Water charges Northern Ireland : Flushing out the truth

This second article on the water charges issue in Northern Ireland comes from a BBC News article 'Water charges: Flushing out the truth'  Dec 4, 2014.  Good luck with that one.  The water charges issue in the Rep. of Ireland mimics it's counterpart in the Six Counties in many ways.  One could say we are on a parallel road.

 

Water charges: Flushing out the truth

Gareth Gordon
BBC NI December 2014

Conor Murphy said he sought change when he was minister

The current minister for regional development has said he is going to stop the practice.

The previous minister for regional development said he wanted to, but the current minister's party, the Ulster Unionists, helped prevent him.

Plenty of others are asking why millions of pounds have been spent since 2007 installing water meters, if the parties agree that we are not going to have water charges?

It is a confusing picture, so let us start at the beginning.

When devolution was restored in 2007, the executive parties put a halt to the process which would have resulted in voters being billed for water, arguing they already paid for it through rates.

But, nevertheless, in accordance with the legislation, meters were still installed at all new properties connected to the public water supply.

A Freedom of Information request by the Irish News newspaper revealed that 35,000 meters have been installed at a cost of £13m. And that cost is rising.

Last week, after the issue was publicised, Regional Development Minister Danny Kennedy revealed he intended bringing forward legislation to end the practice.

Water meters were installed at all new properties connected to the public water supply

But he, and his predecessor, Conor Murphy, clash over why it has never been done before.

Mr Murphy said he tried to, but could not get support from other parties with Mr Kennedy's colleague, Sir Reg Empey, being one of those most strongly opposed to the move.

"It simply wasn't enough to stop what the British government had been trying to do in 2006 and 2007, but we had to change direction for NIW (Northern Ireland Water) in order to put the company itself and the department on a surer footing about where it was going," he said.

"There were a range of papers brought to the executive and Reg Empey and others were the most vociferous opponents.

"If Danny Kennedy is proposing now to change that legislation - to stop the roll out of meters into new builds, because that was legislated for prior to us coming into office and couldn't be changed only with legislation - if he's proposing to do that, then I hope he gets full support from the executive, because I wasn't able to achieve that when I was a minister," he told the BBC's The View.

But Mr Kennedy disputes this version of events.

"My predecessor did nothing that I can trace to have the law amended. I think Sinn Féin (is playing) the politics of both sides off the middle and that's very regrettable indeed.

"There is no significant evidence that supports that. There is clear evidence that something like 26,000 meters were installed during his term as minister for regional development. I'm more interested in changing the law as it stands and I'll be proceeding to do that as quickly as possible."

Councillor Gerry Carroll said two messages were being sent out

Campaigners welcome the move, but are still sceptical.

Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit Alliance said: "It's two messages. On the one hand, we're not going to install water charges and water meters but at the same time having water meters being installed.

"So I think it's coming out and saying to the politicians and the DRD what's happening here?"

Danny Kennedy said the current consensus was that water charges should not be applied

Alliance, which supports water charges, accuses Mr Kennedy of "running scared of populism".

Assembly member Stewart Dickson argues it is prudent to have meters in place when, not if, the charges are introduced.

Northern Ireland Water said it was only complying with legislation, adding the meters are "not being read" and "not being used for charging purposes".

But could they, to use a currently fashionable political phrase, be a Trojan horse?

The BBC asked Mr Kennedy if he ruled out water charges forever and he said he supported executive policy.

But could Ulster Unionist party policy change?

Mr Kennedy said: "Well it's a matter that one single party will not be able to effect this change.

"There has to be consensus around the executive table and it's clear what the consensus is - the consensus is, at present, that water charges should not be applied."

 

A Look back at Water Charges in Northern Ireland 2007

We are presenting a series of articles about the water charges campaign in Northern Ireland.  We are amazed that the present day anti water charges campaign in the 26 counties have not highlighted what was not only a forerunner to the fraught water charges campaign here but also the fact that it was such a successful campaign, albeit an ongoing one.

Imagine up to now we have been fed statements from Sinn Féin about how they put a stop to water charges in Northern Ireland.  Literally, or as in political parlance,  that may be true since Sinn Féin were in a position of authority in the power sharing arrangement in Stormont.  However,  what we were not told was that they, along with their DUP colleagues in the NI Executive,  were forced into adopting the stance they took by a well organised,  cross community anti water charges movement led by NIPSA.  What is also significant is the other little fact that was left out, which was that the leadership did not support what turned out to be the mainstay of the campaign 'non-payment of water charges'.  Doesn't that ring a bell.

The first article is from BBC NI 2007 'Water Bills on hold after deal'.

 

Water bills 'on hold' after deal

Anti-water rates protesters took their campaign Stormont

Water bills due to be posted out on Tuesday have been put on hold following the news that power-sharing will return to Northern Ireland.

Secretary of State Peter Hain said the move had been made at the request of the DUP and Sinn Fein.
The executive will deal with the issue when devolution is restored on 8 May.

The parties have now asked for further talks with Gordon Brown. News of the postponement came after trade unions protested against water bills.

Nipsa's general secretary John Corey addressed the demonstration at Stormont, on Monday saying the campaign for non-payment of water charges applied "with equal force" to direct rule ministers or to a devolved administration.

"For the last four years we have listened to direct rule ministers insisting there is no alternative to household water charges," he said.

Water bills are in their envelopes ready for the post

"Now the secretary of state says water charges can be suspended - or even abolished by the assembly.

"Why would anyone pay charges that the government is prepared to switch on and off and use as a political football?

"This confirms the nonsense and the unfairness of these charges in Northern Ireland."

The new charging system, linked to the value of homes, was due to start in April.

The system - to be phased in over three years - was being introduced because the government wanted water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland to become self-financing.

But the decision proved highly controversial - with critics arguing that the government had not justified the soaring bills.

Gary Mulcahy, secretary of the We Won't Pay Campaign, said news that water bills would not be delivered this week was another "humiliating climbdown for the government and a welcome relief for householders".

"The threat of mass non-payment of water charges has forced the DUP and Sinn Fein to negotiate the delaying of the charges," he said.

"But this does not go far enough. The charges should be completely scrapped, not just delayed for another 12 months. As long as the threat of water charges looms, so will the threat of mass non-payment.

"The We Won't Pay Campaign will not shy away from organising mass non-payment of water charges if they are introduced, in any form, by the assembly."

On its website, the Department of Regional Development said that £3bn was needed for water and sewerage services in the 20 years to 2023.

"A Northern Ireland Executive could decide to reverse the policy on water charges," it said.

"But if it did it would have to decide how to sustain current levels of investment without cutting back on other public services such as health or education.

"This would be made extremely difficult by the loss of the Treasury concession on Water Service capital costs which is dependent on self-financing status being obtained.

"This concession is worth tens of millions of pounds over the next 20 years."

 

Authoritarianism And Liberatory Movements

This piece has been written with the recent controversies surrounding the ‘’dissident’’ Republican movement, (prison scandals, some treatment of activists within the movement and ‘’republican policing’’) although it is not specific only to the Republican grouping and can be generalised across all Authoritarian spheres of political thought and organising, from the Socialist Party on one side of the spectrum, to the Republican movement on the other. It is written from an Anarchist-Socialist (and anti-Imperialist), or classically political libertarian perspective.

Political Authoritarianism is a complex phenomenon but can be defined, partly as, hierarchical organising methods, with top down, centralised command structures, where power is vested in the upper echelons of an organisation/grouping. These structures lead to, most obviously centralised decision making and therefore centralised discipline/control, where the executive organs of a grouping has the authority to impose its will and decisions upon the lower ranks of the group.

Many in the Republican Movement will view recent events within prisons (and outside for that matter) as unconnected from the overall culture and structure of the movement. As being random, isolated events, simply abuses of individuals of others. This is not the case. The abuse and controlling behaviours of those with power within the Republican movement is inextricable linked to the structural and social power they hold within their organisations. e.g. their appointed position of authority within organisations.

Without positions of unaccountable authority abuse of individuals is greatly mitigated and even eliminated in some cases. It is the Capitalist way for abuse to flow down the hierarchy, whether that abuse is emanating from state structures, a corporation, a patriarchal home or a top down ‘’revolutionary’’ organisation. Only the elimination of hierarchical organisation, with proper democratic structures of equality in place, and accountability processes pre-planned, will minimise the possibility of violent abuse.

There will never be a perfect movement where everyone is treated right, all of the time. However, vesting privilege and power into the hands of a few is one way to guarantee that power is abused. Whether those wrongs done on people are dealt with in an accountable manner is a question of political choice - not mechanistic determinism.

Power begets power. It is a long standing established empirical fact that power is as addictive and intoxicating as a high on cocaine. The more you have the more it must be tightly watched and more must be had. If people think this is the first round of abuse by those with power of prisoners they are sorely wrong. Anyone who has been close to the Republican Movement has heard the incessant stories of prison bullying, isolation, vilification, prison beatings by so-called comrades, and worse, from the early 70’s, right up to the present day.

These things have all occurred to genuine and venerated anti-imperialist activists when they dared question ‘’the leadership’’. Most republicans can tell stories of comrades who have even died at the hands of other ‘’revolutionaries’’, sometimes from within their own groups, in order to rein in dissent.

These are political choices of individuals, not the results of abstract mechanistic determinism.

The Provo "policing" of the ceasefire has turned poacher into game keeper. The next step is for the current groups to take the same path. Kettling in dissent and funnelling resistance solely through its own organisations, through extreme violence when necessary. The war is over, justifications and calls for "unity" in order to cover up wrong-doings no longer hold any reasonable weight. 

These are methods to rein in dissent and highly coercive, brutal ways to create group hegemony, under the all seeing "leadership", which has the authority to do so, as it will guide us to "freedom". A "freedom" which largely means the absence of British Capitalist administration in Ireland, not a meaningful material freedom.

The fact is if people are given undemocratic, unaccountable leverage over others means it will be abused and justified through group think, facilitated through loyalty to the leadership or cause, which, as the "big other", is untouchable or unquestioanble, like God himself. As to question the leadership or its power is "counterrevolutionary", or worse still, "playing into the hands of the Brits".

From prison beatings to shooting children for anti social behaviour, it all come down to one thing - control. Control of organisations, control of movements, control of struggle and control of communities. Without directly democratic and accountable structures, power warps those who wield it, even with the best of intentions.

If any of this sounds familiar its because it is. The Admas/McGuinness leadership used the exact same methods to destroy political opponents and genuine anti-imperialists, to kettle in a potentially revolutionary movement into the corridors of acceptable power and eventually, to completely pull the teeth from a liberatory movement that had the greatest potential in western Europe. All done, facilitated and allowed to happen because of top-down structures.

Every, without exception, authoritarian, hierarchical movements have suffered the same fate throughout history and those today who seek to replicate the militaristic, hierarchical past will fall into the same trap. They are doomed to failure.

All top-down parties that seek power for themselves are authoritarian by nature and deploy any means of acquiring that power in their messianic quest for state authority and therefore the ability to legislate for liberty.

The Socialist Party is another example of authoritarianism, on the other end of the spectrum. It manipulates and splits working class movements to garner and carve out a bit more support for itself, lies and misrepresents its politics etc: viewing the organisation as an end in itself, not a tool to be used for liberation. This happened in the campaign against household and water tax movement, where, once it failed to create its central committee to control the movement, split it through electioneering. Similar stories of isolation, vilification ect (although to a lesser degree - they don't believe in physical force) of dissidents within the party can be heard from many a disgruntled former member.

The same can be seen in the SWP. The well known rape controversy is not shocking for its exceptionalism but for how standard such things are within hierarchical, male dominated movements. Circle the wagons, launch smear/isolation campaigns against those "attacking" the leadership, and therefore "the cause", and eventually destroy all opposition to any kind of dissent. 

 

Sound familiar? All of these things happen within all hierarchical, centralised organisations, with no accountability or recall. Why? Because of the very structural nature of such organisations, and the mentality they engender

From the authoritarian state-socialists of the east, to the republicans of Ireland, hierarchical movements have replicated and reproduced the very structures they sought to destroy, many from the beginning, in a form of symmetrical warfare. Anarchists on the other hand, while not denying the need for force, attempt to create asymmetrical, non-hierarchical structures which will not fall into the trap of the masters - that in reproducing the very exploitation and oppression caused by the systems we seek to destroy.

The seeds of this federalist, autonomous approach has some tradition within the Republican movement itself. The 1916 Societies, although largely commemorative, not political organisations, operate in a way that is not top down or authoritarian, at least from the writer's knowledge. These forms of organisational forms should be encouraged and supported if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.