. It was an opportunity to exceed expectations of the general population. A "statement enterprise" by the government to say "although we are stuck with setting up Irish water, lets do the best job we can"
They could have redefined what a "state body" could be / should be. Yet, from the outset they stumbled along, shooting themselves in the foot, and continue to stumble, surprised they have any toes left to shoot!
Good post and I agree but with the clarification that the people who shouldered the largest burden and were hit most, were high earners. Not the so-called squeezed middle, most of whom are net recipients from the state. That's as it should be but the notion that removing that disproportionate emergency burden would somehow be unjust is nonsense. The state should never take more than half of anyone's income in tax, no matter how much they earn.
Water charges were not "introduced to pay back the banks". We didn't "pay back" the banks. We yanked them out of a gaping hole that they had fallen into.
Some of the money has been paid back, in fact, BOI are in the clear completely. What I would like to know is where did this money go - was it used to pay down the debt that was borrowed for it or did it end up somewhere else?When they are sold off the state will be in a position to recoup at least some of that. In the meantime, the banks have actually been paying back monies the government provided to back them.
Unions insisted all water staff in the Co Co's had to be transferred
How so? The same opportunistic clowns like Ruth Cop-whinger and Paul Murphy would have been out protesting about that. The same morally bankrupt opportunist supreme Brendan Ogle who gives out about Irish Water was happy to have 3000 unnecessary staff in the County Councils. Even if their average pay and cost of employment was only €40'000 per person per year that's still €120'000'000. How many A&E's would that sort out or primary care centers would it build? Hypocrites, utter hypocrites.I agree that unions got their oar in BUT this was still a missed opportunity for the government.
I agree that unions got their oar in BUT this was still a missed opportunity for the government. It seemed like a poison chalice to them, no one wanting it, all hoping it would just go away.
It was given to Bord Gais Éireann to set up but still had to spend 10s of millions on "consultants", then the charges fiasco, what a unit of water would cost. It was mis-managed from the start. As they did u-turn after u-turn in relation to charges it just made those opposed to it more reason to continue protest against it & gain momentum.
We need an "Irish Water" to run the water network in this country - there is no doubting that, but it's been a fiasco from the start - a reflection on the governments failings... and then there's the "Health System Reform"...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?