The Fine Gael thread

[Maguire01]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

He's not grasping any concept, be it the constitution or employment law.

[Maguire01]

It would be ridiculous to set up Irish Water without hiring the people currently running the system, what would you then do with these people.

Same as you do in normal commercial business ( what should happen in aerlingus)
Cherry pick the cream to lead the company and hire additional baggage free staff in to work hard and efficiently

Those who don't make the cut - do what happens all other public sector workers, subsume them into departments that require staff.
Either that or they quit.
That this question is even coming up shows how much the tail wags the dog in too much of Irish 'work culture'. Too many sheep following blindly and no progressive thinking or leadership save from a few like Michael Oleary Dermot Desmond etc.

Lynchbhoy, you're not really grasping the TUPE concept. Whether you are public or private sector and you take over a business you are legally obliged to take the staff that comes with them, it's the law. You can't cherry pick, you can't take half, you have to take all, look it up, it's the LAW!

What Micheal O'Leary would do is make half of them redundant, the government doesn't do compulsory redundancy, it would lead to all out strikes from the public sector, something we can't afford. So they will probably give voluntary redundancy, the problem there is it's never the useless f**kers that take that, only the good ones who will get a job elsewhere.

That's fair enough point and it goes a long way towards explaining why Irish Water wound up with a load of employees who are surplus to its needs.
However, the point I've been trying to make all along is that Irish Water and the government are to blame for much of the controversy we're enmeshed in now.
A mix of arrogance and incompetence is the best way to describe the manner in which both parties have handled affairs since the board was set up. It was a case of diktat ratjer than discourse from beginning to end.
Take TUPE for example.
Can you or anyone else recall any attempt by either party to explain the reasons why this was done?
I certainly can't and, more importantly, it's clear than no one on the "No" side of the divide heard it either.

Plenty of people on the NO side wouldn't want to hear it, and it suits some people on that side of the debate if people are ignorant of the detail. And then you have people who just won't get it - sure look at this thread - you have people who can't grasp these things when they're explained several times.

Yes, government and public bodies could be better at explaining, but a lot of the time the media are only interested in the soundbites and headlines, and most of the general public couldn't be bothered with the detail. Take the issue of the President signing the bill for example - 10 minutes on Google and you'll understand the protocol, but people would rather have a rant about democracy (as they understand it) and how the President should have called a referendum.

[Maguire01]

Franko, as I have pointed out water charges were mentioned in the manifesto, down the back of the booklet and very ambiguous.

I think you'll find that I pointed that out to you.

As for what was in the manifesto:
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.

It's not really that ambiguous. They have introduced charging after the establishment of a new State owned water utility company, just like they said.

[Maguire01]

Here's the well though-out alternative, folks:

SF muddies the waters on how to fund creaking, leaking network

It is in appalling order and needs enormous sums of money to bring it into line with EU standards. It must provide a clean, safe and secure supply for all householders and businesses, something it is simply not capable of delivering at the present, and which will require annual spending of some €500m a year for the foreseeable future.

And so it is somewhat worrying when the deputy leader of Sinn Fein, which styles itself as a party of government, gives a less-than-assuring outline of how it will fund these upgrades if it enters office. Mary Lou McDonald (pictured right) told RTE's 'Morning Ireland' yesterday that while it was "open" to a single utility being used to oversee the network, it simply could not countenance charging people for their domestic water supply.

So how will upgrades be funded, given that at least half of all revenue coming to the single utility must be from private sources, and not government?

"Part of the equation" would be government funding, Ms McDonald said. Some could come from business rates and the party would be "open to looking at all forms or formula" to gather the rest.

Crucially, this caveat was added: "You would tailor the level of investment and works that you could carry out on the basis of that formula ... what I am saying is that under no circumstances will we stand over a situation where you charge people for their domestic water supply, you therefore cut your cloth according to your measure."

That suggests that if Sinn Fein is part of the next government, the necessary upgrades will not take place.

That's bad news for almost one million people which the Environmental Protection Agency says are drawing their water from "risky supplies", for those on boil water notices and for those who will be hit with restrictions when parts of the system fail, as they inevitably will.

This is the area which those opposed to charges have failed to address. Householders are expected to provide €270m of Irish Water's annual revenues, with businesses paying another €230m and state funding making up another €500m or so in the near-term.

If you remove domestic charges, that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Many say they would use the €540m being invested in meters. That's one year's upgrades. What about the long-term funding plan? The only way to square this circle by using State resources is to cut other services, or increase taxes. That's goodbye to income tax cuts and changes to the USC. It's no additional teachers, nurses and public servants. It's reducing the ambition of the social housing programme.

The opposition does itself no service by failing to have a detailed plan for investment. Answers like those given yesterday provide no clarity, and are as clear as the muddy water flowing from some household taps.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/sf-muddies-the-waters-on-how-to-fund-creaking-leaking-network-30958723.html

[Rossfan]

They might get some money from the Northern Bank
Typical crapology from SF...We'll improve the water network but no one will have to pay for it. And sure something might turn up.

[Maguire01]

They might get some money from the Northern Bank
Typical crapology from SF...We'll improve the water network but no one will have to pay for it. And sure something might turn up.

But the article above is basically an admission that they'll continue with the legacy of under-investment in the network, so people won't pay water charges, but they'll pay something through general taxation, and for that, many more will have boil notices, restricted supplies etc. Basically, it's an admission that there's no realistic alternative (despite having a few years now to come up with something) - if you want a utility service that's fit for purpose, you'll have to pay for it.

[armaghniac]

Water ans especially sewage investment is something that can always be postponed out of the life of a given government, but needs to be done continually. So the Shinners, or any other party, can cut the charges in the short term and we pay in the long term.

[foxcommander]

Motor tax going to Irish Water too....wow...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1029987353683488&set=vb.100000167008058&type=2&theater

[muppet]

Motor tax going to Irish Water too....wow...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1029987353683488&set=vb.100000167008058&type=2&theater

Where did you think the money would come from?

SF fantasy land?

[Kidder81]

Motor tax going to Irish Water too....wow...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1029987353683488&set=vb.100000167008058&type=2&theater

Where did you think the money would come from?

SF fantasy land?

Foxcommander isn't a Shinner 

[Maguire01]

Well given that this relates to a year where there were no water charges, how did you think it was funded?
And until water is fully funded through charges, it will continue to be funded from other taxes. What did you expect?

That this comes as a surprise to you speaks volumes.

[muppet]

Well given that this relates to a year where there were no water charges, how did you think it was funded?
And until water is fully funded through charges, it will continue to be funded from other taxes. What did you expect?

That this comes as a surprise to you speaks volumes.

Many of those burdening us with their rhetoric aren't burdening themselves with any thinking.

[Rossfan]

Well given that this relates to a year where there were no water charges, how did you think it was funded?
And until water is fully funded through charges, it will continue to be funded from other taxes. What did you expect?

That this comes as a surprise to you speaks volumes.

Many of those burdening us with their rhetoric aren't burdening themselves with any thinking.

+1.
You'd wonder what age they are

[foxcommander]

Well given that this relates to a year where there were no water charges, how did you think it was funded?
And until water is fully funded through charges, it will continue to be funded from other taxes. What did you expect?

That this comes as a surprise to you speaks volumes.

Many of those burdening us with their rhetoric aren't burdening themselves with any thinking.

The government certainly aren't burdening themselves with thinking. They just do as they are told.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/we-didnt-stab-the-greeks-in-back-on-debt-coveney-30975400.html

Why wouldn't you look for a write-down? Please answer if you can.

Yet the right of every individual in Ireland to have access to free clean drinking water is being taken away because the government can't afford to pay for water services? erm.....

Taking money earmarked for road improvements and maintenance and taking money from property taxes to set up an entity which will subject the general population to a new form of tax is acceptable?

You can't say the situation isn't a little fuc'd up but let's go with the classic irish shrug and "sure what can we do".

[foxcommander]

Well given that this relates to a year where there were no water charges, how did you think it was funded?
And until water is fully funded through charges, it will continue to be funded from other taxes. What did you expect?

That this comes as a surprise to you speaks volumes.

Many of those burdening us with their rhetoric aren't burdening themselves with any thinking.

+1.
You'd wonder what age they are

+1 can't think for themselves.