In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 11:02:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the
service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?
Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few
grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.
Different issue I think.
A parallel one I think.

Not really.

Well - no doubt anybody reading this will understand the analogy and
recognise the extent of its limitations.


Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or
its representative is the only "authorised person"
No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.
Fine, so no need for a restriction.
Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the
service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly
be people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market.

Three was a number chosen as being sufficient to have competition. It
could be ten, or an unlimited number.

The economic equation is smple enough Today, I pay £X to the local
authority of which an amount goes for rubbish collection. The local
authority subcontracts to a private firm to do the work but in addition
employs a large department of people who are supposed to be
administering it, but in practice do very little of any value. The
private firm still makes a profit or it would not be doing the work.
If the unnecessary overhead of the local authority is taken out of the
loop, the firm can do more for the same money or deliver the same for
less money.

Unless the LA have a useful QA function. Depends how much you trust the
private contractors to do it right if unpoliced.


The only people to lose out would be the bureaucrats in the local
authority who aren't adding any value in the first place. They should
view it as an opportunity to find something gainful to do. That would
be a benefit to them as well as to the population as a whole.

Maybe in some instances, but I'm not convinced it's true in the general
case.


Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and
to offer the customer a choice.
It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it
would result in better service or greater efficiency.
Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they
want at the right price.
I want an electron microscope for 50p.
Almost...

Check out your local Aldi. They are bound to have a Christmas offer on
one. Just for you. Just today.

I doubt it.


J/.
--
John Beardmore