.............and are good patriots one and all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJnAJNvHAw
Printable View
.............and are good patriots one and all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJnAJNvHAw
Well it's up over half households now, even using the higher figure. Wouldn't say people are cowardly for paying a tax, they're more cowardly at the ballot box for voting for parties that supported the programme if they don't agree with the terms.
That's if you believe the government figures. Anyway nothing will happen till after the referendum
I still haven't paid it. The only time it even occurs to me is when I see this thread. If they can't even get the flyer to me /before/ the deadline...
A bit of light relief.............
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...23492729_n.jpg
As has been repeatedly explained, the cowards had no choice. All parties of government were fully committed to the IMF programme before the election, and still are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
And trying to claim as a success that merely half the total have paid so far, is laughable. This is supposed to be a law apparantly. Instead it's been a joke from the very start, in the way it's been explained and implemented.
Who's claiming success? However, it does weaken the campaign against it if a majority have paid.
the fact that the electorate voted for candidates whose policies they claim not to support , rather than the other options which were clearly available is why they might be considered cowards. the electorate decide the parties of government - no one else.
Or coming from the other angle. People who claim not to support the government (and in the past FF) moaning about their policies yet agreeing with their policies and following their (or the IMF and co) "orders".
Remember that the majority of foot.ers voted for FF in that pre election poll a while back and (witout checking) I am sure a similar number went with FG and Labour the last time. So please, who is fooling who?
If 90%+ paid, then there may be an argument of it being a success. 50% is a pathetic compliance rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Official figures depend on who you speak to. The authorities didn't even know how many were eligible in the first place.
More fun and games
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0415/hou...er-meters.html
Interesting piece here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...314762099.html
Makes a fair bit of sense to me as it echoes what I've heard from people that have not paid yet (a very small sample mind you).
Good article
"To mistake technical weaknesses for mass revolt would also be an example of policy failure" - don't agree with this last statement though tbh, there is a lot of real anger out there at the moment and to not recognise that would be a mistake as well
Jesus no let up..........................
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0417/further-delay-in-deptic-tanks-registration-system.html
If it was anybody but Inda, Big Phil would long ago have been thrown overboard to keep the ship afloat.
If the government and county councils repaired the obsolete water pipes, it would almost eliminate the current leakage rate of 50%, so the argument that the metering is solely for conservation literally doesn't wash.
Too true - and that's not counting the jobs boost it would bring. But no, what am I saying? Sending my councillors on expensive junkets is far more important and a much better use of money for my area. :rolleyes2:
DefinitelyQuote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
On the very morning of the hose pipe over here, one busy street in Uxbridge (where I live) was flowing like a river with a burst pipe which took them well over 24 hours to fix. Can imagine Ireland would be worse............
When the jobs issue was put to Varadkar regarding a Metro Construction, he answered that it was "a €million per job". Job creation wasn't his priority anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
It'd eliminate leakage, it wouldn't eliminate wasteful usage. As ever, thanks to FF the building regs were so pathetic on water usage during the building bubble that we're left with the stick of water charges. There should've been rain water harvesting, grey water systems etc in new builds as part of building regulations during the boom. It's ridiculous for people who water their gardens not to have one or more water butts to collect rain water rather than a tap and hose/ sprinkler, pure laziness if they don't already.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
I'm a bit ambivalent on water charges to be honest - we pay to maintain and treat water from a private well (and maintain and treat waste leaving the house). A lot in rural areas, who don't have private wells, are on group schemes so already have water meters and charges. Like bin charges, it's the urban areas that are paying catch up on this in a way. However, they'd want to improve the quality of a lot of public supplies if they want to charge.
In some parts of the country people will have their own water systems in place, even for drinking water. What's the story there? They're hardly going to cut of there supplies or are they?