On 2006-08-06 13:23:52 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-06 09:34:48 +0100, Guy King said:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Either way, if they are going to reduce a service, they should ask the
customers first and provide an option to opt out. In other words, if
the general level of service is halved and I don't accept that, then
there should be an option not to pay and to go elsewhere for rubbish
collection.

Round here some enterprising woman bought an old rubbish lorry and
started infill collections for those dissatisfied with the council's
collections.

AFAIK she failed because there wasn't sufficient market once everyone
got used to fortnightly collections.

She might have done better if those dissatisfied had the possibility to
opt out of the council service and direct their funds to her.

I would have done it as a matter of principle anyway - even if she was
more expensive.



Not like you, Andy. I thought you weighed up the pros and cons
objectively. I hope you're not making decisions on principle...

Normally, you're right, I do. However, it would be worth it if
enough people followed suit.

What I would prefer to see is some competition in the form of a few
licensed private operators competing on service and price and with the
customer paying them directly rather than the council as a middle man.

As it is now, most outsource to private firms as it is and then heavily
police them. I would rather customers policed them by shopping
elsewhere if they don't perform and with the council as a backstop to
make sure that general standards are met.

What I don't like is layers of management without added value, and it
strikes me that councils are taking money, not adding very much value
at all and then outsourcing the work with no customer choice in the
matter.