Probably. I’ve been reading the legal take on it and they can plausibly make it go away. The constitution is ambiguous in a couple of relevant ways.
On the other hand, the SCOTUS justices are manufactured by a more establishment wing of the republican movement, so there’s always a hope they might take the opportunity to deal with Trump in a way that doesn’t turn all his supporters against the party. Although he appointed three of them.. they aren’t his people and they aren't there to serve his agenda.
P.S. You are all going to have to show pay restraint, despite your rapidly shrinking standard of living, if we are going to combat this pesky inflation (while we scrap caps on price rises, and aid the banks in making a few extra quid on your burgeoning debt). We are the party of the economy and business. Mainly business, obviously...they pay the bills.
There have been no updates provided on the tory governments dismantling of the emergency services, and criminal justice system. Remember the drill. We take your money, we make it your problem. Society is dead, the cash goes to our business partners instead. Less to follow.
I mean.. isn’t that literally what has happened? The market provided, and the people said ‘you needn’t have bothered’. Investors lost their money, we all move on. Unless you want the government to lose money trying out scooter scheme that don’t work, this seems fine and very ordinary indeed.
Depends whether you are trying to provide public infrastructure, that has benefits to other activity in the social and commercial marketpklace....or whether you are just trying to make a profit out of a independent monopoly contract.
Public transport / infrastructure (which I'm classifying this as) shouldn't need to make a profit. Especially when the mode we're subsidising is good for the climate.