Wheelie bin plan wins narrow backing (From Worcester News)

I strongly favour wheely bins, and fortnightly collection, so I am glad that the decision went the way it did.

And issues like this should be debated and voted on. We need transparency in local and national government.

This was not a vote about wheelie bins per se. It was a vote about the democratic process. This Council does not have a good record in this. What it does have a good record in is officers bringing issues to Council at the absolute last minute, when, councillors do not have to to research the topic for themselves, or consult their electorate or even consider the issue. In the case of wheelie bins it was just four days! Indeed, papers carrying important information, statistics or recommendations are often tabled at meetings. Then we have a situation where when the vote doesn't go in David Hughes favour it's fine to being it back to Council, but when it does it isn't! Interestingly, the SWDP was discussed very thoroughly before it was voted down, whereas wheelie bins, per se were not.
As the Council learnt last night, there could be very serious legal implications to introducing wheelie bins, as they are against the letter and spirit of the European Directive and such co-mingled collections are the subject of a judicial review, as those that deal with recycled waste know they result in inferior recyclates.
Co-mingled collections are also the most expensive to run. But Council was not told this prior to being asked to make a decision. They were given information, which, at best was misleading and at worst was inaccurate.
Rejoice not for wheelie bins but weep for a further erosion of democracy and bad management of taxpayers money.

Intersting comments from Casmal. I wonder why Wychavon which has had wheelie bins for comingled waste and residual waste has the cheapest collection costs not only in Worcestershire but across England......and also didnt need to put its coucil tax up .

Malvern effectively has co-mingled collections now since the recycleables go to Norton now. So is it in breach of the directive now Casmal


There are some people in Malvern and Malvern town in particular who don't look at facts or evidence.

A real tale of 2 councils

Who are the councillors who abstained, and what were their reasons? In abstaining they have actually provided a yes vote to this scheme, so abstaining seems completely pointless. Were they not elected to represent the views of their constituents?

Re cost, don't take my word for it, look at the WRAP website. This is where I got this fact from.
No, Malvern is not in beeach of the directive now, because the Directive is effective from 2015.
Sadly there are many councillors who do not look at facts or evidence, as we saw last night.
The Cllrs who abstained were Merrick, Pilcher, Wells and Young.
Yes, I totally agree a out those who abstain.

I do wish people would stop claiming that an abstention is a vote for THEIR opponents. It is a perfectly acceptable voting device when the person has not been persuaded to vote for a resolution. In fact, rather than allowing a resolution to succeed, as claimed above, it weakens the strength of support for the motion.

If they have not been persuaded to vote for something, then they don't want that resolution to go forward, so they should vote against. What a shame we don't know why they abstained. It was not a complicated issue. Did they abstain on the vote on the original bid? That was a far more complex matter. Did they abstain on the SWDP, which was similarly a much more complex matter? The issue was democracy. Either you are for democracy or you are not. It is quite simple.
Tom Wells certainly seemed confused. He said a democratic discussion was pointless because the money had already been spent, then abstained!

My God. You lot sound like a bad Carry On film. IT'S A BIN . Get over it

Samboy wrote:
I do wish people would stop claiming that an abstention is a vote for THEIR opponents. It is a perfectly acceptable voting device when the person has not been persuaded to vote for a resolution. In fact, rather than allowing a resolution to succeed, as claimed above, it weakens the strength of support for the motion.

It doesn't matter if the councillors in question personally couldn't make their minds up. They should vote according to the electorate's wishes. I'm sure they canvassed opinion didn't they...or did the coin land on it's edge?

Saintinexile - I repeat, this vote was not about wheelie bins, it was whether Council should have had the final deciding word on the subject. It appears that they were led to believe any approved bid would come back to Council, but it didn't. It is the democratic process that is the concern, not wheelie bins per se.
CJH - I wish Councillors did canvass their electorate's wishes - and that they were given the time and information to do so. In my experience, they are presented with recommendations so late in the day and so close to a meeting that, even those who want to, don't have the time to either research the subject or consult their electorate.

Well not only did they vote to bring in wheelie bins , at, great expense, they then went on to raise our council tax !!!
What a bunch of numpties we have been landed with !
I wonder if Wells,Pilcher,young and Merrick were able to form a decision on demanding more money from us to fund the wheelie bin scheme that will cost us all 17p a week !

Samboy wrote:
I do wish people would stop claiming that an abstention is a vote for THEIR opponents. It is a perfectly acceptable voting device when the person has not been persuaded to vote for a resolution. In fact, rather than allowing a resolution to succeed, as claimed above, it weakens the strength of support for the motion.

Samboy, A refusal to vote without stating your reasons why one is abstaining is neither, a vote for or against. There are many reasons that are perfectly valid why a member abstains. However, if the member does not state their reasons for their abstention the public will certainly come up with answers like. “An Abstention is a vote for the motion, or has you have already stated it weakens the motions. One reason for not voting would be if the individuals had a pecuniary interest in the subject matter. Then we have the none pecuniary, which could be on religious grounds or just a matter of conscience.
If they just did not wish to blot their copybook because they agreed with the motion that had been tabled. One must consider that the controlling group had reached a democratic decision prior to the Council meeting, and these three had been given permission to abstain.

Allan Whitehead wrote:

Samboy wrote:
I do wish people would stop claiming that an abstention is a vote for THEIR opponents. It is a perfectly acceptable voting device when the person has not been persuaded to vote for a resolution. In fact, rather than allowing a resolution to succeed, as claimed above, it weakens the strength of support for the motion.

Samboy, A refusal to vote without stating your reasons why one is abstaining is neither, a vote for or against. There are many reasons that are perfectly valid why a member abstains. However, if the member does not state their reasons for their abstention the public will certainly come up with answers like. “An Abstention is a vote for the motion, or has you have already stated it weakens the motions. One reason for not voting would be if the individuals had a pecuniary interest in the subject matter. Then we have the none pecuniary, which could be on religious grounds or just a matter of conscience.
If they just did not wish to blot their copybook because they agreed with the motion that had been tabled. One must consider that the controlling group had reached a democratic decision prior to the Council meeting, and these three had been given permission to abstain.

Excuse me "given permission to abstain". This is democratically elected representatives we are talking about, not children asking to leave the classroom to go to the toilet. Besides, we were told there was no whipping. And...as far as I am aware, the four who abstained were not on the ruling group, at least not according to the Council website.
"If they did not wish to blot their copy books." Well, this speaks volumes. They are clearly more afraid of and/or feel they owe more allegiance to the Leader of their group than those who elected them.
And for further information, if they have a pecuniary interest they have to declare it and usually withdraw from the discussion and not vote at all. Bringing a matter back for further discussion, which is what they were voting on, has no religious connotations, unless you believe that David Hughes is God who will strike you down if you do not do what you are told. It is, however a matter of conscience and these people's consciences should indeed be troubling them as they are undertaking a very dangerous gamble with taxpayers money. Does the fact that they were misled and made a decision based on incorrect information worry them? If not, it should.

An extra 17p a week??!?!

Lets hope pensions go up for the Malvern population...

Casmal wrote:

Allan Whitehead wrote:

Samboy wrote:
I do wish people would stop claiming that an abstention is a vote for THEIR opponents. It is a perfectly acceptable voting device when the person has not been persuaded to vote for a resolution. In fact, rather than allowing a resolution to succeed, as claimed above, it weakens the strength of support for the motion.

Samboy, A refusal to vote without stating your reasons why one is abstaining is neither, a vote for or against. There are many reasons that are perfectly valid why a member abstains. However, if the member does not state their reasons for their abstention the public will certainly come up with answers like. “An Abstention is a vote for the motion, or has you have already stated it weakens the motions. One reason for not voting would be if the individuals had a pecuniary interest in the subject matter. Then we have the none pecuniary, which could be on religious grounds or just a matter of conscience.
If they just did not wish to blot their copybook because they agreed with the motion that had been tabled. One must consider that the controlling group had reached a democratic decision prior to the Council meeting, and these three had been given permission to abstain.

Excuse me "given permission to abstain". This is democratically elected representatives we are talking about, not children asking to leave the classroom to go to the toilet. Besides, we were told there was no whipping. And...as far as I am aware, the four who abstained were not on the ruling group, at least not according to the Council website.
"If they did not wish to blot their copy books." Well, this speaks volumes. They are clearly more afraid of and/or feel they owe more allegiance to the Leader of their group than those who elected them.
And for further information, if they have a pecuniary interest they have to declare it and usually withdraw from the discussion and not vote at all. Bringing a matter back for further discussion, which is what they were voting on, has no religious connotations, unless you believe that David Hughes is God who will strike you down if you do not do what you are told. It is, however a matter of conscience and these people's consciences should indeed be troubling them as they are undertaking a very dangerous gamble with taxpayers money. Does the fact that they were misled and made a decision based on incorrect information worry them? If not, it should.

I could not argee with you more had I wrote your Comments my self.
I was just placing a point of viewthat there are reasons to abstain provided you inform the meeting and the puiblic why.