The Fine Gael thread

[macdanger2]

You're right re public service negligence but what govt in their right mind would tackle the public service?? They'd be out on their ear with strikes and protests all over the country and every opposition party supporting the layabouts in the public sector unions. Just to be clear - I'm not saying everyone or even a majority in the public service are useless but the current system protects the useless to the detriment of decent public sector workers and the general public. If that hasn't changed during the recession, it's unlikely to do so now

In relation to the promises of 1977, surely yourself and Lar are well aware that those were lies peddled by Jack Lynch in order to buy the electorate?? That election has set the tone for almost every election since then whereby parties feel it's ok to promise the sun moon and stars and then backtrack the minute they're in the door. Although the fact that we the electorate bought those promises then and every time since means we're the ones responsible

[lynchbhoy]

You're right re public service negligence but what govt in their right mind would tackle the public service?? They'd be out on their ear with strikes and protests all over the country and every opposition party supporting the layabouts in the public sector unions. Just to be clear - I'm not saying everyone or even a majority in the public service are useless but the current system protects the useless to the detriment of decent public sector workers and the general public. If that hasn't changed during the recession, it's unlikely to do so now

In relation to the promises of 1977, surely yourself and Lar are well aware that those were lies peddled by Jack Lynch in order to buy the electorate?? That election has set the tone for almost every election since then whereby parties feel it's ok to promise the sun moon and stars and then backtrack the minute they're in the door. Although the fact that we the electorate bought those promises then and every time since means we're the ones responsible

I am indeed- that's why I say that these services need more money !
but its a pain in the hole being lied to and have them think they are pulling the wool over our eyes- when we were always wise to it('it' being that they were spending feck all on services and being negligent in everything all along while claiming our taxes were going towards these services).

the civil service - that's another days rant!
no gov would or could take them on- but the malaise will remain until this had been addressed.

that the new water company inherited the same template of work ethic, bonuses, salaries and jobs for the boys - does not augur well for the future.

this was an opportunity to address the problem with structure, payment and efficiency with a new 'company'.
Then address other individual companies/agencies/gardai etc individually.
this would happen over time.

all new hires should inherit new wage/salary scales as well are revamped terms and conditions (DC pensions instead of DB etc).

[macdanger2]

As far as I know, new hires are on different (pretty normal) terms and conditions e.g. dc pension rather than db. People who transferred from the councils, etc retained their existing conditions many of which would be extremely generous.

Siptu were out against bonuses being stopped for their members (many of whom would be ex-council) - will be interesting to see what stance certain parties take on that if it goes towards industrial action

[Lar Naparka]

Every country in Europe and pretty much everywhere else has water charges. Now you may or may not agree with water charges as a detail of policy, but all this marching about and pretending that this is some sort of outrageous imposition is ridiculous.

But we are already paying for our water and have been doing so since domestic rates were introduced. Before the '77 General Election, water and refuse charges were included in the rates. When those and a list of other direct taxes were abolished, they were replaced by higher rates of Vat and income tax and other forms of indirect taxation.
Gradually over the intervening years, every single tax that was done away with (refuse charges, car tax etc.) have been re-introduced without a corresponding decrease in the levies that replaced them.
Water charges are the last remaining element of the pre-77 domestic rates to be brought back and like all the others, it's coming in on top of the money we are already paying for that service. It's a double whammy in other words.
FFS, I'll pay up when the grippers arrive on my doorstep and not a second before!

So where would you get the money to repair the leaks and to prevent raw sewerage being dumped into the sea?

When trying to get at the facts in this particular instance, I guess a lot depends on who you choose to listen to and what you decide to believe.
For instance, both coalition parties declared that they were opposed the introduction of water charges in the lead -up to the last General Election.
The Labour manifesto said on page 29, "Labour does not favour water charges."
Seems fairly unequivocal to me.
Brendan Howlin's remark on the subject of water meters in February 2011 that "It makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of euro metering a leaky system," doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it?
Or is a case of it being okay to use any means possible, including damn lies in a bid to get into power? Michael Noonan said more or less the same thing when the campaign was on and now seems to have no problem with doing the exact opposite when in office.
We have also been spun the line that the introduction of water charges was a pre-condition of the agreement with the Troika. The government had no choice in the matter so blame Angela Merkel and Ali Chopra or whoever you bloody look but it's not our fault, accordsing to the official line.
Hmm...
For me, there's a hard decision to be made right here, are Enda and his government a shower of incompetent gobshites or a pack of brazen liars? That's a hard one to call.

If you happen to believe that Noonan and Howlin were speaking in good faith when they delivered their pre-elections promises, you should opt for the former. After all, if they genuinely believed that a water tax should be opposed, they hadn't read or understood the contents of the agreement. Definitely not the sort to run tjhe country.
On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that Messrs. Noonan and Howlin and their colleagues knew damn well that the imposition of a water tax was inevitable but decided to pretend otherwise until they got into power, then the latter is the only possible conclusion to arrive at.
A case of Hobson's Choice really, either way you are damned.

BTW, our water is not free, Gene Kerrigan (Sindo columnist) estimates that on average, the PAYE worker already pays €600 yearly in water charges. (That's by way of higher indirect taxes since the abolition of domestic rates in 1977.)
Yet Noonan would have us believe that we've been getting our water for free all along.
"Ask yourself the question," sez he. "What do you think would happen, from a behavioural point of view, if electricity were free?"
He went on, ""Would you ever turn off the light in the middle of the summer? Would you have appliances plugged in all the time?"
That's a ludicrous comparison to make.
Water is not free and a chronic lack of public funding down the years  has left us with a system where almost 50% of treated water leaks away. That hasn't been caused by private individuals leaving taps running while they wash their teeth or the likes.
Now, I accept that money must be found to upgrade our water system as a matter of urgency and I have no problem with paying my fair share of the cost but I don't think the present proposals will see any significant changes now or in the mid-term future.
If we, the tax payers, were given adequate recognition for the money we are already paying for the inadequate service we have, it would soften my cough considerably.  A sliding scale of tariffs after that, based on water usage and not the number of individuals in a house would be fairer than the proposed new system.
I know there would be problems there also but not as many as I see in the present proposals.

[muppet]

Every country in Europe and pretty much everywhere else has water charges. Now you may or may not agree with water charges as a detail of policy, but all this marching about and pretending that this is some sort of outrageous imposition is ridiculous.

But we are already paying for our water and have been doing so since domestic rates were introduced. Before the '77 General Election, water and refuse charges were included in the rates. When those and a list of other direct taxes were abolished, they were replaced by higher rates of Vat and income tax and other forms of indirect taxation.
Gradually over the intervening years, every single tax that was done away with (refuse charges, car tax etc.) have been re-introduced without a corresponding decrease in the levies that replaced them.
Water charges are the last remaining element of the pre-77 domestic rates to be brought back and like all the others, it's coming in on top of the money we are already paying for that service. It's a double whammy in other words.
FFS, I'll pay up when the grippers arrive on my doorstep and not a second before!

So where would you get the money to repair the leaks and to prevent raw sewerage being dumped into the sea?

When trying to get at the facts in this particular instance, I guess a lot depends on who you choose to listen to and what you decide to believe.
For instance, both coalition parties declared that they were opposed the introduction of water charges in the lead -up to the last General Election.
The Labour manifesto said on page 29, "Labour does not favour water charges."
Seems fairly unequivocal to me.
Brendan Howlin's remark on the subject of water meters in February 2011 that "It makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of euro metering a leaky system," doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it?
Or is a case of it being okay to use any means possible, including damn lies in a bid to get into power? Michael Noonan said more or less the same thing when the campaign was on and now seems to have no problem with doing the exact opposite when in office.
We have also been spun the line that the introduction of water charges was a pre-condition of the agreement with the Troika. The government had no choice in the matter so blame Angela Merkel and Ali Chopra or whoever you bloody look but it's not our fault, accordsing to the official line.
Hmm...
For me, there's a hard decision to be made right here, are Enda and his government a shower of incompetent gobshites or a pack of brazen liars? That's a hard one to call.

If you happen to believe that Noonan and Howlin were speaking in good faith when they delivered their pre-elections promises, you should opt for the former. After all, if they genuinely believed that a water tax should be opposed, they hadn't read or understood the contents of the agreement. Definitely not the sort to run tjhe country.
On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that Messrs. Noonan and Howlin and their colleagues knew damn well that the imposition of a water tax was inevitable but decided to pretend otherwise until they got into power, then the latter is the only possible conclusion to arrive at.
A case of Hobson's Choice really, either way you are damned.

BTW, our water is not free, Gene Kerrigan (Sindo columnist) estimates that on average, the PAYE worker already pays €600 yearly in water charges. (That's by way of higher indirect taxes since the abolition of domestic rates in 1977.)
Yet Noonan would have us believe that we've been getting our water for free all along.
"Ask yourself the question," sez he. "What do you think would happen, from a behavioural point of view, if electricity were free?"
He went on, ""Would you ever turn off the light in the middle of the summer? Would you have appliances plugged in all the time?"
That's a ludicrous comparison to make.
Water is not free and a chronic lack of public funding down the years  has left us with a system where almost 50% of treated water leaks away. That hasn't been caused by private individuals leaving taps running while they wash their teeth or the likes.
Now, I accept that money must be found to upgrade our water system as a matter of urgency and I have no problem with paying my fair share of the cost but I don't think the present proposals will see any significant changes now or in the mid-term future.
If we, the tax payers, were given adequate recognition for the money we are already paying for the inadequate service we have, it would soften my cough considerably.  A sliding scale of tariffs after that, based on water usage and not the number of individuals in a house would be fairer than the proposed new system.
I know there would be problems there also but not as many as I see in the present proposals.

Lars you are arguing about what middle management once said. The bosses are in Europe. They want water charges so it would happen even if Joe Higgins was Taoiseach and Paul Murphy Táiniste.

That is what loss of sovereignty means.

[armaghniac]

the civil service - that's another days rant!
no gov would or could take them on- but the malaise will remain until this had been addressed.

In order to "take on" the civil service, the government has to say things like what is the basis of this decision, what is it benchmarked against, how do you know if it is successful? But this kind of rational approach is exactly the opposite of what politicians want, they want to change course without proper justification, they do not want to explain themselves, they do not want to be measured. As long as the voter puts up with this then nothing will change.

BTW, our water is not free, Gene Kerrigan (Sindo columnist) estimates that on average, the PAYE worker already pays €600 yearly in water charges. (That's by way of higher indirect taxes since the abolition of domestic rates in 1977.)

The abolition of rates in 1977 was a disgrace and the cause of a lot of damage since then. Gene Kerrigan (Sindo columnist) is even less principled than the average politician. But this indirect tax thing is suspect in any case. VAT was 20% in 1976, and while it reached 35%! in the 1980s it has spent most of the time since then at 21%, the 23% now has to do with recent circumstances not 1997. So not a vast contribution there. As for income tax, it too was 65% in the 1980s but is much less now and many people pay little or no income tax.
I have a house in Dublin and one in Armagh, the sum of the property tax, bin charges and water in Dublin is significantly less than the rates in Armagh, and there will be water charges there in due course too.
As I said, you cannot simply not bother having taxes and charges  other places have and expect the same left of water quality etc. Everyone is convinced they are overtaxed, when in the 70s or 90s they paid at least as much and paid more in the 80s, only the early part of the 00s was different as the government was afloat on stamp duty on borrowed money in a totally artificial situation. But using that as a benchmark is like using a mild winter to budget your heating costs.

[Rossfan]

Muppet and Armaghniac talking sense as they seem to do quite a lot.
The legacy of neo liberal McCreevy and the PDs and the gobsh1te FF Builders party lives on and will be crucifying us for decades.

[armaghniac]

The legacy of neo liberal McCreevy and the PDs and the gobsh1te FF Builders party lives on and will be crucifying us for decades.

In fairness to McCreevey, his dictum was if you have it spend it, if you don't have it don't spend it. The present lot believe in spending it whether you have it or not.

[muppet]

The legacy of neo liberal McCreevy and the PDs and the gobsh1te FF Builders party lives on and will be crucifying us for decades.

In fairness to McCreevey, his dictum was if you have it spend it, if you don't have it don't spend it. The present lot believe in spending it whether you have it or not.

McCreevy actually created the National Pension Reserve, which was about the only sensible decision made in our national finances in our 93 years. But the Troika emptied it as a condition of the bailout.

Bertie got rid of McCreevy because he wouldn't spend enough to buy elections, put in Cowan, and the rest (of us) is now history.

[Lar Naparka]

Every country in Europe and pretty much everywhere else has water charges. Now you may or may not agree with water charges as a detail of policy, but all this marching about and pretending that this is some sort of outrageous imposition is ridiculous.

But we are already paying for our water and have been doing so since domestic rates were introduced. Before the '77 General Election, water and refuse charges were included in the rates. When those and a list of other direct taxes were abolished, they were replaced by higher rates of Vat and income tax and other forms of indirect taxation.
Gradually over the intervening years, every single tax that was done away with (refuse charges, car tax etc.) have been re-introduced without a corresponding decrease in the levies that replaced them.
Water charges are the last remaining element of the pre-77 domestic rates to be brought back and like all the others, it's coming in on top of the money we are already paying for that service. It's a double whammy in other words.
FFS, I'll pay up when the grippers arrive on my doorstep and not a second before!

So where would you get the money to repair the leaks and to prevent raw sewerage being dumped into the sea?

When trying to get at the facts in this particular instance, I guess a lot depends on who you choose to listen to and what you decide to believe.
For instance, both coalition parties declared that they were opposed the introduction of water charges in the lead -up to the last General Election.
The Labour manifesto said on page 29, "Labour does not favour water charges."
Seems fairly unequivocal to me.
Brendan Howlin's remark on the subject of water meters in February 2011 that "It makes no sense to spend hundreds of millions of euro metering a leaky system," doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it?
Or is a case of it being okay to use any means possible, including damn lies in a bid to get into power? Michael Noonan said more or less the same thing when the campaign was on and now seems to have no problem with doing the exact opposite when in office.
We have also been spun the line that the introduction of water charges was a pre-condition of the agreement with the Troika. The government had no choice in the matter so blame Angela Merkel and Ali Chopra or whoever you bloody look but it's not our fault, accordsing to the official line.
Hmm...
For me, there's a hard decision to be made right here, are Enda and his government a shower of incompetent gobshites or a pack of brazen liars? That's a hard one to call.

If you happen to believe that Noonan and Howlin were speaking in good faith when they delivered their pre-elections promises, you should opt for the former. After all, if they genuinely believed that a water tax should be opposed, they hadn't read or understood the contents of the agreement. Definitely not the sort to run tjhe country.
On the other hand, if you believe, as I do, that Messrs. Noonan and Howlin and their colleagues knew damn well that the imposition of a water tax was inevitable but decided to pretend otherwise until they got into power, then the latter is the only possible conclusion to arrive at.
A case of Hobson's Choice really, either way you are damned.

BTW, our water is not free, Gene Kerrigan (Sindo columnist) estimates that on average, the PAYE worker already pays €600 yearly in water charges. (That's by way of higher indirect taxes since the abolition of domestic rates in 1977.)
Yet Noonan would have us believe that we've been getting our water for free all along.
"Ask yourself the question," sez he. "What do you think would happen, from a behavioural point of view, if electricity were free?"
He went on, ""Would you ever turn off the light in the middle of the summer? Would you have appliances plugged in all the time?"
That's a ludicrous comparison to make.
Water is not free and a chronic lack of public funding down the years  has left us with a system where almost 50% of treated water leaks away. That hasn't been caused by private individuals leaving taps running while they wash their teeth or the likes.
Now, I accept that money must be found to upgrade our water system as a matter of urgency and I have no problem with paying my fair share of the cost but I don't think the present proposals will see any significant changes now or in the mid-term future.
If we, the tax payers, were given adequate recognition for the money we are already paying for the inadequate service we have, it would soften my cough considerably.  A sliding scale of tariffs after that, based on water usage and not the number of individuals in a house would be fairer than the proposed new system.
I know there would be problems there also but not as many as I see in the present proposals.

Lars you are arguing about what middle management once said. The bosses are in Europe. They want water charges so it would happen even if Joe Higgins was Taoiseach and Paul Murphy Táiniste.

That is what loss of sovereignty means.

You're right mup, no doubt about it.
But what bugs me is the way the present govt. parties told blatant lies in their in their election campaigns in 2011 and never bothered to disguise the fact then or now. As MacD2 said, the '77 election set the tone for every election since then and as he also said, we the voters are responsible for allowing all political parties to make extravagant promises that they have no intention of keeping if they get into power.
It's said that politicians mirror society, we elect them so they represent our values.
Sure, if Higgins and Murphy led the government, we'd still have to put up with water charges but I'd like to think that they would have admitted this from the outset.

[Rossfan]

.
Sure, if Higgins and Murphy led the government, we'd still have to put up with water charges but I'd like to think that they would have admitted this from the outset.

Ahhh Jasus Lar what age are ya? That went out with the Tooth fairy and S Claus

[Maguire01]

When trying to get at the facts in this particular instance, I guess a lot depends on who you choose to listen to and what you decide to believe.
For instance, both coalition parties declared that they were opposed the introduction of water charges in the lead -up to the last General Election.
The Labour manifesto said on page 29, "Labour does not favour water charges."
Seems fairly unequivocal to me.

Facts indeed.

Fine Gael's election manifesto clearly stated that they would introduce charging:

Water Charging: Fine Gael will introduce a fair funding model to deliver clean and reliable water. We will not ask home owners to pay for a broken and unreliable system and that is why Fine Gael will only introduce water charging after the establishment of a new State owned water utility company to take over responsibility from the separate local authorities for Ireland's water infrastructure and to drive new investment.

You selectively part-quoted the Labour manifesto:

Labour does not favour water charges, which do not address the immediate needs of those who currently receive intermittent or poor water supplies.

Not quite as unequivocal.

In FG, FF and the Greens, 55% of the electorate voted for parties that were quite upfront in their intention to introduce water charges. As for Labour, well they weren't as unequivocal as you suggest, and as you know, the reality is when you enter a coalition, you don't get the option of delivering all your manifesto, even if you want to, especially if you're the junior partner.

[armaghniac]

But what bugs me is the way the present govt. parties told blatant lies in their in their election campaigns in 2011 and never bothered to disguise the fact then or now.

As Maguire pointed out, the largest party have done pretty much what they promised.
But even if the didn't, there are worse things than this, all of this ranting and raving over something that is less than 1% of government expenditure or revenue is ridiculous and immature.

If people were protesting over people on trollies in A&E, or not enough social workers for children, or something important, then you'd have some respect for Irish people.

[foxcommander]

When trying to get at the facts in this particular instance, I guess a lot depends on who you choose to listen to and what you decide to believe.
For instance, both coalition parties declared that they were opposed the introduction of water charges in the lead -up to the last General Election.
The Labour manifesto said on page 29, "Labour does not favour water charges."
Seems fairly unequivocal to me.

Facts indeed.

Fine Gael's election manifesto clearly stated that they would introduce charging:

Water Charging: Fine Gael will introduce a fair funding model to deliver clean and reliable water. We will not ask home owners to pay for a broken and unreliable system and that is why Fine Gael will only introduce water charging after the establishment of a new State owned water utility company to take over responsibility from the separate local authorities for Ireland's water infrastructure and to drive new investment.

You selectively part-quoted the Labour manifesto:

Labour does not favour water charges, which do not address the immediate needs of those who currently receive intermittent or poor water supplies.

Not quite as unequivocal.

In FG, FF and the Greens, 55% of the electorate voted for parties that were quite upfront in their intention to introduce water charges. As for Labour, well they weren't as unequivocal as you suggest, and as you know, the reality is when you enter a coalition, you don't get the option of delivering all your manifesto, even if you want to, especially if you're the junior partner.

Had Fine Gael said in their manifesto that they would come round everyones home and kill their pets they probably still would have won the last election such was the contempt for FF.

Nobody believes the manifestos written anymore, I think that's partly the problem. There are so many lies told by politicians that people thought there was no way they would actually go ahead with charging for water.

[foxcommander]

If people were protesting over people on trollies in A&E, or not enough social workers for children, or something important, then you'd have some respect for Irish people.

I wish they would. I'm glad that people are waking up to the fact that their government is short changing them and they realise that only by public shows of protest that there is dissatisfaction with the way things are being done.

No point in tutting at Enda on the Late Late Show and wishing something could be done...