Unity essential for revived trams project!
According to the LIVERPOOL Daily Post of 19th February 2006, Sefton Council is being WARNED that “everyone needs to get on board” if trams are to become a reality in LIVERPOOL!
HOW DARE THEY!!!
ALL the proposed new tram services are in LIVERPOOL!
Southport will get NOTHING out of the deal, yet will be obliged to make financial contributions towards it.
The warning comes, presumably, from Merseytravel - the very same Merseytravel that has recently been heavily criticised by the Audit Commission for the way it has previously handled expenditure on LIVERPOOL's trams - leaving Southport residents to pick up a part of the existing bill!
And it must always be remembered that LIVERPOOL has just been awarded the title of the worst-run local authority in the entire country.
If any of Southport's current Councillors want to give even MORE of YOUR money to LIVERPOOL, then they surely do not deserve your vote!

The Seaside resort of Southport is now part of the Liverpool City Region by virtue of being within the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton.

Did you know that?
Do you know what the Liverpool City Region is?
Does this worry you?
Why does our Council seem so unprepared to tell us anything about this situation?
Should Southport be associated any further with the WORST local authority in the country?
What is the purpose of the Liverpool City Region? - is it to develop the ENTIRE area? Or just Liverpool?
Does Southport get ANY benefits from this?
Do you reckon ANY of the other political parties will mention this serious bypassing of democracy on their election literature?

WE would like to know why we are all being kept in the dark about this. That is why we would like Sefton Council to offer us an explanation and give us the CHOICE of whether this situation should continue.

It appears that The Southport Party does not follow the traditional practice of the longer-established National Political parties of deceiving the public as a matter of course. They have scores of years of experience in their despicable Black Magic skills; we prefer to believe that the public wants to know the REAL truth.

Here are a few recent interesting examples that may go some way to explaining why THIS party is so often accused of total negativity towards Sefton Council and its current lineup of Councillors:-

(1)The prospective Tory candidate for Kew Ward says he will spend all his "Salary", if elected in May, on supporting the objectors to the development of land at Kew. How can he do this when the Tories SUPPORT the development?
Is he telling the truth? Is he simply seeking undeserved publicity? Or, is he simply UNINFORMED? Who knows!

(2) Liberal Democrat Councillor Maureen Fearn implies that the Arriva bus route along Westmoreland Road is to be rerouted elsewhere as a result of her presenting the petition from the residents of this road to the bus operators.
The REAL truth is that Arriva itself carried out a survey which indicates “significant demand elsewhere”.
Merseytravel has stated to us that “since deregulation, local bus services have been in the hands of private contractors who decide the routes they operate, the times they run their services and the fares they charge”. (See the document here)
So is Mrs Fearn telling the truth, or is she manipulating the truth, omitting most of facts by the wayside, in order to have us all believe something that gives her undeserved publicity?

(3) The Southport Party organises a protest against the closure of Manor Road Post Office, inviting many of the locals and with the full knowledge and approval of the postmaster. The picture taken by the Southport Visiter photographer is of the ENTIRE crowd of about 58 people. The picture taken by the uninvited and unwelcome LibDems troublemaker, Tony Dawson, was cropped down by him to exclude all Southport Party members and show more prominently a single uninvited LibDem Councillor.
4½ years ago this same Tony Dawson (John Pugh's "researcher") heavily criticised this party for excluding any pictures of any LibDem Councillors on the Hospital closure protest walk from the Town Hall to Meols Cop playing fields, even though, as far as we are aware, only a single LibDem Councillor participated (for about 100 yards). We were unaware of this miraculous event and therefore had no pictures it.
So do you think we are correct in calling Tony Dawson a HYPOCRITE?

Can you spot the difference?
ACTUAL SCENE:

SCENE AS SUBMITTED TO THE CHAMPION BY THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS:

Would you prefer to hear the politically-biased and hypocritical propaganda of others?
OR - Would you prefer to know the REAL truth, even if others make out it is always negative?
The choice is yours.

You have told us that the problem with the revised refuse collection service is NOT the wheelie bins themselves or the need for recycling—rather, it is with the system itself.
You want:
The return of a WEEKLY main bin collection;
To be able to put bins at the edge of your own property, NOT at the edge of the pavement;
The collection of CARDBOARD AND PLASTIC with other recyclable items from your homes.
Also, the requirement to put your bin out by 6am is inconvenient.
We have, therefore, written to Sefton Council listing your concerns.
Residents of Southport pay dearly for this service as part of our Council Tax.
We are therefore entitled to the service we deserve, yet Sefton does not want to admit that they are mistaken.

Sefton's Liberal Democrat Environment Cabinet Member says in the Southport Champion, 3rd October 2007: "It simply isn't correct that 'more and more' councils are abandoning alternate week rubbish collection.......only a handful have reverted back...". He does not, however, seem prepared to defend this statement when is is pointed out to him in the Southport Champion, 10th October, that this so-called "handful" now numbers rather more than the 1 or 2 he implies.
An apology from him has been requested. No reply has been received.
We would also like to point out that "The Ten Principles of Public Life" from which he so gleefully quotes in his letter, forms part of the Sefton Councillor's Code of Conduct wef 29th June 2007, which he will himself have now signed.

But this is far from being the first occasion we have heard Seftonised "facts" that are not exactly true.
Read down further to see what they said about Pleasureland, the housing transfer, Ainsdale School and Chapel Street pedestrianisation. How many other times have they done this since 1974?

Even more examples of misrepresentations of the truth at the Southport Area Committee on 31st October 2007:
(a) Sefton Officers state that the additional cost to an average household, if weekly collections are reintroduced, would be £78.85. Nobody is querying the numbers involved but the Liberal Democrats fail to understand that this is a "WORST CASE" scenario! The actual cost would be far less and several binmen were able to give splendid examples of how it could be done.
(b) A Liberal Democrat Councillor continues to have people believe that the decision to pedestrianise Chapel Street was made in 2003 and that the 3 Southport Party Councillors voted in favour. That is utter rubbish and the LibDem councillor knows that fact very well indeed - but he keeps repeating it ad nauseum!
(c) Several members of the public wanted to ask questions about changes to the refuse collection service. None could be answered as nobody was present to answer them. How convenient! No explanations were given.
(d) Several Liberal Democrats shouted out with glee when one person asked about the state of Birkdale Village in view of next year's Open Golf Championship and the prospect of entering the village into competitions. They reckon that the village is wonderful and improving all the time. BUT, a Birkdale Village shop owner put them in their place when he pointed out the reality of the situation.
We say - go and look at the state of the pavements and street furniture for yourselves and see who you believe.

All Southport Councillors are subject to a Code of Conduct, full details of which are given on the Sefton Council website.
This party has reported Liberal Democrat Councillor Simon Shaw to Sefton Council's Legal Director for breaches of this contract during his never-ending tirade of abuse and fact-twisting against The Southport Party. The Legal Department has written to him to remind him of his obligations as a Councillor.

We have also recently reported Liberal Democrat Councillor Fred Weavers to the Legal Director for his alleged unwarranted comments to a Kew Ward resident (Southport Visiter, 26th October 2007) when he was reported as saying "So, you're the troublemaker, are you?" We believe he also called her "selfish".
The Legal Director has spoken to Councillor Robertson, leader of the Sefton Liberal Democrats, requesting him to remind Councillor Weavers of his responsibilities as a councillor.

This is no way for elected councillors to behave. We say they are unworthy representatives of this town and should be replaced by those more concerned with the good of this town rather than their own personal agenda or vendetta.

Sefton is about to embark on an ambitious development of many hectares of land at Kew, featuring houses and business units - full details can be found on their web site here.
Some may think this is an excellent opportunity to create badly-needed housing and additional jobs for Southport residents. Some may have different opinions when they hear of one Liberal Democrat Councillor who has already been most abusive to an objector to this scheme (see above article). We can therefore safely assume that Sefton is simply going to barge ahead, either ignoring complaints or ridiculing them in their usual manner as they "always know best".

Nobody should be left unaware of reality re the situation at Kew, however, and the hypocrisy shown so often by so many of our current elected represetatives:-
Sefton seems determined to extract every last penny from the sale of every bit of spare land or buildings at its disposal in Southport.
Sefton often spends the capital receipts from the sale of these once substantial assets in other towns within the Borough.
Sefton wasted a net £4½ million pounds on the Pleasureland disaster through its own incompetence.
This hole in the finances needs to be plugged.
Sefton Council cares so little for jobs and the future of Southport that they have exported to Bootle virtually ALL of the council's jobs that they possibly can, even the Mayor!
There are now precious few Council vacancies offered in Southport.
Kew is already overdeveloped. Problems of  parking, transport and road structure already exist and in one instance the actions of the Council have actually made the situation worse. The roads in the Kew Industrial Park were constructed so narrow and so little consideration was given to onsite parking that double yellow lines have been laid to enable delivery trucks to operate properly. So workers are now parking along Town Lane and in the cul-de-sacs on the Kew estate causing problems that really need to be sorted out rather than being
made far worse.
If Sefton genuinely wants to enable a development of this nature, then a far better place to do it would be on the derelict railway land between Derby Road and Virginia Street.
This would not, however, generate any Capital Receipts for Sefton and would be very difficult to plan and implement.
Sefton promised the current residents of Kew Ward a state-of-the-art sports stadium a few years ago. The Liberal Democrats even asked us for opinions on which sports should be represented. The Sports Stadium was built in Litherland instead!
And now they are about to build another one in Maghull!
This land supports much wildlife, some of which may be protected species, others with declining numbers. We should be further protecting this last remaining and valuable area of undisturbed wildlife habitat in Southport, not wantonly destroying it and condemning these animals and birds to death.
And the prospective Conservative Councillor for Kew Ward has said that he will spend all his "salary" (does he mean "allowances?) if elected, to support any campaign to stop the development! What nonsense - if he did that he'd be expelled from the party!
The Southport Party is the ONLY party that can object to this development and they all know it.

Just what is going on?
Sefton gives away Pleasureland for 150 years for a miserly £2.5million to Blackpool, who promptly closes the place down and 'pinches' the best rides for Blackpool Pleasure Beach. Sefton's Cabinet Member for Tourism, Lord Fearn, certainly knows one heck of a lot more than he's admitting to and is most certainly hiding facts that are most 'controversial' to say the least.
At a Southport Area Committee meeting in 2006 he claimed that the reason for there being no mention of Pleasureland in the infamous "Classic Resorts" brochure (designed and printed long before there was any public announcement of the closure) was that Pleasureland had not paid for an advert. BUT, virtually every other remaining "attraction" (what few are left) did get a mention without payment - and Pleasureland was by far Southport's biggest attraction. He says he did not know in advance of the closure - pull the other one, Ronnie, you knew of it MONTHS in advance, so what else are you hiding? What did you discuss with Blackpool Pleasure Beach operators last summer that you are so keen to keep secret?
Check the contents of the brochure for yourself here.
This town, which was once a true and genuine "Classic Resort", with so many vintage and priceless attractions from years gone by, such as the 1930's wooden cyclone, is being allowed to die slowly and we are made to believe that this is Southport's renaissance. The meaning of "classic" as applied to a car, is saving the best of the past and bringing it back to a high standard, retaining as much of the original as possible. The same meaning is the only one that makes sense when applied to a town. But Sefton Council is allowing this classic heritage to be destroyed and then claiming we will have a classic resort as a result - what sheer and utter nonsense!
See pictures of the sorry state of Pleasureland here.

And now Sefton buys back the remainder of the lease for £7million giving Blackpool owners a £4.5million PROFIT!
Excuse us for being cynical, but just what exactly is going on here?
We do not regret Sefton buying the lease back, BUT what is now NOT going to be built in Southport for lack of that £4.5million?

Chair of Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority praises The Southport Party.
Also: proof of the total contempt shown by the Chair of the Southport Area Committee to Southport.

Sefton's second vote on Housing Transfer - "one of the most shameful incidences of electoral abuse in the history of local government"
See the accusations against Sefton Council on the Defend Council Housing web site.
See the article from the Daily Post of 13th February 2006.

When a Councillor (The Mayor of Sefton) is accused of illegal actions, then he remains in post and has his day in court to have his case heard in the traditional British manner - that is fair - "innocent until proven guilty".
But when Sefton Council accuse several of their constituents of illegal activities during the 1st Housing Ballot, there is no day in court, no evidence is produced and a new ballot is held immediately - what better example can there be of the totally despotic nature of Sefton Council?- "Guilty and we're not even giving you the opportunity to prove your innocence!"

We are vindicated again - Gormley statues cost us £30,000 in year 2005/2006 out of our Council Tax and £45,000 in 2007/2007 - as verified in Council Minutes.
Sefton's spokesperson, whoever that may be, says this is a "non story" !
BUT we reckon this is a complete waste of money at a time where drastic action is being taken to reduce expenditure.
Sefton lied to us about these lumps of rusty iron right from the start.
Sefton Councillors continue to twist the facts by saying they have cost us nothing.
BUT Sefton's Cabinet member for Tourism says that less has been spent on our parks and libraries because they are there.
And the Chief Executive tried to overturn the Planning Committee decision to get rid of them!
The Chief Executive does not seem to realise that he is merely an unelected officer of the council. He should take his orders from the elected councillors, not refer to their decision to have the statues removed as being "CRASS"!

Do you believe that Southport beach is a wonderful area of golden sands upon which numerous awards, symbolised by flags of various colours, have been righteously bestowed?
Or have you actually been down to the beach and seen for yourself the acres of glorious mud and debris, the spread of which is actively encouraged by the nature lovers of Sefton Council who believe that the natural wildlife of this seaside resort should be given far more than their fair share of the coast? This picture shows the disgraceful accumulation of mud and grass right next to where Pleasureland once stood. The 2006 ENCAMS Seaside Award flag can be seen fluttering uselessly in the breeze - view the criteria necessary to get this award here.
We query whether the money spent to get this paper certificate should really have been used to clear up the mess.
With the closure, NO THANKS TO SEFTON COUNCIL, of the sandworks, we may someday be able to have pride in our sands once again. Some signs of the return of clean, fresh sand have actually already been noticed just a few short weeks after sand extraction finished.

Here is deserted Chapel Street at 2pm on the first full day of operation, Monday, 16th January 2006.

The decision to pedestrianise Chapel Street was made in 1998, long before The Southport Party ever existed:
"In October 1998 Sefton Council adopted Transis 2010 as the council’s transportation strategy for Southport. A key element of this strategy was the proposal to pedestrianise Chapel Street." - Appendix 10, Southport South Area Committee, 17th July 2002.

The meeting at the Lord Street West Church on 22nd January, 2003, was merely to discuss the 2 options - partial or a full pedestrianisation. See the minutes of the meeting here.
Liberal Democrat Cllr Simon Shaw still tries to have you believe that this meeting was to decide whether to pedestrianise or not and that our then 3 Councillors voted in favour.
The REAL truth (as opposed to the LibDem untruth) are that Southport Party Councillors proposed at this meeting for a trial to be held. Other Councillors agreed with this, BUT: The director of Technical Services said: " The use of a trial had been considered but this would be very difficult to achieve, because you could not divert buses and taxis away from Chapel Street without an interchange facility and it would also be difficult to simulate."
So, now that the scheme is 'nearly' finished,
................ WHERE IS THE BUS INTERCHANGE THEN?
We reckon this is proof that the Director of Technical Services LIED to us - what do you reckon?

Do you believe that this pedestrianisation, if it is EVER finished, will create the extensive and beautiful shopping area promised us, free from traffic, where you can sit and watch the world go by?
Or do you believe that, although this may be perfectly true if you consider Chapel Street in isolation, the numerous problems created here and elsewhere far outweigh the limited benefits?
These include increased traffic on Lord Street and St Lukes, Chapel Street becoming a "no go" area at night, removal of disabled parking and any number of other problems that continue to fill the letters pages of the local press.
At the Southport Area Committee of 25th January 2006, officers and councillors alike seemed very pleased with the way the scheme was progressing. Ever since they have told us how wonderful it is. We still remain sceptical, considering the numerous problems that continue to plague this scheme.