Recently, Newcastle City Council faced a decision with enormous implications: whether to commit the city, alongside six other North East councils, to the Tees Valley Energy Recovery Facility (TVERF) – a single incinerator intended to handle 450,000 tonnes of residual waste per year.
This is not just another procurement exercise. It is a £2.1 billion, multi-decade commitment that will shape the city’s waste strategy, finances, and environmental footprint for decades. Yet the debate revealed a chamber more focused on party politics than careful scrutiny. I chose to abstain. I did so not out of indecision, but because neither side of the council chamber presented a case I could confidently support.
A £2 Billion gamble
The TVERF is no small matter. Seven councils would be locked into supplying a single incinerator for decades. The numbers are vast: 450,000 tonnes of waste every year, £300 million in upfront investment, and a contract potentially worth around £2 billion across its lifespan.
But it is not just the scale that should raise alarm. The timescale makes this commitment particularly precarious. A contract of 30 to 40 years is effectively a straightjacket. While long contracts are common in waste infrastructure – investors want certainty when putting hundreds of millions at risk – this deal sits at the extreme end of the spectrum. It locks Newcastle into one technology, one market, and one financial model for a generation.
Who can predict what waste legislation, recycling targets, or residual waste volumes will look like in 2050? UK incineration capacity is already projected to outstrip demand within a decade, raising the risk that councils will have to pay to guarantee minimum “feedstock” even when waste is no longer available. Technological change could render large-scale incineration obsolete long before the contract ends. Yet this structure leaves little room for flexibility.
Labour’s position was simple: millions have already been spent on procurement, and withdrawing could expose Newcastle to penalties of £30 million or more. That argument carried weight in the chamber. But it was little more than a financial soundbite. Labour offered no serious evidence of understanding the technology, the market, or the risks inherent in a 30 – 40 year deal. Break clauses? Shorter contract options? Contingencies for changing legislation? None were discussed. Councillors were expected to sign on the dotted line, and that was it.
The case made against
The Liberal Democrats and Greens, by contrast, made a passionate argument. They rightly highlighted Newcastle’s declining recycling rate – from over 40% to less than 25% – and warned that doubling down on incineration would make meeting future recycling targets almost impossible.
I have sympathy with that critique. It is indefensible that a city like Newcastle has regressed so far on recycling. But principle alone is not enough. What was missing was a credible plan. How, exactly, would the city manage its residual waste if not through TVERF? Wishing for higher recycling rates does not magic away tens of thousands of tonnes of unrecyclable material produced each year. Simply delaying a decision is not taking responsibility.
An argument against, without a viable alternative is only half an argument – strong on principle, weak on practicalities.
Playing politics while the stakes are high
The debate was further undermined by its tone. Instead of treating a £2 billion, decades-long commitment with the seriousness it deserves, both sides of the chamber resorted to accusing each other of “playing politics.” Labour accused the opposition of chasing headlines; the opposition accused Labour of blindly backing officers.
It is sad to reflect that when the future of Newcastle’s waste strategy, finances, and environmental impact was on the line, the dominant sound in the chamber was political point-scoring rather than careful scrutiny. Yet residents expect councillors to rise above this – to interrogate evidence, challenge assumptions, and consider long-term consequences. In this debate, those expectations were largely unmet.
Shouldn’t the Administration have done better?
A £2 billion, 40-year contract demands more than financial soundbites. It requires leadership capable of explaining risks, assessing contingencies, and demonstrating serious understanding of the technology, markets, and legislation.
By focusing almost exclusively on the penalties of withdrawal, the ruling administration failed to provide this. Councillors were left to consider one narrow argument rather than the full picture. Future administrations and the people of Newcastle deserve better than to be locked into multi-decade deals with minimal scrutiny.
Why I abstained
Faced with this choice, I could not vote to endorse Labour’s position, which lacked detailed evidence, nor the opposition’s, which lacked a credible alternative. Abstaining was the only way to express my concern over the project’s risks while remaining true to the principle that councillors are elected to scrutinise, not simply rubber-stamp.
Abstention was not indecision. It was refusal to legitimise a flawed process. It was a statement that residents deserve honesty, rigor, and accountability from those entrusted with the city’s future.
Sometimes the honest vote Is no vote at all
Abstaining is rarely celebrated. In a culture that rewards certainty and party loyalty, it can feel uncomfortable, even risky. But when neither side presents a fully thought-through, credible path, abstention is not weakness – it is honesty.
The TVERF debate exposed a chamber more focused on scoring points than on grappling with a £2 billion, decades-long deal that will shape Newcastle for generations. It revealed the dangers of accepting briefings at face value, ignoring long-term consequences, and making enormous commitments without serious scrutiny.
Councillors are elected to serve the city, not their party. And sometimes the most courageous, responsible, and honest action is to step back and refuse to lend legitimacy to a flawed choice. Because in politics, as in life, there are moments when not taking sides is the only side worth taking.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
