Has Southport improved in any way, or is it getting worse

[said]

Thirty years ago, Southport was a lovely town and all the inhabitants formed a community in which people were polite, caring and friendly. One person's view was shared by all, all topics were shared in quiet intimacy.

Children were well educated with parents taking a great interest and encouraging them on. At one time, it was said that more children in Southport attended university than any other area outside of London. Many children belonged to one club or more, Scouts, Guides, Sea Scouts, Venture Scouts, Music etc.,

Now that community spirit appears to be lost. Few children attend clubs outside of school and there are far fewer children going on to Universities. It would appear that there are more egotists who chase self esteem in preference to knowledge, manners are seen as a sign of oppression. More people enjoy their own braying, believing that the louder they are the more important they appear to be. Some even go so far as to set up loudspeakers and microphones, under the impression that musical knowledge is not necessary, just so long as you make a noise. Many children tend to shout and scream to one another instead of talk, antisocial behaviour is far more common now.

Has the community become less educated now? Does consideration for the children and neighbours no longer count? Or have more outside people moved in bringing their bad habits with them? Will Southport ever return to being a community, or is that now lost forever? As a community, we all worked together to make Southport the town it was - is this proof that there is no longer a community?

[Toodles McGinty]

Once again:

[dans77b]

It is pointless asking this sort of question. It is impossible to get an honest, objective answer.

People of a certain age across the globe, throughout history have always said 'Things were better in my day' what they mean is 'I wish I still had my youth'.

[Little Londoner]

Thirty Years ago it was going downhill 50/55 years ago it was a decent town, funny how the decline started after Tory Southport was thrown under a bus by the Tory Government.

[said]

It is pointless asking this sort of question. It is impossible to get an honest, objective answer.

People of a certain age across the globe, throughout history have always said 'Things were better in my day' what they mean is 'I wish I still had my youth'.

I am probably younger than you, so I do not recall what people have referred to in history. I have not referred to 'material things' if you notice since these do not apply to 'people' as such. It would not matter if we all owned hover cars, had a National maglev network and space station shops - it is the people who appear to have less ability to confront events and who have lost control.

The modern day appears to be aligned with Cultural Marxism. This has only been growing in popularity since the 1970's, favouring the left of politics and creating a divide among the people. This had a keen following in Germany in the 1920's with a single nation - but which has fallen short in the UK because it has introduced dissent and protests among a very mixed population. Instead of bringing people together as patriots to bring national success, it is dividing people by concentrating on negligible personal traits , to place a futile superiority on certain groups, while expecting the remaining people to pay for that recognition. The result of this has created a very selfish attitude in those with limited understanding, causing them to act against a socialised civilisation, where self preservation takes priority, while others totally ignore the Marxist culture and allocate its introduction to the nearest waste bin.

[dans77b]

I am probably younger than you, so I do not recall what people have referred to in history. I have not referred to 'material things' if you notice since these do not apply to 'people' as such. It would not matter if we all owned hover cars, had a National maglev network and space station shops - it is the people who appear to have less ability to confront events and who have lost control.

The modern day appears to be aligned with Cultural Marxism. This has only been growing in popularity since the 1970's, favouring the left of politics and creating a divide among the people. This had a keen following in Germany in the 1920's with a single nation - but which has fallen short in the UK because it has introduced dissent and protests among a very mixed population. Instead of bringing people together as patriots to bring national success, it is dividing people by concentrating on negligible personal traits , to place a futile superiority on certain groups, while expecting the remaining people to pay for that recognition. The result of this has created a very selfish attitude in those with limited understanding, causing them to act against a socialised civilisation, where self preservation takes priority, while others totally ignore the Marxist culture and allocate its introduction to the nearest waste bin.

You don't half suffer from verbal diarrhoea.

[said]

You don't half suffer from verbal diarrhoea.

Huh! You could not track an elephant in a field of mud! The concept is very clear to those who understand it.

[dans77b]

Huh! You could not track an elephant in a field of mud! The concept is very clear to those who understand it.

Its a bit of a theme with your posts: long, poorly structured, a bit rambling, and somewhat tangential to the topic. I think you do it to bore people into not responding.

[sandGroundZero]

Now here's a riddle:

I am probably younger than you,

• so I do not recall what people have referred to in history.

I have not referred to 'material things' if you notice

• since these do not apply to 'people' as such.

It would not matter if

• we all owned hover cars, had a
• National maglev network and
• space station shops -

it is the people who appear to have less ability to confront events and
[it is the people] who have lost control.

The modern day appears to be aligned with Cultural Marxism.
This has only been growing in popularity since the 1970's, favouring the left of politics and creating a divide among the people.
This had a keen following in Germany in the 1920's with a single nation - but which has fallen short in the UK because

• it has introduced dissent and protests among a very mixed population.

Instead of bringing people together as patriots to bring national success, it is dividing people by

• concentrating on negligible personal traits ,
• to place a futile superiority on certain groups, while
• expecting the remaining people to pay for that recognition.

The result of this has created a very selfish attitude in those with limited understanding, causing them to

• act against a socialised civilisation, where self preservation takes priority,

while others

• totally ignore the Marxist culture and allocate its introduction to the nearest waste bin.

What does it mean?

[Lamparilla]

I think the answer to this is quite simple, and nothing to do with Cultural Marxism, whatever that is.

In 1974, the reorganisation of local authorities took Southport out of Lancashire and dumped it into the newly-created Merseyside.

What followed was a programme of social engineering by faceless bureaucrats, whereby thousands of people were shipped into Sefton and West Lancs from largely underpriveleged Liverpool boroughs, and they brought their values and social problems with them.

Combined with the Beeching cuts a decade earlier, Southport became a satellite of Liverpool as opposed to Preston.

Whether you think this is a good, bad, or just a different thing depends on your cultural heritage and the value you place on your 'roots'.

[Toodles McGinty]

'Cultural Marxism'. Priceless.

Antisemitic claptrap favoured by the Alt-Right. I'm guessing this leads into an anti-left, anti-feminism, anti-LBGT, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-everyone who isn't a straight, white male rant.

Favoured by Anders Breivik and every mass shooter in the past few decades.

Except you're more dribbling water pistol than AK47.

Get back to 4Chan, Pony boy.

[sandGroundZero]

…and nothing to do with Cultural Marxism, whatever that is.
…Whether you think this is a good, bad, or just a different thing depends on your cultural heritage and the value you place on your 'roots'.

Lamparilla's post #10

If you want a little insight into 'Cultural Marxism' follow the link. (Trigger warning: it ain't pretty!)

ex: Rational Wiki

[joan ofarc]

I think the answer to this is quite simple, and nothing to do with Cultural Marxism, whatever that is.

In 1974, the reorganisation of local authorities took Southport out of Lancashire and dumped it into the newly-created Merseyside.

What followed was a programme of social engineering by faceless bureaucrats, whereby thousands of people were shipped into Sefton and West Lancs from largely underpriveleged Liverpool boroughs, and they brought their values and social problems with them.

Combined with the Beeching cuts a decade earlier, Southport became a satellite of Liverpool as opposed to Preston.

Whether you think this is a good, bad, or just a different thing depends on your cultural heritage and the value you place on your 'roots'.

I have no idea what point Said is trying to make (I rarely do. It's usually blah, blah,blah) but I do object to your characterisation of people from Liverpool, one of which is me! Thousands of reprobates with poor morals and social problems? Really? That sort of language is
ignorant, and judgemental. Were there no people in Lancashire with social problems and morals which you look down on? I think not.
I remember walking my dog on a field in Southport one day in 1985 and being approached by a woman who I had never met, who began a rant against people from Liverpool who were all criminals and came to Southport to rob everyone. No doubt she thought I would agree with her and we could have a nice chat about barbarians at the gate, She soon shut up when I said I was a Scouser.
The decline of Southport is economic not ethical or moral.

[Lamparilla]

I have no idea what point Said is trying to make (I rarely do. It's usually blah, blah,blah) but I do object to your characterisation of people from Liverpool, one of which is me! Thousands of reprobates with poor morals and social problems? Really? That sort of language is
ignorant, and judgemental. Were there no people in Lancashire with social problems and morals which you look down on? I think not.
I remember walking my dog on a field in Southport one day in 1985 and being approached by a woman who I had never met, who began a rant against people from Liverpool who were all criminals and came to Southport to rob everyone. No doubt she thought I would agree with her and we could have a nice chat about barbarians at the gate, She soon shut up when I said I was a Scouser.
The decline of Southport is economic not ethical or moral.

Sorry if my post offended you, but the social engineering led to the economic decline because they shipped out people from areas of economic decline and created new ones elsewhere. They did the same in South Norfolk with a town called Thetford, a similar case to what happened to Skelmersdale.


My post wasn't about Scousers, it was about social engineering several decades ago. The problem is that it doesn't allow areas to grow organically.

[joan ofarc]

Sorry if my post offended you, but the social engineering led to the economic decline because they shipped out people from areas of economic decline and created new ones elsewhere. They did the same in South Norfolk with a town called Thetford, a similar case to what happened to Skelmersdale.


My post wasn't about Scousers, it was about social engineering several decades ago. The problem is that it doesn't allow areas to grow organically.

Thanks, Lamparila . l do agree with you that it was a mistake to align Southport with Liverpool as opposed to Lancashire. The population had always looked more northwards culturally although the travel was/is in the other direction when it comes to work. Rail cuts etc have only increased the effect. My objection was to the classification of ALL Scousers in the way you did. I don't think it was necessary but accept your reasoning. I don't think you can call it social engneering either as that implies a long-standing plan and something shady, like the phrase designer babies which has overtones of something else. I also agree that changing the make up of a society against their will especially when it is en masse and at speed, never works.