Can this government really continue?

Paywalled, I'm afraid, nonnie

Sorry about the referendum confusion.

I think that should there be another one it should be much more carefully thought out. The 2016 one was a disaster from the start.

Maizie what is 'Paywalled'? Sorry never heard of it.

Sorry,*nonnie*, just realised that I've responded to the wrong person about the link to the Times story. Should have been notanan

'Paywalled' is shorthand for 'the article is behind a paywall'

trisher presumably you only know about TFL and not the others, I have no detail of any of them and you are as well able to look it up as I am. If you read my original post (might be a good idea before you criticise me) you will see that I was talking about nationalisation of rail services. Normally one would assume that if the rail services were nationalised they would be nationalised. If you suggested that nationalising the water companies would exclude Thames Water would that make sense? I don't think there is anything unreasonable about my suggestion I think your suggestion that TFL would be excluded from nationalisation is irrational. London already gets a lot more funding in some areas e.g the Arts, I don't think any government would dare to show favouritism with rail services.

I would appreciate it if you would not interpret what I wrote. I am not 'worried' about it and didn't imply I was.

You have expressed what you would 'personally' do but I was not speaking for myself.

Of course we would all like a 'reasonably priced national rail travel for everyone' but that is not going to happen. Those of you in London and other large conurbations are well served by public transport, as am I, but should the tax payers in parts of the country that are not well served subsidise us? I can't believe you think that is fair.

Nonnie a nationalised service is a publicly owned one. Arguably TFL is already publicy owned being run by the local government. Therefore no need to nationalise it. I would have thought before commenting about nationalisation you would actually find out what it means. TFL is run as a not-for profit organisation. So perhaps a blueprint for a nation wide rail system.
It is possible to run a reasonably priced rail system and make a profit which is ploughed back into the infastructure and not into shareholders dividends. The idea that a rail system can be run as a competitive market economy is ridiculous and has proved completely unworkable.

trisher perhaps I should break down the word nationalise so you understand it. Nation alise, the whole nation not everyone except those who have a good, subsidised service in London. Public ownership and nationalisation are different things. Obvious?

"It is possible to run a reasonably priced rail system and make a profit which is ploughed back into the infastructure (sic)" but has that ever happened to the UK as a whole? No, in fact TFL has, at times, been held to ransom by train drivers. Our rail system is better now than it was when it was private. If our rail service is nationalised it will be an experiment and only time will tell if it works. It is a simplification to assume that if there is no profit motive it will work better. Our public sector doesn't always work better than the private sector.

I note there is no apology for your misinterpretation of what I said.

Nonnie I suggest you do a little research into the history of the franchises, particularly the East Coast line. Then perhaps you will understand a little more about how inadequate privatisation has been. You might also consider the huge increases in fares which mean for many people travel to work is becoming completely unaffordable. Some of us also consider that the rail system is a service and therefore should serve the people who use it.
As it is we are funding a rail system from the public purse which pays money into private pockets.
Train operators’ total UK income in 2015-16 was £12.4bn, including fares and government subsidy, according to the Office of Rail and Road, while expenditure was £12.1bn, only £285m short of that. Dividends paid last year included £15m to Deutsche Bahn via Arriva Wales, £20m to Northern owner (until April 2016) Abellio, and a share of £59m from Govia’s franchises to SNCF. A 2013 report by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change at the University of Manchester found that the Wales and Northern franchises had paid out similar levels of dividend, £176m, between 2007 and 2011, accounting for all of their profits – profits that wouldn’t exist without £2.5bn in government subsidies
And this is a good system?.

trisher I suggest you apply a little common sense and discuss what I said and not what you wanted to think I said. I talked about nationalisation of railways and what effect that might have on the free passes of those in the big conurbations. You asserted that those privileged to live in London would be a special case and unaffected. I don't agree. That would be a disastrous decision by the Labour party and is totally illogical. You have not answered my observations, you have gone off at various tangents.

It would appear that you live in London and are blind to what life is like for those who don't have all your advantages. This is not unusual, I have heard MPs talk about the Freedom Pass as if every older person in the country got it. Life outside the M25 seems to be difficult for some to understand.

Actually I don't live anywhere near London Nonnie the fact you think that shows how much attention you have been paying to my posts
If you can't win an argument accuse someone of being something they certainly are not.

The OP asked "can this government really continue?"

In normal times the answer would be NO.

However we do not live in normal times. We have a minority government propped up by the DUP, unreconstructed bigots who most certainly do not represent the remain-voting majority in NI.

We have a dishonest incompetent PM who laid down ridiculous "red lines" which made any sensible negotiation impossible, appointed even more incompetent leave campaigner Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox to key positions, took a whole year negotiating with her own cabinet without any idea what they were trying to achieve, recklessly invoked Article 50 with no idea what kind of deal could possibly be negotiated, and is even now wasting time as we approach the dreadful deadline she herself imposed.

It is about time we restored some semblence of normality in this country. Our elected MPs should do their duty and revoke Article 50 as soon as TM's shoddy deal is defeated.

I have an incredulous sinking feeling that even after she is out-voted, TM is going to persist - she seems to have an obsession with the idea that she will go down in history as the PM who took us out of the EU.

Thanks for returning to the original question varian , it still seems extraordinary to me that anyone can support a government which is in such disarray and which has used such underhand tactics to cling to power.
Can you imagine if Labour had done some deal with the Sinn Fein MPs, persuaded them to take their seats and used them to cling to power? There would have been a huge outcry!!

I've seen on twitter that she is going to persist. That her 'Plan B' is to bring the same deal back to Parliament

She's certainly showing the way to dictatorship in the UK isn't particularly difficult. Just ignore Parliament.

varian

"However we do not live in normal times. We have a minority government propped up by the DUP, unreconstructed bigots who most certainly do not represent the remain-voting majority in NI"
---

I asked this question on another thread :-

" Out of interest.
I
Is it the hatred/dislike of the DUP that some object to or is it the ' principal' behind the practice of ' Confidence and Supply' that posters object to?

If it is not the hatred/dislike of the DUP then how will those who keep expressing their view it is some sort of taudry affair feel if Labour won the next General Election but with no overall majority so Labour required to use the ' Confidence and Supply' of another party, possibly the SNP?

Surely if it is the ' principal' some object to then Labour would be eligible for criticism also. Or is it dependent on partisan politics and a view can alter to suit?

Some prefer Proportional Representation but does the thought of Coalition Government really suit? Proportional Representation would have possibly seen a sizeable UKIP representation or the like, would that really suit?"
---

Your continued use of name calling and using the word 'bigots' leads me to believe it is indeed hatred/dislike of a political party that you have a problem with rather than 'propping up a minority government'.

If Labour should happen to require a 'Confidence and Supply' agreement with the SNP and the Lib Dems I take it the 'principle' of 'Supply and Confidence' will be a perfectly acceptable thing to do because of your political alignment.

POGS if we are to have a group parallel to the DUP it should of course be Sinn Fein and not any of the other smaller parties which have similar political manifestos and aims to the main parties. But the real question is of course is it ever acceptable to buy votes by making millions available to a particular area of the UK. In my opinion it isn't.
As for the DUP I do find some of their political views particularly on abortion and same sex marriage unacceptable.

trisher

" Can you imagine if Labour had done some deal with the Sinn Fein MPs, persuaded them to take their seats and used them to cling to power? There would have been a huge outcry!!

Perhaps that is not such a far fetched prospect in the future. Who knows but you do make a valid point.

The question would still be the same though! Is it OK for '
' Confidence and Supply ' agreements in principle and if the answer is yes then playing partisan politics is merely that.

Not sure how you circumnavigate the issue as without
' Confidence and Supply ' or coalitions Parliament would come to a halt.

I've only lived in areas which had longstanding Conservative MPs, unbeknown to me at the time.
I can say that those areas were never failing, doctors surgeries were efficient and accommodated last minute appointments, good hospitals with reasonable waiting times, well staffed libraries and above average schools and public services.
I, however, have voted them in on only a few occasions.

varian wasn’t wise of the Libs to propped up a minority government was it? Kept Cammeron in No 10 and lost so many members who felt betrayed, who were betrayed.

True annie but maybe DC would have been even worse without some restraint from Lib Dems.

Well trisher you ignored my question asking if you lived in London and you knew all about TFL but none of the other services in large conurbations. With your refusal to answer I made a natural assumption. Clearly "that shows how much attention you I have been paying to -my your posts"

You accused me of worrying when I clearly had not so I return the accusation "If you can't win an argument accuse someone of being something they certainly are not." My assumption was based on something yours was based on nothing.

What a waste of time. No logic, no answers so I have better people to give my time to.

POGS there is a history of coalition governments, what makes this particular deal different is the involvement of money. In my opinion that is a completely different scenario to 2 or more parties working together to acheive a common aim or introduce agreed policies.
Nonnie I know a lot about the Suffragettes and their activities 1909-1914. I even dress as one sometimes. It doesn't mean I was one.
Google is great!!!

When did labour go into a coalition with Sinn Fein? They haven’t. Of course there would be an outcry if that happened. Why do you argue that a hypothetical situation is justification for an actual one?

I think should Corbyn was to win the next election Sinn Fein may take their seats in the house, they want NI out of the U.K. and said said on his visit to NI last year he wants the same.

Why not crystaltipps? Have you no interest in why people find it acceptable for the government to be propped up by a political party that was bought and that has such archaic policies? And that interestingly still has links to organisations still committing murders in N. Ireland. (But we only condemn the IRA on here don't we?) www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/11/arlene-fosters-stance-on-paramilitary-groups-brought-into-question

trisher

"POGS there is a history of coalition governments, what makes this particular deal different is the involvement of money."
----

What if it was a party offering ' Independence' to another party such as the ?

What if it were a party that offering ' a United Country'?

I could go on. To get a ' Supply and Confidence' agreement you will probably have offered something.

I find it totally hypocritical of some, or possibly they forget, Labour under Gordon Brown tried to do a ' Confidence and Supply' agreement with the DUP when there was a hung parliament back in 2010. Wasn't it also an offer ' involving money'?

Did you think that was OK?