Speaking of water December 6, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
…as we were, who is it who wrote this at the weekend in the SBP?
Only the Trotskyists now threaten to prevent the water issue being settled before FF gets back into government.
If the Trostkyists can conjure up a reason to keep the campaign going – and they will work very hard to find one – SF will follow their lead. Where SF goes FF must follow. However it may prove more difficult to get boots o the streets in defence of those guilty of excessive use. ‘Defend the Wasters’ does not as a slogan quite have the same ring as the ‘Right2Water’.
Why it’s Pat Rabbitte, clearly forgetting that he too was a member of not one, but two, parties that disagreed with water charges. And that particular contradiction is echoed in other aspects of this analysis he offers the reader. For example, he argues that the Commission on Water has ‘carefully judged’ conclusions that ‘allow the political centre to talk their way towards finally putting the water issue to bed. Water charges bogged down the last government and now greatly add to the difficulties confronting this one’.
But hold on, what masters of politics, of the political centre, were in that last government? Why the Labour Party as one significant component, and yet it has taken a report from the Commission to find a path forward? Some might say that those who had the opportunity to deal with the issue in a more pragmatic way the first time around and didn’t might not be best placed to judge it now.
And there’s other oddities. He may have a point that elsewhere in Europe water and environmental charges exist, but it sits oddly with his evident pride ‘in the tax net being spread wider than the PAYE sector’ from the 1970s on. I’ve still yet to hear a good reason why income tax is a less good mechanism for funding services than charges – particularly given that in the same paper as mentioned yesterday in terms of individual water usage specifically Ireland is low compared to other EU states. And why his odd distinction between ‘charges designed to help towards [a single water authority]’ being a good thing as against ‘the charges collected in the 1980s [which] merely to help fill a gap in the funding of local authorities’. That seems to me to be a distinction without relevance.
But hey, that’s the way of it I suppose.