Water privatisation has begun, starting in Sligo

by Jerry Cornelius Tue Nov 14, 2006 13:40

Its not unusual for Councils to sub-contract work to private companies. How is this any different? The real battle will be against Water Charges. This story is just setting up another windmill to tilt against. Its easy to show that water services have not been privatised nor is\there provision in either existing or planned legislation to allow for privatisation. The charging reffered to above is commerical water rates.

The campaigns against water charges in the past never opposed commercial water rates. Let Business and the farmers pay!

THINK.

Why would any of the parties wannt to privatise water? Are they just plain evil? They dont need the money. They dont need the hassle.

They tried water charges on before and they'll try it again. Thats where the real battle will be.

by Seán Ryan Tue Nov 14, 2006 16:32

I think it might be helpful to give readers an idea as to who this private company Veolia is. It is a company with a turnover of close to €10 billion. It strikes me as increduluos that the first comment on this fine article, brushes aside the idea of privatisation. I wonder who this person is in the employ of? I suppose €10 billion will buy a lot of touts and Councils if necessary.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,,184528....html

Water meters, private companies controlling supply and demand = privatisation and water charges, no matter how it's spun.

I'd like to commend Jim for putting this fine article together and for updating us on what's currently happening in the ongoing process that is the privatisation of our water.

Solidarity.

by Nick - None Wed Nov 15, 2006 01:27

I'm against water charges in principle. Water is a basic necessity for human life, not a luxury commodity. We each need to drink a minimum of 2-3 pints a day just to live. You might say "sure, but what's the problem with paying a few cents for these few litres - most anybody can afford it?'

True, but that's missing the point: once you begin to charge for it at all, the principle has been established and there is no logical upper limit to what can be charged. People are not likely to kick up a big stink either, as few of us want to be put in prison (as some refuse charges protestors have to name but one group) for not coughing up. Look at refuse charges: when they were introduced, the cost was low-ish. Then it began to creep up slowly but surely. In three years before I signed off the council collection and began to recycle everything (literally) it went from about €100 to €400! There's no logical reason for it not to go to €1,000 or €10,000 a year - it only depends on how far the councils think they can push people before they snap. So the best solution is just not to establish the custom of paying in the first place for something the State should provide.

We see the drive to privatise everything - our new roads are often tolled, you pay for your rubbish collection, the national airline is being sold off (though you still had to buy a ticket, sure), there was talk of privatising prisons. Yet we still send taxes to central government - for what?

High levels of privatisation undermine a State's sovereignty. If the present trend continues there may come a day when we don't pay taxes to a democratically elected government but to a plethora of multi-nationals. Then it will be they, not us, who dictate policy.

Opponents of semi-State and State control say that state bodies are inefficent, with little accountability and slow to adapt to the market. There is that, and civil servants are often lax on the job because of the difficulty in holding them to account (just look at our political parties!). The solution is to create a civil service and state sector with far greater accountability and under constant review for performance and not by selling everything to the private sector, who are shareholder-driven.

Finally, there is something worrysome about such basic resources as water being outside the control of the State, given the implications it might have for foreign policy etc., One key problem is the ownership of this country. Many people don't realise it, but all citizens of the Irish Republic are actually feudal tenants of the Irish State - none hold actual total ownership of the land or resources - see Article 10 of the 1937 Irish Constitution. This article badly needs to be amended to hand control of the land and resources specifically back to 'the people' of Ireland rather than to 'the Irish State'. This is the key to fighting the privatisation battle.

by Jerry cornelius Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:26

" It strikes me as increduluos that the first comment on this fine article, brushes aside the idea of privatisation. I wonder who this person is in the employ of? "

Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you has to be an agent of some malign power? Isnt it possible that those who hold different opinions to you are also honest in their belifs?

"I suppose €10 billion will buy a lot of touts and Councils if necessary."

This is appalling nonsense and makes rational debate difficult. If you have to resort to such innuendo then you must not have much confidence in your arguments.

"Water meters, private companies controlling supply and demand = privatisation and water charges, no matter how it's spun."

Thats whats known as a non sequitar. Privatisation is not necessary for water charges to be introduced.

The privatisation argument has been hashed out already. You may repeat yourself if you so wish but I would direct readers to the previous debate at the link below.

by Terence Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:15

The introduction of water charges and subsequent privatisation of the service is a goal of the government and is most certainly part of their agenda.

As some people will know an attempt was already made to bring in water charges into Dublin back in the 1990s, but luckily this was defeated.

During the height of the Bin Tax campaign circa 2003, the Dublin city manager said that when the bin tax is sorted -i.e brought in, then they will be moving on to water charges almost immediately. Again we are lucky that the bin tax is not yet fully implemented and so this has probably delayed the introduction of water charges.

If and when water charges are brought in, you can be 100% sure that the government, whether it be FF or FG with various supporting parties like PD or LB will attempt to then privatise the water service. It is part of the ideology of neoliberalism and that is what the government is there for, to push the agenda and objectives of the large corporations and top layer of wealth.

As with the Bin Tax, the government introduced it into the country side and smaller town first figuring there would be less opposition and they were right. By starting in Sligo, they are clearly using a similar strategy

For an account of the previous water charges campaign in Dublin see the article: Lessons from beating the water charges at the URL below

by north by northwest Wed Nov 15, 2006 17:56

Who or what is the community alliance - sligo? is it part of a larger organisation?

by spycatcher Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:03

More to the point, who or what is north by north west. Address the issue

by John McDermott - removefiannafail Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:33

Only 45 citizens turned out to protest the handing over of water in wicklow to a private company by Dick Roche. No word of opposition from Fine Gael or anyone else.
The farmers are refusing to be metered or pay their bills.Interesting to see if they receive the usual "special treatment" and exclusion from the new taxation.

by Left....outside Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:28

I am also a bit confused about this Community Alliance in Sligo.Every now and then they stick there heads above the parapets with this guy Jim O'Sullivan leading the charge on issues ranging from the mid-block route to bin charges.Currently they are opposed to the building of social housing in their area(NIMBY's).They fouught against a number of social programmes like Kazelin house for young offenders and now their supporting farmers and big business in the fight against commercial water charges..and they call themselves a COMMUNITY ALLIANCE........Whos community are we talking about Jim??

by Blood Thu Nov 16, 2006 14:28

We need water to live. If the supply and distribution of water becomes a matter for companies that run on a for profit bases, what is to stop them from literally playing with peoples lives. To hand over our water rights to big business, is to effectively hand over our most vital heritage asset. What is going on in Sligo is the thin end of the wedge. We would be insane to let what has happened in England be replicated over here, our children would never forgive us. Drinking water according to all current predictions will be something that will be in short supply in the future due to climate change. Many of the conflicts that occur in the world today (in hotter parts) are related to ready access to fresh water supply. I belive that as individuals we must be conscious of water wastage while actively working towards reducing such waste. The building industry must help in this regard when building new houses, they must provide a system for trapping rain water to be used in the flushing of toilets and for the washing of clothes, government should also provide a grant system to have these systems installed in older houses.

These are common sense measures to help secure continuation of our fresh water supply. I for one will never pay any such charges for drinking water to a private company, i would rather and will go prison if I have to. To think that in the future my child may be held to ransom by big industry simply because she will need to drink water to live is beyond reason. The people of Ireland should resist this.

Water privatisation, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, not in this country.

by struggling in Dublin Thu Nov 16, 2006 20:33

What is wrong with you guys in Sligo? Who cares what Jim O'Sullivan's politics are. He is right. Everything is being privatised. Can we stop the squabbling and tackle the private companies that are taking over everything? We will soon have to pay for the air we breathe if we don't cop on.

by Jerry Cornelius Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:47

"As with the Bin Tax, the government introduced it into the country side and smaller town first figuring there would be less opposition and they were right. By starting in Sligo, they are clearly using a similar strategy"

Just correcting an apparent misunderstanding on your part. Domestic water charges have not been introduced in Sligo. The charges which are reffered to by our Sligo poster are Commercial Water Charges. These are paid by business and farmers. The anti water charges campaign in the past did not oppose water charges for business and farmers. I doubt very much if any future campaign would oppose commercial water rates.

You provided a link to the WSM site, they certainly did not oppose commercial water rates and I have seen no evidence that they have changed their positon.

by Blood Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:21

In my opinion, nobody should have to pay water rates, farmers, industry, or private citizens. Paying them quite simply sets a precedent which can be expanded on. Improvent and enforcement of water conservation methods for all sections of society should negate greatly any perceived need for water rates. How much water is let run down storm drains? This water may not be suitable for drinking, however, it is suitable for tthe many needs of industry and the private individual.

Planning, enforcement and innovative thinking that goes beyond the simple principle of slapping another stealth tax on society as a whole is perhaps another option. I am curious as to what the benefits of water rates are? I ask this question in good faith, not in a sarcastic manner. I would like to hear the other side of the debate so as I can be better informed. I say once again, I ask this question in good faith, I am not looking for a row and as such I will not engage in easy name calling or the like.

I am genuinely interested.

by Jerry Cornelius Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:28

"Paying them quite simply sets a precedent which can be expanded on. "

Nope. Commercial water rates have been in place since the inception of the State. Business and farmers should pay taxes. Are you seriously suggesting that a factory which uses millions of gallons a day should get it for free? You are representing the interests of the rich.

I say squeeze the last drop out of the farmers and business!

by Bood Fri Nov 17, 2006 13:08

I think perhaps you are right Jerry. Industry should pay water rates as well as farmers. I am not rich and certainly dont know any rich people personally. This is the kind of open dialogue people need to sort these issues out. I had put a previous comment up here minutes ago and it seems to have been deleted. I can say for certein that as a private individual I would never pay water rates. But is seems as if I have been paying them since the inception of the state. I am in a qaundry here. I am interested to know if there are alternatives to water rates schemes? Can conservation methods help us all in anyway on this issue. I am not suggesting that they are the be all and end all, but they may be of some help.

Can big industry and agriculture help in this matter?

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:23

jerry cornelius should reconsider his position. Charging farmers and business is not the answer. They simply pass the cost onto the customer and this impacts greatest on the less well off. Water must be free at the point of delivery and paid for from central funds. With a fair and progressive tax system in place this ensures that the wealthy pay in porportion to thier wealth and the less well of are guaranteed access to vital services. That's what privatisation is all about. Allowing the government to run a low direct tax economy to facilitate the rich. We have a situation already where people have accumalated a million euro in a year and have paid zero direct tax.

by Jerry Cornelius Sat Nov 18, 2006 20:28

"jerry cornelius should reconsider his position. Charging farmers and business is not the answer."

I beg to differ. Farmers and other business people have always been charged for water. Its already factored into their prices. If they were relieved of this tax then the money would go into their own pockets and not to the consumer.

Some factories use millions of gallons of water a day. The idea of them getting this for free is imho obscene.

I am of course opposed to privatisation and will fight against any attempt to introduce domestic water charges.

by liam Sat Nov 18, 2006 23:08

You are dead right Jerry. Businesses shoudl be made to pay for their water. Thats a totally different issue to domestic water rates. In actual fact there are two different issues here.

the first is privatisation which shoudl be totally resisted. Opposition to that should not result in opposition to businesses paying for their water. The two issues should not be confused.

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:07

All business's, including farmers, simply pass on all overheads to the customer--you. So the customer and not the businessman is picking up the cost of water charges levied on his business. This is the beginnijng of the process to introduce a system whereby services provided are paid for by the individual regardless of circumstances or ability to pay. The poll tax objective.
Scenairo: The cost of water charges to a brewery amounts to 10c per pint. The Brewer passes this on to the customer. The effect is that the pensioner or person living on a fixed income is paying the same for the water charge element factored into the price of his pint as is a millionaire sitting at the other end of the bar. To avoid this, water must be provided free at the point of delivery and paid for by a fair and progressive tax system levied on the profits and the incomes of the businessmen. This is the only system that ensures that all citizens can access servcies.
This is only one aspect of the discussion. The fact remains that here in Sligo all new houses must have a water meter installed (Why?) and a private company, Veolia, is involved in the servcie. The infrastructure to facilitate the total hand over, from local authorities to private operaters, has begun to be put in place.
The piece posted was an attempt to again raise this very important issue and to try to get it on the "issues list " for the upcoming election. Privatisation is happening. Remember when refuse services were free at the point of delivery? In Sligo this servcie was fully privatised and we have zero waivers to help the low paid and those on fixed incomes. If you can't pay, you don't get. Warnings were ignored then too.

by Confused. Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:58

It costs money to treat and distribute water ok, so that money has to come from somewhere, and there is resistance here in relation to the end user paying for it (per unit), so I assume that you would like the government to pay for it, and for the treatment and distribution of the water to be done by the county councils, yes? Therefore, there could theoretically be an increase in taxes to cover the extra costs, no? So its the taxpayer who will pay for it at the end of the day, no? And instead of paying for the units you use, or more importantly, don't use (conservation of water, awareness of need for sustainable consumption)on an individual basis, we get levied with a flat tax to pay for it all. Is there not some sort of rationale in getting the end user to pay for the water they use? Along with a waiver system, or a volume of water, which once past, requires payment for the use of any water above this quota? Its easy to say, don't pay, no to privatisation of water etc., but that doesn't get the water treated and through the pipe, into the kettle, and eventually into this lovely cup of tea......

by rojos Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:13

this difference in charging people by purchase, or charging them through centralised taxation, is that the latter allows (in theory) for a redistribution of wealth for the common good.

e.g., tv license is regressive (1% of the annual income of an unemployed person or someone on Single Parent Allowence. It is perhaps, much more of a percentage of disposable income. it is regressive.

If on the other hand, 50% tax had to be paid over E100,000 per year - this is theory, so forget loss of sovereignty for the moment), then services could be free (e.g., the Scandinavian model of high tax, but same services for all - rich and poor).

We could also look at the wealth that has been taken from the poor in the first place through tax breaks for rich, through expensive white elephant projects, through bla.... We might even be able to pay for water out of collective funds as they are, if they were only managed properly.

by omg Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:18

Its easy to say, don't pay, no to privatisation of water etc., but that doesn't get the water treated and through the pipe, into the kettle, and eventually into this lovely cup of tea......

Well it has done for the last 50 odd years fellow! its just another con a stealth tax, wtf do i pay taxes for anyyhow, seems like people here are open to getting double taxed on things

Now if the state said they were replacing all the pipes and upgrading the system, i might listen but the raw fact is that the market for public utilities is really really hot right now, governments all over the world are cashing in with flush private equity funds that buy up the assets load em up to the hilt with debt and then list them on the stock exchange in a nice trust package

DONT LET ANY GOVERNMENT FLOG ANYMORE PUBLIC--(PUBLIC!!!!) assets

its a public asset, keep it that way because once its gone
its gone forever

by Seán Ryan Mon Nov 20, 2006 14:20

A story just a few hours old has suggested that millions of people in Britain could be forced to have water meters installed in their homes.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/consumer/bills/article.htm...d=510

This is relevant in Ireland for two main reasons:

i. Veolia is one of the main 'water providers' in Britain, and has now got hooks into our water supply in Ireland.

ii. There is a major shitstorm brewing in Britain at the thoughts of water meters and their installation becoming compulsory. The installation of water meters in new private houses (prelude to privatisation and charges) was introduced in Ireland without so much as a whimper.

When the Bleach Lough Protesters were brough to court, it emerged that there had been a deal done to divert the water supply that they had (the Bleach Lough) to Alcan an aluminium processing company (and a major polluter) in the Shannon Estuary. This was despite the fact, that for years Limerick County Council had told the people of Pallaskenry and Kildimo, that the Bleach Lough was not sufficient to support them, but that the polluted river Deel was. In reality it turned out that Limerick County Council were lying, and that the river Deel was apparently not sufficient to supply Alcan and that the Bleach Lough was. An effort was made and to a degree is still ongoing to force the peoples of Pallaskenry and Kildimo to accept the polluted River Deel and to give up their natural springwater supply, the Bleach Lough.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76792

The ongoing Bleach Lough dispute is proof of privatisation, by stealth and deception.

And still the people of Ireland are crossing T's and dotting I's in the very preliminaries of semantical debat, whilst our country is being sold out from under us.

by Seán Ryan Mon Nov 20, 2006 15:00

This just in from the mainstream media.

"THE Government is planning to introduce household water charges by stealth under sweeping powers it has given itself..."

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79249 (scroll to the bottom and read the last comment by me)

by Seán Ryan Tue Nov 21, 2006 20:42

"The Minister for the Environment has been urged to abandon the controversial new water metering charges in County Sligo while an examination of the system is carried out by his Department. "

http://www.oceanfm.ie/onair/sligoleitrimnews.php?articl...03666

Well done Jim and Co. Keep the pressure (no pun intended) up.

Regards,
Seán

by pat c Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:40

Well domestic water users are not paying for water. So this affects no-domestic water charges. That means that farmers and business people will pay less for water. Factories which use millions of gallons of water a day wont pay extra. Who would see that as a victory?

I

by Harry the Hippy - The last Hippy Wed Nov 22, 2006 13:39

While personally I don't use a lot of water, I can see how the government and business people are loath to have us use it for nothing.

Water is pretty heavy stuff and flows freely from my bangers and bacon when I'm having a fry up.

Not only will we... rather you, be charged for having a bath or a drink but now I know why the price of Guinness keeps going up.

Harry the Hippy

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Wed Nov 22, 2006 19:31

Some weird thing or Person called ,GOD, has caused all this stuff called water to fall freely from the sky and keep us alive.

GOD has not 'charged' any of the People he / she or it created with having to give he/she or it a thing called money or other pieces of dead trees turned into paper, for the use of it.

So , how has any other created Person have the hard neck to demand dead tree pieces of paper money
from others for the use of it especially after these gangsters have already poisoned the water with filth waste from Agri, metal and Chemical industries as a waste dispoisal method to be flushed down Our Toilets and sinks?

The same gangesters have already privatised the stuff and said nothing.

by me Thu Nov 23, 2006 02:18

god also made that shiny yellow stuff in the ground hmmmmmm o thats it; gold so can we all have it for free too and by the way didnt god make all the basic material for your house ,assuming you live in one and not in hippy squalor like our unwashed friend harry, so can i have it for free

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Thu Nov 23, 2006 09:51

Thanks for your words of encouragement Sean and we take the opportunity to acknowledge your efforts to highlight what is happening. You may like to know that as I type this, politicians are on the local airways condemning the privatisation of water here in Sligo and are calling whats happening the introduction of a stealth tax. These are the same politicians who sat on their hands as the necessary legislation and bye-laws were enacted to allow privateers to get their hands on water in the first place. But we know from experience that these same politicicans will change tack to suit the prevailing winds. So the fight is far from over. Just look at some of the commenrs attached to this posting and the conclusion must be that there is a great deal of misinformation to be dealt with, not to mention the need to out the enemies within.

by pat c Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:10

"Just look at some of the commenrs attached to this posting and the conclusion must be that there is a great deal of misinformation to be dealt with, not to mention the need to out the enemies within. "

What disinformation are you speaking about? Please clarify.

If there is any enemy within then I would humbly submit it is you. You are taking the side of business and farmers by saying that they should not pay water charges. Since the inception of the State, business and farmers have paid commercial rates, this has alwaysd included water charges. Now if they stop paying this charge then how will this part of Local Government financing be made up? The burden will passed on to someone else, mostly likely PAYE taxpayers.

if Farmers and business pay less then someone else will pay more, thats always been the case. I wouldnt be opposed to farmers and business people getting water free for domestic use provided there is a seperate connection.

by Privateer of the Caribbean Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:30

"I'd like to commend Jim for putting this fine article together and for updating us on what's currently happening in the ongoing process that is the privatisation of our water.

Solidarity."

Fully agree Sean. If privatisation is to be introduced it will first be done in the regions then in the main urban areas of say Cork and Dublin.

The intention will be to "divide and conquer" and prevent solidarity by creating a country Vs urban divide - as was the case with bin charges where you had people phoning up radio shows and writing letters to newspapers along the lines of "shur we were payin the charges for years down here so now ye city whingers should pay up".

That is unless their number was inflated by er viral marketing.....

The Fake Persuaders

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:28

Read the original posting and then read your most recent comment. You are clearly intent on personalising the discussion and to focus on a small area of the debate and that is to do a disservcie to it. It is simply misleading to suggest that the charge being levied for water is not passed onto the customer therefore impacting on the most vulnerable in our community. As pointed out before , the poll tax objective. Water and other essential services should be provided free at the point of delivery, paid for by a fair and progressive tax system whereby the amount of tax paid is determned by the wealth of the individual or the size of the profits of a company. You have more, you contribute more---You have less, you contribute less.You cannot provide essential services by way of a low tax economic policy which is current government policy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The gap between the rich and poor has expanded enormously during the tenure of the present government who has pursued such a policy. The factors driving this rich/poor devide are privatisation and low direct taxes. Classic neo-con economic policy that reduces the redistribution of wealth within the community. Suggest you read "SELLING OUT" by Paul Sweeney.

by pat c Thu Nov 23, 2006 13:19

"You are clearly intent on personalising the discussion"

Please point to evidence of this.

" and to focus on a small area of the debate "

Its not a small area of debate. Imho it is crucial and central to the debate. In the past the anti water charges campaign never opposed commercial water charges. The Anti Bin Tax Campaign never opposed commercial refuse charges. What they opposed were domestic charges.

You seem to want a campaign that is opposed to all water charges. I cannot see the majority of those who opposed water charges in the past wanting to see Business and farmers getting water for free.

I dont believe that Public Services can be properly provide under a low tax regime but I dont think you will achieve a more equitable system by getting rid of water charges for business people and farmers.

Under a new holistic tax system this might be possible but at the moment, in many cases the water charges are the only contribution that farmers make to the Exchequer.

" It is simply misleading to suggest that the charge being levied for water is not passed onto the customer therefore impacting on the most vulnerable in our community"

You are being disingenuous, I didnt sy that. If it is being passed on then it has been done so since the inception of the State. So it is already factored in as a component of the price just as electricity, rent, wages.

by Chillies101 Thu Nov 23, 2006 19:41

Pat C or is that "Patsy"
Read the editorial guidelines will ya!!

Most importantly:
Play the ball and not the player.
Keep your comments on topic.
We want original comments that add information, or argue a point of view not re-heated bar-stool cliches.
Don't feed the trolls!

Correlation between arguing against privatisation and supporting business and big farmers is absurd. Not only that, it is ideologically contradictory.
Jim is highlighting the very real possibility of our water supply (which of all our resources is the most essential to health) being handed over to a private company and is in my opinion doing a great service by bringing this to the attention of the public and generating debate. Far too many fo our national assets have been pan-handled in the name of a quick buck and at the behest of high-powered vested interests. We should be doing all we can to ensure water is not the next ‘commodity’ to get the neo-liberal/PD treatment.

by Liam Thu Nov 23, 2006 19:48

Pat C is correct when he says

In the past the anti water charges campaign never opposed commercial water charges. The Anti Bin Tax Campaign never opposed commercial refuse charges. What they opposed were domestic charges.

That position should remain the same.

Privatisation should also be opposed but that is a seperate issue.

by pat c Thu Nov 23, 2006 19:56

"Pat C or is that "Patsy"
Read the editorial guidelines will ya!!"

Its pat c and I have read them. Jim has accused those who disagree with him of spreading disinformation and serving tof being enemies within. I pointed out why I thought he himself was doing so.

"Correlation between arguing against privatisation and supporting business and big farmers is absurd. Not only that, it is ideologically contradictory."

No its not. Jim supports the idea that farmers and business people should get water for free. That has never been the position of any of the Left organisations. If farmers and business people were to get water for free it would not result in lower prices. Insteadthe money would go into the pockets of farmers and business.

"Jim is highlighting the very real possibility of our water supply (which of all our resources is the most essential to health) being handed over to a private company and is in my opinion doing a great service by bringing this to the attention of the public and generating debate. "

So? I'm opposed to privatisation. Who is supporting it here?

"Far too many fo our national assets have been pan-handled in the name of a quick buck and at the behest of high-powered vested interests. We should be doing all we can to ensure water is not the next ‘commodity’ to get the neo-liberal/PD treatment."

Yes indeed but we should be taken in by every "the sky is falling" story either. Lets oppose privatisation. But lets not pretend its already occurred.

If water privatisation is to come in then lt will come through the Water Services Bill presently in committee stage. That bill must be amended.

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:38

The essential fact is that we both agree that 1) water should be free at the point of delivery( in my case to all, in your case farmers and business should pay) and 2) that in no circumstances should water be privatised. There is much more that unites us than divides us. So let us collaborate on those issues that we agree on and work to thwart the objectives of the neo-con's.The difference between us is how to best achieve that end. You can bet your bottom dollar Pat, that the private water companies that make up the international lobby group AquaFed are not squabbling amongst themselves over minor differences. They have an office in Brussells across the road from the Commissioners, such as Charlie McCreevey, who could ultimately decide our fate on a whole range of issues. And the fact is that one of the most powerful members of AquaFed, Veolia, have gained a foot hold in Sligo by being given the contract to install meters, read them and then collect the water charges. We must work, as a matter of urgency, to get Veolia out of our affairs. We can start by lobbying our politicians and there is no better time than now with a general election in the offing. Hence the timing and the purpose of the original posting.

by Liam Fri Nov 24, 2006 15:05

Jim, as you said everyone here seems to oppose privatisation which is a good thing. However, the other issue of ending the payment of water charges by businesses is completely different and is not a minor issue.

Businesses currently pay water charges and all the anti water charges campaigns in the past did not seek an end to busines water charges (quite rightly in my view). Domestic water charges are unjust and should be resisted by all but by letting businesses off paying their water charges is plain wrong and should not happen.

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:17

Liam , the notion that "business's" pay for water is a myth. They simply pass it on to their customers--you and me. The same applies to rates and all costs that are incurred. The only fair way to raise taxes from business's is to tax their profits. But again I caution, that while you and I are throwing this point around, Veolia have installed another 100+ water meters in Sligo and the process whereby a private company will take profit from water is growing.

by Liam Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:42

No need to caution Jim. I know full well what they are doing. I completely oppose the privatisation of water full stop. I completely oppose domestic water charges. Full Stop.

But I cannot and I am sure you will find most people of a left wing persuasion will not support the granting of free water to business.

Do you honestly believe that businesses will start reducing their prices if their water charges are abolished or do you think they will just accept the bigger profits that they will have?

by Liam Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:43

No need to caution Jim. I know full well what they are doing. I completely oppose the privatisation of water full stop. I completely oppose domestic water charges. Full Stop.

But I cannot and I am sure you will find most people of a left wing persuasion will not support the granting of free water to business.

Do you honestly believe that businesses will start reducing their prices if their water charges are abolished or do you think they will just accept the bigger profits that they will have?

by Jim O'Sullivan - Community Alliance-Sligo Sat Nov 25, 2006 13:03

The point is that business is getting water free--you and I are paying the charges through the prices we pay for goods and services. Any "bigger profits" you refer to will be taxed. Ask any businessperson for a preference, to pay charges or to have profit subjected to a progresssive tax system to pay for servcies. He/she will always opt for the former because they can pass on all such charges to their customers.