Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-12-02 17:06:12 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can.
No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out.
Well - to be strictly accurate, you can opt out of using the service, but you can't opt out of paying for it. Just like education etc...

Quite, and that is also wrong.

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication and most other commodities. Not that most seem to want to.
That is not a reason for not offering a choice.
Well - I would have thought it should be a factor.

Has the choice been offered?

If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should have nothing to fear.
That assumes that it is about protecting the incumbent supplier. It might just be about efficiency of delivering the service.

If the supplier is not being efficient about doing that, then he will lose money and ultimately go out of business. That is the advantage of a free market.

There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as there is today. Guess we've done this one to death, but be it better or worse than a monopoly, it is an aspect of state behaviour that is more akin to 'bundling' than a monopoly. In effect you want to 'unbundle' waste disposal from the facilities we pay for out of taxes.
Yep. That would be a good start, and an easier one than tackling the health service first.
Not sure you'd get much support for that either...

Not yet. However, I predict that there will be a general trend (probably over decades) to a 21st century model of delivery with less and less state involvement.

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives for them. ?
If you don't understand that......
I can understand it, but surely a big bureaucracy is worse ? And presumably what the bureaucracy does is also of some significance ?

Exactly, and usually not a lot.

On 2006-12-02 17:12:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 16:20:45 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Those who are too stubborn to get the hang of new ideas do seem to find it rather more difficult than the general public. It is not a matter of getting the hang of new ideas either. Well, you certainly seem to be choosing not to.
I already told you that it isn't a case of not getting the hang of new ideas, but questioning them and choosing not to espouse them.
Well - you don't seem to have looked into it in any depth.

Depth is a relative term.
I haven't looked in fine granular depth into the details of production and delivery of other commodities and services that I buy. For example, I could look in detail into methods of electricity generation and distribution. While that might be academically interesting, what actually counts in terms of purchasing decision is the price, the service and the business model of the supplier.

The lack of runaway success by "alternative" collection services does seem to show that most of the public are coping. Since the market is closed to them because of the local authority monopoly, there are no alternatives. Oh there there ! Can't you find an important problem to worry about ?
You seem to think that it's an important issue. I don't *worry* about problems. If I can address them, then I do, otherwise I don't attempt to do so
Well, here is one that you can address easily, yet choose not to.

Firstly, I don't subscribe to the notion that my having to carry out a specific set of tasks is the only way for an objective to be achieved. Secondly, "easily" is not the point, time taken and convenience is.

Even if you believed that customer choice was the most important issue in the world, you could still do us all a favour by sorting your waste and fighting this battle in other ways
I have also explained to you that I choose not to sort waste, but expect the supplier to do it if he wishes it to be sorted. At this point, there is no battle involved in that because he does it.
It has also been explained to you that there is greater efficiency if waste is sorted at source. There is no need for battles either way.

That may or may not be the case. If by "efficiency" you mean that the local authority can offload part of its responsibility onto its customers then that would be more "efficient"
If the local authority wishes for the rubbish to be sorted at source, then it should be doing that as part of the service offering. Alternatively, if it would like me to do its work for it then I am looking for a reduction in the price to cover my time.

In article , meow2222@care2.com writes:

At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free,

Why on earth do you mix it up in the first place? I don't, and I therefore I don't have to spend any time sorting it out.
-- Andrew Gabriel

In message , meow2222@care2.com writes

John Beardmore wrote: In message , meow2222@care2.com writes Andy Hall wrote: On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
There will always be a vociferous few, but where as I've met lots of people that want LAs to do better, you are the first one I've met who wants them out of the loop except in a licensing and policing role like they are already.
That shows just how politically clueless our population has become.
Or that alternative bin collections are seen as really underwhelmingly dull and / or pointless !!
that only demonstrates British political naivety again. Basic political principles tell us that an open private market will deliver more efficiency.

That my be your basic political assumption, but I'm not sure it's universal truth.

This is not a concept specific to bin collection, but a basic political principle that applies across the board. The lack of any wish to change the system indicates ignorance of this, rather than anything to do with bins per se.

Ignorance maybe, but it seems to me as if you are making the hell of an assumption.

Does that mean you would like to be able to decide what others get instead of them deciding?
No - it means that I want to point out that I think, (as do some others !), that there are other important things.
see the point above, many say thats important. That its relevance to the bin game wasnt immediately apparent shows just how lost politically Britain is.

If you assume a narrow political outlook.
:) We might both regard Britain to be politically lost, but I doubt we'd share many reasons.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:09:08 -0000, "Mary Fisher" wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
Do many householders read enough newspapers to produce a large bundle in a few weeks?
We don't read any. That saves paper, ink, time and being told what to think.

At the cost of being "Uninformed".
DG

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-02 16:47:49 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 20:22:55 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
If there were a competitive market the LA might not do especially well, but there might still be less waste in simpler provision from a single contractor. Then the question to ask is why wouldn't the LA do particularly well? Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it.
Therein lies one of the basic problems. They don't know how to run a business.

Possibly because they aren't businesses.

Profits could perhaps go into local authority coffers, but losses could not be made up from them - any borrowing would need to come from the market. Hmmm... Well.... if it's viable, it should not be a problem..... That seems a bit naive. The markets support projects that make money for the markets. Absolutely, and that's how it should be. Only if making money for the markets is the ONLY thing that matters. But it isn't.
Of course not. The product has to meet the requirements of the customers in order for them to want to buy.

But your concern above was with money and markets. There is no law linking that with what people want !

Arguably they have less interest in end users that LAs do. You don't vote for merchant banks ! The end user holds the cards because he can choose to buy elsewhere. That is a very effective form of voting. Only if you get the sensible options to choose from.
Of course. The options need to be sensible from the perspective of the customer.

Well to me, the provision of multiple competing services that win or loose on the basis of how well the advertise as much as how well they satisfy the customer makes little sense, especially if they are only required to meet minimum environmental standards.
This seems to be a huge distraction from the aim of moving to more sustainable ways of living, which does seem to be an urgent issue.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-02 17:06:12 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Only if you can't opt out, which in this case you can. No I can't, because I still have to pay. That is not the ability to opt out. Well - to be strictly accurate, you can opt out of using the service, but you can't opt out of paying for it. Just like education etc...
Quite, and that is also wrong.

Maybe - but a different debate.

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication and most other commodities. Not that most seem to want to. That is not a reason for not offering a choice. Well - I would have thought it should be a factor.
Has the choice been offered?

Most people don't seem to care. Personally I'm unconcerned that it hasn't.

If the business model of the incumbent supplier is sound, he should have nothing to fear. That assumes that it is about protecting the incumbent supplier. It might just be about efficiency of delivering the service.
If the supplier is not being efficient about doing that, then he will lose money and ultimately go out of business. That is the advantage of a free market.

No - as has been discussed, the very provision of multiple services to serve the same areas may well render the whole process less efficient, even if individual companies, vehicles, individuals etc are more efficient.

There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as there is today. Guess we've done this one to death, but be it better or worse than a monopoly, it is an aspect of state behaviour that is more akin to 'bundling' than a monopoly. In effect you want to 'unbundle' waste disposal from the facilities we pay for out of taxes. Yep. That would be a good start, and an easier one than tackling the health service first. Not sure you'd get much support for that either...
Not yet.

Well, the political right has been arguing this one for years, and in US it seems to have held sway more. Not sure I'd like to live there though.

However, I predict that there will be a general trend (probably over decades) to a 21st century model of delivery with less and less state involvement.

:) Predict what you like.

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives them. ? If you don't understand that...... I can understand it, but surely a big bureaucracy is worse ? And presumably what the bureaucracy does is also of some significance ?
Exactly, and usually not a lot.

Well, personally I am quite pleased at some of the environmental regulation coming out of the EU. I accept that it is a HUGE bureaucracy with mint and all the trimmings, but I don't see anything likely to result in comparable environmental progress emerging from any other institution.
Inadequate though our progress has been in many areas, we have seen a huge difference of culture with respect to waste over the last decade, but some of the new stuff will probably piss you off even more !
I especially like these:
Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/CE - 21 April 2004) by 30th April 2007,
and
Directive 2005/32/EC on the Eco-design Requirements for Energy-using Products (EuPs).
That should wipe the smile off your set top box !
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , The Central Authority writes

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:09:08 -0000, "Mary Fisher" mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
Do many householders read enough newspapers to produce a large bundle in a few weeks?
We don't read any. That saves paper, ink, time and being told what to think.
At the cost of being "Uninformed".

There are plenty of other ways to get informed.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-12-02, John Beardmore wrote:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 16:47:49 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 20:22:55 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:

Could you two get a room?
:o)
-- "Other people are not your property." [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:53:21 -0000, "Mary Fisher" wrote:

I'm happy to be loud.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH FORTNIGHTLY BIN COLLECTIONS!

The bin is not collected.
It is the contents of the bin that is collected.
DG

On 2006-12-02 18:52:22 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it.
Therein lies one of the basic problems. They don't know how to run a business.
Possibly because they aren't businesses.

As I said.. therein lies one of the basic problems. They are operating in a market protected environment with no notion of customer service because there are no negative consequences of a failure to perform.

Profits could perhaps go into local authority coffers, but losses could not be made up from them - any borrowing would need to come from the market. Hmmm... Well.... if it's viable, it should not be a problem..... That seems a bit naive. The markets support projects that make money for the markets. Absolutely, and that's how it should be. Only if making money for the markets is the ONLY thing that matters. But it isn't.
Of course not. The product has to meet the requirements of the customers in order for them to want to buy.
But your concern above was with money and markets. There is no law linking that with what people want !

My concern is over customer choice. The objectives are a given. The market is the most effective way to achieve that, and is very closely linked with what people want.

Arguably they have less interest in end users that LAs do. You don't vote for merchant banks ! The end user holds the cards because he can choose to buy elsewhere. That is a very effective form of voting. Only if you get the sensible options to choose from.
Of course. The options need to be sensible from the perspective of the customer.
Well to me, the provision of multiple competing services that win or loose on the basis of how well the advertise as much as how well they satisfy the customer makes little sense, especially if they are only required to meet minimum environmental standards.

Generating customer demand is but one facet of a business, and advertising one facet of that. For a service-based business, customer retention is a key factor, added to which it is far cheaper to retain customers than to go out and find new ones. Customer retention is based on making sure that the customer is getting what they expect and are happy with the service. Advertising is not usually a major aspect of that.
The point is to offer a range of services that will appeal to the customer. For example, several times a year, I would like to dispose of assorted DIY and other waste that would otherwise involve several trips to the tip or ordering a 6 yard skip. Trips to the tip are very wasteful of time, especially at weekends. During weekdays they are usually quieter, but then that involves eating into time that can be more profitably employed. A skip would be a much more practical method of disposal, but the cost does not make sense at �120 a pop several times a year. A waste disposal contractor could collect my regular rubbish (normal minimum contract) and then make his service more attractive by including a discount on skips or so many a year bundled with the contract - perhaps smaller skips. In other words, he can address my entire set of problems in that area if he chooses to offer that.

This seems to be a huge distraction from the aim of moving to more sustainable ways of living, which does seem to be an urgent issue.

Perhaps for you it's *the* issue. For me, it's *an* issue. That doesn't mean to say that it isn't important, but from my perspective needs to be factored in with everything else.

In message , Andy Hall writes

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. You haven't met many local authority employees, have you....? Loads as it happens. But my experience seems rather different to yours.
Maybe I have high expectations....

Maybe - or maybe you just can't acknowledge that good can come from anything that isn't the type of organisation that your ideology says it should be.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Huge writes

On 2006-12-02, John Beardmore wrote: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-02 16:47:49 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 20:22:55 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Could you two get a room?

:) Nobody would have us...
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-12-02 18:52:22 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Well for a start they don't have much experience at marketing and advertising. Their history is in providing a service, not selling it. Therein lies one of the basic problems. They don't know how to run a business. Possibly because they aren't businesses.
As I said.. therein lies one of the basic problems. They are operating in a market protected environment with no notion of customer service because there are no negative consequences of a failure to perform.

Actually there are !
But there are also negative consequences to failing to meet recycling targets and failing to make other environmental improvements.

Profits could perhaps go into local authority coffers, but losses could not be made up from them - any borrowing would need to come from the market. Hmmm... Well.... if it's viable, it should not be a problem..... That seems a bit naive. The markets support projects that make money for the markets. Absolutely, and that's how it should be. Only if making money for the markets is the ONLY thing that matters. But it isn't. Of course not. The product has to meet the requirements of the customers in order for them to want to buy. But your concern above was with money and markets. There is no law linking that with what people want !
My concern is over customer choice.

Your only concern apparently.

The objectives are a given.

:) Which ones ?

The market is the most effective way to achieve that,

Faith.

and is very closely linked with what people want.

Assumption.

Arguably they have less interest in end users that LAs do. You don't vote for merchant banks ! The end user holds the cards because he can choose to buy elsewhere. That is a very effective form of voting. Only if you get the sensible options to choose from. Of course. The options need to be sensible from the perspective of the customer. Well to me, the provision of multiple competing services that win or loose on the basis of how well the advertise as much as how well they satisfy the customer makes little sense, especially if they are only required to meet minimum environmental standards.
Generating customer demand is but one facet of a business, and advertising one facet of that. For a service-based business, customer retention is a key factor, added to which it is far cheaper to retain customers than to go out and find new ones. Customer retention is based on making sure that the customer is getting what they expect and are happy with the service. Advertising is not usually a major aspect of that.

None the less, businesses without this kind of customer will have to win them somehow, so an advertising battle is likely to determine initial market shares if most of the businesses that will provide the service are new.

The point is to offer a range of services that will appeal to the customer.

Well - that's a point...

For example, several times a year, I would like to dispose of assorted DIY and other waste that would otherwise involve several trips to the tip or ordering a 6 yard skip. Trips to the tip are very wasteful of time, especially at weekends. During weekdays they are usually quieter, but then that involves eating into time that can be more profitably employed. A skip would be a much more practical method of disposal, but the cost does not make sense at �120 a pop several times a year.

Mini skip ? Ask the council to collect ? Some will.

A waste disposal contractor could collect my regular rubbish (normal minimum contract) and then make his service more attractive by including a discount on skips or so many a year bundled with the contract - perhaps smaller skips.

You do realise that if you don't use those skips you may be subsidising those that do though ?

In other words, he can address my entire set of problems in that area if he chooses to offer that.

Ahhh... The perils of bundling !

This seems to be a huge distraction from the aim of moving to more sustainable ways of living, which does seem to be an urgent issue.
Perhaps for you it's *the* issue.

Well - much as government likes to claim, it is the overarching issue if we plan to be around in a few generations time in the sort of numbers we are now.

For me, it's *an* issue. That doesn't mean to say that it isn't important, but from my perspective needs to be factored in with everything else.

OK - a difference of perspective then, but as it determines our viability as a species, it strikes me as a bit more important than most of the others.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-26 13:37:06 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable. Ah, proof by assertion. Nope. Just conversations with many people in my area and what their concerns are. Rubbish collection is very high on the local agenda. Would that be many like minded people ?
Sufficient to be an electoral campaigning issue.

Impressive !

As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it. It may be where you live. It certainly isn't where I am. People will not accept paying a lot of money to get third rate service. So how much are they paying, and what is the service costing to deliver ?
That's very hard to split out for an individual service because of opacity and creative accounting.

So what evidence do you have the accounting is creative ?
Have you asked for the figures ?
How do you know it's not great value ?

On a top level, people see increases in council taxes and decreases in what they are getting. Strangely, they are not pleased about that.

Yes - though they might care to factor in changes in LA funding from central government.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore