In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-10 22:50:34 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-04 02:54:50 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

Obviously, one would hope that you wouldn't seek to reduce the
choice of others who do not have the same order of priorities in
terms of the impact of additional choices of supplier.
I think there should be a debate about it. Many of our choices
are curtailed in the interests of others. I don't think waste
disposal is precious an issue that it should be out of the question
that a democratically elected state make that choice. YMMV.
It does, because the state, and it's local level implementation
does not demonstrate any great skill in that area
The rubbish is collected. What more do you want ?

Choice of supplier, service and price - I already told you that.

Hmmm... OK - well that may be your highest priority, but you may have
to accept that your view isn't universally shared.


You want a free market, but this seems to be more to do with your
personal ideology than any particular lack of skill.

It's not a personal ideology, rather a recognition of the natural order.

That may be how you see it, but again, you may have to accept that your
view isn't universally shared.


Not sure about the notion of 'mark up' here.
I've explained it clearly enough. It buys the service from an
outside (normally private) supplier. It adds administrative cost
in spades
If you want to prove that, get numerate about it.

Are you telling me that you can't figure out that if you take service A
and add admin cost B to it that the total isn't A+B?

No - I'm trying to tell you that you don't know the values of either A
or B, or the ratio of A to B, nor have you come up with values of B' for
your new proposed 'market place', nor values for C, D and E, the costs
of the new service provisions, and not have you expressed any meaningful
information about the environmental impacts of your scheme which you are
utterly unwilling to consider in any detail.

As such it does seem reasonable to ask you to "get numerate about it",
and in the absence of any numeric justification of your assertions, it
doesn't seem utterly wild to suggest that it's "personal ideology"
rather than an idea of substance or worth.


and sells it to the customer. The administration adds no value,
A bold yet spurious assumption...

It's an unnecessary cost. I am surprised that you think that that's spurious.

I'm surprised you think it's unnecessary.


so the customer might as well deal direcly with the supplier and cut
out the middle man. Clear enough?
Clear, simple, simplistic, but not in my view correct.

It's hard to come to any other conclusion unless you believe that
Father Christmas funds local authorities.

Well - even you seem to envisage LAs continuing to have a role, and a
thing is not rendered unnecessary by somebody having to pay for it !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore