Edinburgh Council Election 2012: Portobello/Craigmillar

[seanie]

The Holyrood site is just about the right size for Holyrood. It's not remotely big enough for a combined campus of up to 2600 pupils. There are some possible savings with co-locating schools but they're actually pretty marginal. In terms of location is right on the periphery of the PHS catchment and the access is pretty poor.

It wouldn't be remotely viable as a site for PHS.

[Bazza]

[mr magnolia]

so if I dont pick the first past the the post winner as MY first choice, then none of my second and third and fourth preferences make a blind bit of difference? That means I should gamble on who will be first, put them first even if I dont want them, and then do my ranking of thos I do want....

yours, confused of portobello...

[jamiek]

As a formere student at holy rood high school I know it is plenty big enough for students if developed there is no will or desire to go elsewhere. The school could be built high rise too! Cavalry park is also plentiful regarding space. There are many places for the new school and plenty of other easier options just not as profitable ad building some houses on port golf course , which will happen regardless of what anyone says.

[seanie]

The School premises Regulations Act 1967, sets out recommended site sizes. According to it a school the size of PHS should have a site of at least 6.7Ha. The Holyrood site is 5.3Ha.

You could fit PHS onto the Holyrood site, but trying to combine a school for 1400 and a school of 1200, on a site only big enough for one of them would be stupid beyond belief.

And no, there are no plans for any housing on the golf course. Even if there were plans, which there aren't, it would be extremely difficult for that to happen given the planning policies regarding Open Space, it would not be compatible with the Common Good status of the land so would require court permission for a disposal, and would face huge local opposition.

You're havering.

[Bazza]

[Bazza]

[mr magnolia]

as a slight aside, I see from the Lothian results in the Evening News that 8 or 9 wards across the region have councillors elected as a result of the STV process (assuming that both the EN and I are correct in our own readings of the bits of info available. Not a strong bet to be recommended).

And that labour have been the beneficiary in 6 of these. Not a bad result for a party with a historically shrill opposition to such fangled nonsenses.

EDIT - actually, looking at the CEC website suggests that this is mince. I withdraw my comment on the basis of the ignorant head nipping effect noted by SD below.

The explanatory leaflets didn't help much in getting people to vote preferentially - they all talked about voting 1,2,3 and there was a single picture that showed a 4th preference. Then they said nothing about how the STV bit worked. We need a special report by the Snowmen!

[SoupDragon]

My heid is nippin trying to understand the STV

maybe the person who wrote "trams, Eh? on their ballot paper had the right idea

I'm also puzzled as to why the wards were enlarged but with more than one councillor per ward> It seemed to me that some councillors had to work harder with more surgeries etc while others in the same ward don't venture outside their own neighbourhood.

I'm almost gobsmacked at the logic that a high rise school should be built on Cavalry Park instead in Portobello Park and that the myth of houses on the golf course is being perpetuated

[Bazza]

I guess the main thng with STV is that you get ONE vote (the "single" in STV).

And the question that you then get asked isL

"Who do you want to win. OK, if you can't have them, who do you want? And if you can't have THEM, who do you want" etc etc.

The one spanner in the works is the quota thing, where you voe MC, but she's already reached her quota and been elected, so then you can't vote for her, so your second choice comes in to play. So maybe the question you're asked is:

"Who do you want to win. OK, if you can't have them (OR they've already been elected), who do you want? And if you can't have THEM (OR they've already been elected), who do you want?" etc etc.

[wangi]