Council Election 2007

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2007, 19:10

If I were the Chair of PCATS and also a candidate in the forthcoming elections, I think I might want to distance myself from Dickie's remarks. For me, 'no opinion' doesn't go quite far enough.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Apr 2007, 21:09

Bob could you post a copy of the leaflet please?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2007, 21:24

Happy to show you a copy but Dickie's nasty rant doesn't deserve any more publicity.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2007, 06:56

Alison Miller, the Conservative candidate is the next to reply:

1. Do you support the decisions taken by the Council in December 2006 regarding the replacement of Portobello High School and St Johns?

Alison Miller wrote:The Conservatives, like Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP, all voted in favour of a new Portobello High School being built on Portobello Park.

It is 10 years since I left Portobello High School. I remember my years at the school with great affection. While the building was in no fit state, the toilets were a scary place and maths was taught in the canteen; the teaching was brilliant and the opportunities I receievd were second to none.

Since leaving the school I have continued to hear lots of great stories about what is going on at the school through my role as a guide leader. The fact that so many of the teachers that taught are still at the school is testimant to the wonderful school environment. The school is a great asset to our community and it is unfortunate that the school building does not reflect that teaching environment.

I dont think anyone could disgaree that a new school building is long over due, which is why the Conservatives voted for the new school to be built on Portobello Park, a decision I stand by. However I think it is important that we replace the loss of green space with more usable green spaces at the current Portobello site, and elsewhere if possible.

As a side issue I would also highlight that Labour planned to cap the number of pupils at the new school at 1,200. But thankfully at the debate in the council on Thurday 21st, the Conservative Group successfully moved an amendment to the Labour motion calling for a report to be carried out investigating the possibility of building the school to a capacity of 1,400- the same as the current school’s capacity.

I believe that following this report, it is vital that the council takes the decision to maintain the current capacity. The current capacity of Portobello High School is 1,400, though there are 1,450 pupils. Approximatly 17% of pupils currently come from outside the catchment area, using placing requests to get into the school. It is likely the the new building will generate yet more requests. Therefore any attempt to cut the capacity of the school, will result in pupils being denied the educational benefits on offer at the school.

The Portobello School Board and Senior Management Team questioned this drop in the school capacity highlighting this very point. The council had argued that there the rationale is down to a decline in the birth rate. However, while there may be a decline at present, what if it increases in 10 years time? Which parts of the current catchment would be forced out? Who would the council turn away? Suddenly the brand new school doesn’t meet the needs of the local community. If a schools work well and is popular as a result we should be maintaining the good standards not cutting the intake.

We need to make sure that the new building is one that delivers for the whole community and lasts a lot longer than the current one did.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2007, 06:58

2. What are your views on the Council's plans for Meadowbank?

Alison Miller wrote:I am delighted that the Labour Council have performed a U-turn and are now suggesting a running track and a new sports centre could be re-built on the existing stand.

Conservatives have been arguing for some time that the priority should be to ensure that there was no gap in the provision of sports facilities in teh east of the city and were constantly been told it couldnt be done. I am therefore delighted that this is exactly what is now being looked at. I look forward to reading what recomendations the Meadowbank Working Group suggest.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2007, 07:01

3. What are your priorities for the Portobello/Craigmillar area and how will you achieve them?

Alison Miller wrote:My key priorities for Portobello and Craigmillar would be:

- Repairing our potholed roads and cracked pavements. When the budget was agreed in February, Conservatives argued for an additional £29.5m to repair roads and pavements over three years. This money mainly comes from the unallocated resources and effeciency savings. The budget amendment, giving the details in full, can be viewed at http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=94729

I also want to review the way road works are carried out to provide better value for money and reduce disruption unlike the recent chaos on, and around, Milton Road.

- Better bus connections from Portobello and Craigmillar. We currently have good bus services on routes such as the 44 and 26, but despite the fact we are very close to the hospital, there is not a good bus service between large parts of the ward and the Royal Infirmary.

- Excellent educational opportunities within Portobello and Craigmillar. This could be achieved by providing a new Portobello High School that is fit for purpose, allows the community to make use of the facilities and maintains its current capacity. I would also carry on Councillor Berry's hard work to make sure that popular schools like Lismore Primay are not closed

- More police on the beat in Portobello and Craigmillar. As well as spending mroe on the police, to help achieve this Conservatives also want to see a more accountable police force that better responds to the public. We would work with Lothian and Borders Police Force to publish localised crime statistics on a monthly basis which will enable residents to see for themselves whether the police are successful at cutting crime. The Convenor of the Police Board is currently a councillor and therefore only answerable to one ward. Conservatives want to see the Convenor accountable to the whole Police Board Area, which is why we would make them directly elected. In addition, as more and more police stations are being closed to the public in the evening, I will also campaign against any closure of Portobello Police Station, and Craigmillar Police Station.

- Expand the opportunities for affordable homes. I want to see more done to help young families, key workers and anyone else who is struggling to get a foot on the housing ladder. This could be achieved by working with busineses and housing developers to increase the availability of shared ownership housing.

More details about my stance on different issues, and Conservative policies for the whole Edinburgh can be found on my website - www.alison4portobello.com.

If you have any other questions, feel free to get in touch.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Apr 2007, 10:02

Bob Jefferson wrote:Happy to show you a copy but Dickie's nasty rant doesn't deserve any more publicity.

Does the leaflet relate solely to matters Superstore?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Apr 2007, 11:16

Porty wrote:Does the leaflet relate solely to matters Superstore?

The leaflet is mainly about the Superstore campaign, but contains a final paragraph titled 'Personal P.S', which refers to other items/pledges in a Labour Party pamphlet. I would assume,therefore, that this is why the leaflet was put out by an individual and not on behalf of PCATS.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Apr 2007, 12:29

I see, so would you say it was a PCATS leaflet with a personal appendage?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Apr 2007, 12:39

It does read like that being written mainly in the first person plural and containing phrases such as 'Let's get the facts right from the people who actually stopped the superstore' and 'one of our PCATS women'.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Apr 2007, 13:22

Marya wrote: containing phrases such as 'Let's get the facts right from the people who actually stopped the superstore'

Does it then go on to invite people to contact Lawrence Marshall and Trevor Davies for the facts?

Marya wrote: one of our PCATS women'.

Yep, so along with the deliberate removal of "President" and the therefore equally deliberate inclusion of PCATS we are clearly talking about a PCATS communication on which Hawkins the chair has no opinion. It begs the question that if he has no opinion on a communication from an organisation in which he is the boss, how could he be effective as an elected representative?

I can't see him responding in the manner or spirit that Alison Miller and Lawrence Marshall have demonstrated above. Hopefully I will be proved wrong.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:10

A reminder (and a correction) for anyone interested in going along to the Craigmillar hustings.

The event takes place on Wednesday 25 April at Artspace in Harewood Road, formerly Craigmillar School and is billed to commence at 6:30 pm.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:25

Porty wrote:It begs the question that if he has no opinion on a communication from an organisation in which he is the boss, how could he be effective as an elected representative?

I must draw some sort of flowchart of who hates who in Portobello politics. I'll need different coloured lines for ideological and/or personal spite.

I can't see him responding in the manner or spirit that Alison Miller and Lawrence Marshall have demonstrated above. Hopefully I will be proved wrong.

Do you think you would respond to Steven's responses in the same manner or spirit as to Alison or Lawrence?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:27

Welcome to the election. I wondered when you would show up.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:33

Dadaist, about two months ago wrote:Have they dropped the "New" from Labour?

I'd like to know Lawrence and Maureen's thoughts on Iraq and Afghanistan - I'm well aware that this is a local election, but these individuals have chosen to obey orders from a leader who has blood on his hands.

As such there's no way I could ever vote for a Labour candidate whilst Blair is their leader. As much as I am politically opposed to nationalists, conservatives and other assorted fruits and nuts, I view voting for a mass murdering war criminal as near-complicity in the rape of the 2 countries I mentioned.

I thought I "showed up" two months ago, Bob.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:45

Oh yes, I forgot about your opening salvo. Two months is a long time in politics and discussion forums.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:46

That's ok.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Apr 2007, 22:13

Dadaist wrote:Do you think you would respond to Steven's responses in the same manner or spirit as to Alison or Lawrence?

Don't see the point in responding to any of them as they are posting here by proxy. Its interesting to hear their personal views on important issues particulary when its one of the "big four". Its nothing personal.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Apr 2007, 10:52

Dadaist wrote:
I must draw some sort of flowchart of who hates who in Portobello politics. I'll need different coloured lines for ideological and/or personal spite.

You could start with this excerpt from the PCATS leaflet that was handed out at the hustings.

PCATS ELECTION LEAFLET wrote:We managed to raise over £23,000 to successfully defeat the developers. Our Councillors attended many of our fundraising events; not to help in any useful way but to be seen and pretend to be on our side. Nobody was fooled by this faux, and somewhat distasteful, display of “friendship”.

Anyone that is honest and objective about the superstore campaign knows that both Lawrence and Maureen were PCATS supporters and this is what they get in return. If you ignore what the zealots and conspiracy theorists at the core of the group spraff and look at the superstore application process, you see that Lawrence in particular was instrumental in the success. PCATS and their supporters (myself included) played a big part but COEC didn't want it and the planners didn't want it either. That's the facts and as we know its PCATS not PFACTS.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Apr 2007, 13:05

I'm going to need a big bit of paper and lots of colours of pens.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Apr 2007, 15:26

Tesco may have an offer on.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Apr 2007, 18:28

The latest respondent to my questions is Maureen Child:

1. Do you support the decisions taken by the Council in December 2006 regarding the replacement of Portobello High School and St Johns?

Maureen Child wrote:Yes. I helped take the unanimous, all-Party decision. It wasn’t easy, but it was the right decision. There is still a lot of work to do and hurdles to overcome to deliver the new school on this site and we may not be successful. But it is right to try and get the best possible solution and the best possible school for generations of our children. PFANS got it right, in my view. Decanting pupils – which experience shows would be necessary, is a bad option. But I do have a lot of sympathy for those who feel they are losing a lot in their own local neighbourhood.

2. What are your views on the Council's plans for Meadowbank?

Maureen Child wrote:The Council is consulting on plans for the Meadowbank site, so there is still everything to play for – and always was. In my view., refurbishing Meadowbank is not a sensible option nor is it the best option to provide sporting facilities locally, or for the city as a whole. Local Councillors were instrumental in getting a commitment to a modern East Local Sports Centre and we still have to hear about all the facilities that local people want in that local centre and what size it should be. It didn’t take a Campaign to make that happen. That always was the case. I don’t think we need a stadium in East Edinburgh, but we need a lot of other things for local sports activity.

3. What are your priorities for the Portobello/Craigmillar area and how will you achieve them?

Maureen Child wrote:My over-arching priority is to get all the neighbourhoods and communities working together effectively for the common good of everyone. I will do that by engaging directly with as many people as I can, working with people in local and city-wide teams and leading that community planning process.

We need to improve the quality of life for everybody in the area, work well with all the professionals, communities, neighbourhoods, individuals and voluntary groups to work out our priorities and deliver improvements. We all need the support and challenge of good local people and Council team colleagues.

The key issues for me are excellent schools and nurseries for all our children; clean, safe and green public spaces; good affordable housing; a vibrant local shopping centre; quality provision for sport and recreation; a modern, sustainable public transport system, including good buses and a tram to serve Portobello and Craigmillar; a recognition that Craigmillar and Portobello can have a fair share in the success of our Capital city and contribution to Edinburgh in all its aspects.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 24 Apr 2007, 19:32

So after three responses, here are my thoughts so far. Firstly, I'm impressed that anyone at all has bothered to respond to my questions at what must be a very busy time for all of the candidates.

I'm impressed in particular with the effort that Lawrence has put into his responses. Impressed, but not surprised because this is the degree of dedication that he puts into everything he does. He is never going to achieve high office because he votes with his conscience and doesn't wait to see which way the wind is blowing, but nevertheless he commands respect among his colleagues even if he drives them to despair at times. A vote for Lawrence Marshall is quite simply a vote for Lawrence Marshall.

I'm impressed too on a personal level by Alison Miller, the Conservative candidate. I can't envisage ever voting for her party but she is a local girl, full of energy and enthusiasm and she is very likeable. If she turns out to be one of the successful candidates then I'm sure she is someone we can work with.

One of the reasons that I'm determined to help re-elect both Lawrence and Maureen is that they are such a good ready-made team. The new Portobello/Craigmillar ward takes in areas of considerable deprivation and issues that few of us are (with good fortune) ever likely to encounter. Maureen's many years of experience in the Milton ward and her combination of toughness and compassion stand her in good stead for the considerable challenges ahead.

So, Lawrence and Maureen still get my vote and for me it's a question of who they can work with most effectively to make up the 3 councillor team.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 24 Apr 2007, 20:16

hopefully I will get my postal vote in time

and I will make my own mind up who I vote for.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2007, 18:31

Maureen Child has asked me to post this open letter from her to Dickie Alexander in response to the leaflet he recently distributed:

Dickie Alexander
address withheld
Portobello

Dear Dickie

I regret that we have never taken the chance to have a calm, sensible conversation about our complementary roles stopping the superstore. I have always totally opposed the Portobello superstore proposal, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary. I have had an interchange with Stephen Hawkins in the past and he is similarly reluctant to admit we local Councillors played our part from the outset.

The superstore application was rejected by the Council's Development Quality Sub Committee and at Reporter's appeal hearing, because of the planning brief/statement of development principles. That key piece of the jigsaw was something Councillor Lawrence Marshall initiated, I supported and we took through Planning Committee.

At the Appeal, the Portobello superstore application was not rejected on transport or shopping terms. It was rejected because it was contrary to the principles in that brief for the site, which Councillors put in place. Lawrence and I were therefore instrumental in stopping the superstore.

We were also instrumental in getting the wholehearted commitment of the Convener of Planning, Councillor Trevor Davies, to help us at the Inquiry and he played a pivotal role too. But I regret that all he ever seemed to get from PCATS was dog's abuse.

PCATS have always been unwilling to give us any credit whatever for what we achieved, but maybe it is naive of us to expect such things, especially in such a politically charged atmosphere.

I trust that most people can understand that because of the Councillors' Code of Conduct, I could not state my opposition in public. I would have lost the right even to be present in the Committee Room when the application was considered, let alone take part - as I did - and move further grounds for refusal. It was rejected unanimously, because of my lead on that Committee on the day and because Lawrence was able to speak against it as local Councillor.

It was right that Lawrence took part in the campaign as the local Elected Member for Portobello. Privately, I urged him to get involved sooner than he did, but that was his decision. He too opposed the idea from the outset. A strict interpretation of the Guidance from the Standards Commission (at that time) might well have precluded Lawrence from speaking at the Committee too and we had to ensure he would still have a voice in opposition. I will send you a copy of the Code as it relates to planning.

I trust you will now stop spreading lies about Labour Councillors' role in the 'stop the Portobello Superstore' community team effort - if not give credit where credit is due to us!

Best wishes

Maureen

8 Lee Crescent
Portobello
Edinburgh
EH15 1LW

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2007, 18:38

For info:

Code of Conduct for Councillors re planning applications

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2007, 16:15

Sandra wrote:hopefully I will get my postal vote in time and I will make my own mind up who I vote for.

Is Porty Standing?

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 28 Apr 2007, 00:19

Pal of Porty wrote:
Sandra wrote:hopefully I will get my postal vote in time and I will make my own mind up who I vote for.
Is Porty Standing?

nope, but my postal vote went away on Wednesday morning.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 28 Apr 2007, 09:31

Is this a first? As well as contending with the copious amounts of printed election material that is presently flowing through my letterbox I've now been spammed twice on personal email by PPAG candidate Archie Burns.

ali · Post by **ali** » 28 Apr 2007, 09:41

Marya wrote:Is this a first? As well as contending with the copious amounts of printed election material that is presently flowing through my letterbox I've now been spammed twice on personal email by PPAG candidate Archie Burns.

I've now been spammed by Mr. Burns too, M. How did he get my email address??

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Apr 2007, 11:17

I got 3 identical messages from Archie to two different email addresses and I have just been speaking to someone in the High Street who had also received unsolicited email from him. I'm not sure what the situation is for independent candidates but I know that Maureen and Lawrence aren't allowed to use their distribution lists in the run-up to the election.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Apr 2007, 11:49

Canvassing on the High Street this morning:

Libby · Post by **Libby** » 28 Apr 2007, 23:53

After they had finished there Canvassing down in Portobello did they take a leisurely stroll up to Sunny Craigmillar

No i didn't think so, So sorry none of them will be getting my vote and i will be letting the good people of Craigmillar know that they have No intentions of Strolling up to there area.

Feel free to inform them that the Area they are standing is Now Portobello/Craigmillar and i certainly don't think that the area of Portobello has 18,000 people living there.

Maybe they feel they don't need the votes from the people in Craigmillar, please tell them to think again as Craigmillar is now a large area with a lot of votes up for grabs.

For them

"Not in a Million"

Libby

rapunzell · Post by **rapunzell** » 29 Apr 2007, 00:01

I got that unexpected email from Burns this morning. I'd like to know where he got my email address as I don't give that one out except to specific people. The whole thing was only about the high school saga too, no other issues.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 29 Apr 2007, 11:14

I got that email as well, been trying to figure where they my address from.
Anyone asked?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Council Election 2007

Did they