Dom Tristram's Soapbox

You’ve probably seen the news over the past couple of days: Reform has been floating the idea of concentrating people going through the asylum and immigration system into camps, and then deliberately placing those camps in areas controlled by the Greens, as a form of (what they consider to be) political punishment for Green-voting constituencies.It’s abhorrent. It’s also almost certainly never going to happen, because the cost would be astronomical. But that’s not really the point, and if we stop at “this is outrageous,” we miss what’s actually going on.First, it’s a distraction. A useful one, too, given that £5 million given to Farage wasn’t declared. Second, and this is the part worth paying close attention to, the legislative agenda sitting behind this proposal is openly published on Reform’s own website, and it’s far more insidious.So let’s talk about what that legislation actually does.Reform’s proposed laws wouldn’t just remove rights from asylum seekers or immigrants. They would remove rights from you, regardless of your nationality or immigration status.The package includes stripping away court oversight of detention, and removing Britain from the ECHR and any international body capable of scrutinising what the government does or protecting individuals from state action. What that means in practice is this: without judicial oversight and without international accountability, a potential Reform government gains the power to detain anyone indefinitely, without charge, and without meaningful legal recourse.When people hear “camps,” they tend to assume the policy is aimed at someone else: people of other colours, religions, or nationalities. That’s the political framing Reform relies on, but the legal infrastructure they’re proposing doesn’t work that way. Rights removed from one group are rights removed from everyone. A state empowered to detain people indefinitely without oversight is a state empowered to detain you.I don’t think Farage and most of his party are motivated primarily by racism. I think they want power. I think they find liberal democracy inconvenient, and I think they are perfectly willing to appeal to people who resent minorities in order to build the coalition they need. They hold those voters in contempt - they’re a means to an end. The end is fewer constraints on power.If you support dismantling democratic safeguards because you dislike other people having rights, you should understand that those safeguards are also the only thing protecting yours.History has a consistent lesson here. The removal of democratic oversight, the normalisation of indefinite detention, the weakening of independent courts… these things have never, in any country, remained targeted only at the originally intended group. They expand. They always expand.Indefinite detention in camps, with no court oversight and no international accountability, is not a slippery slope argument, it’s a description of what’s on the table. It deserves to be called what it is, and it deserves to be taken seriously by everyone, whatever their politics. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

Transcript:One of the current bugbears of the Right seems to be solar farms, because obviously they don’t like the idea of energy we make ourselves cheaply. Their main criticism seems to be about the “good quality agricultural land” that’s going to be “wasted”. There’s lots of reasons to argue against that - you can still use the land for agriculture - but there’s one thing I wanted to flag up: solar farms are about 0.1% of land.Now, there’s something that’s very elitist, and used by very few people, that’s also using agricultural land… but 20 times more than solar farms. Can you think of what that might be? It’s not making clean energy. It’s used almost exclusively by very wealthy people and not very often.I’ll tell you what it is - golf courses. Golf courses take up about 2% of the land in England completely unproductively.So, consider what it is you really are objecting to when you’re objecting to solar farms, because to be consistent you should be objecting 20 times more to golf courses. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

You might remember some of the really pretty awful things Trump has been saying about Gaza: how he was going to get all the Garzas out and redevelop it as what sounded like a resort of his own. Well… have you seen what he put out on social media just today?Here are the lyrics:Donald’s come set you free,bringing delight all to seeNo more tunnels, no more fear,Trump Gaza is finally here.Trump Gaza, shining bright,golden future, a brand new light.Feast and dance the deal is done,Trump Gaza is number one.Trump Gaza shining bright,Golden future of brand new light,feast and dance the deal is done,Trump Gaza, number one. The visuals are worse than the lyrics though - they feature an enormous golden statue of Trump himself in an imaginary beach resort built (presumably) in Gaza. The video ends with Trump lazing in a pool next to Benjamin Netanyahu.Now, I'm not going to apologise for ripping off and uploading Donald Trump's content. Obviously he didn't create this. It was some… ‘fan’? I don't know. It is clearly AI generated, but he has actively chosen to put it on multiple social media platforms. That’s a lot more than clicking ‘share’. Just look at the content in that video and tell me that's what you want the president of the USA to be doing. Or thinking. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

Yesterday (6th January 2025) the Labour government announced of a significant increase in the use of private healthcare providers to address NHS waiting lists. While some may argue this is a pragmatic response to backlogs, the implications of this policy confirm a deeper, more troubling shift.A Pattern of PrivatisationI have long pointed to the Labour Party’s pro-privatisation stance, but this warning has all too often fallen on deaf ears, both of Labour activists and some voters. I can’t tell you how many times I have been at hustings or meetings about the NHS where people simply don’t believe that Labour, the self-styled ‘party of the NHS’ has anything but the best of intentions for it and keeping it public.However, this is not the case. Even under Corbyn (who supported the Bill as a back bencher) the Labour Party was whipped to abstain on the NHS Reinstatement Bill, which would have put removing profits from NHS service into law.Wes Streeting, the Shadow Health Secretary, has consistently shown sympathy towards private healthcare, and the Labour Party has received sizeable donations from private health companies. Yesterday’s announcement underscores a fundamental issue: the NHS is being incrementally handed over to private firms, under the guise of efficiency and backlog reduction.This is not a short-term solution. Once private providers become even more entrenched in NHS operations, they are unlikely to leave. NHS money—already stretched to its limit—is being funnelled into private pockets, with no new funding in sight. For those who argue that private providers will simply vanish once waiting lists are cleared, the reality is far from it. Their presence will likely expand, creating a system where profit motives increasingly dictate healthcare provision.The Staff Shortage ProblemOne of the key flaws in this approach is the misconception that private hospitals can offer additional capacity. Private healthcare providers do not conjure up new staff; they largely rely on NHS-trained consultants, many of whom divide their time between public and private work. As private workloads increase, NHS capacity inevitably suffers. The problem isn’t a lack of facilities but a chronic shortage of staff—a situation exacerbated by diverting personnel to more lucrative private roles.Skimming Profits from Routine ProceduresEven if we were to assume that private healthcare provides genuine extra capacity, this policy creates another financial burden for the NHS. Private providers typically focus on straightforward, high-volume procedures like hip and knee replacements—the very services where NHS hospitals can generate a modest surplus to offset the losses from more complex and costly treatments, such as emergency care or cancer therapies.By outsourcing routine operations, the NHS loses this vital revenue stream, making it even harder to sustain essential but less ‘profitable’ services. The result? NHS hospitals will struggle even more, while private firms profit.Shiny Private Facilities vs. Crumbling NHS InfrastructureIt’s easy to see why patients might prefer private hospitals, with their modern facilities. But this shouldn’t be a choice forced upon them due to the government’s neglect of NHS infrastructure. My partner works in a typical, tired and crumbling NHS hospital where wards are sometimes closed because of plumbing disasters—a problem that could easily be resolved with proper investment in capital projects. Yet, funding for such improvements is sorely lacking.Instead of funnelling money into private hospitals, the government should be investing in NHS facilities, expanding capacity, and addressing the maintenance backlog. Shiny private hospitals might appear appealing in the short term, but they represent a long-term erosion of the NHS’s ability to provide universal, equitable care.A Bold Solution: Nationalise Private HospitalsThe Labour government claims there is no alternative to private sector involvement, but history tells us otherwise. When the NHS was founded, private hospitals were brought into public ownership to ensure universal healthcare. If we truly want to expand NHS capacity, the solution is simple: nationalise private hospitals and integrate them into the public healthcare system.This approach would immediately bolster NHS capacity without diverting funds to profit-driven providers. Anything less is a tacit admission that the government prioritises private profit over public health.What Can You Do?To combat this privatisation agenda, take action now. Write to your Labour MP or local Labour Party and express your opposition to private sector outsourcing. Make it clear that their stance on this issue will influence your vote. Even if you’ve never voted Labour, they won’t know—what matters is the pressure from constituents.Additionally, consider supporting a party that unequivocally opposes NHS privatisation. As a former Green Party candidate, I believe the Greens are the only party in England committed to removing private firms from the NHS and restoring it as a public service.Your vote is your voice—use it to demand a healthcare system that prioritises people over profit.The future of the NHS depends on our collective action. If we fail to stand against these policies now, privatisation will continue, and the core principles of our healthcare system will be eroded beyond recognition.Vote for what you believe in, and fight for a truly public NHS. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

Nigel Farage and Reform UK have previously criticised the influence of billionaires (and ‘foreigners’ such as President Obama) on British politics. On donations from billionaires - I agree! It’s not ideal for a democracy to have its political landscape shaped by the whims of the ultra-rich. But, as is so often the case, there’s a twist when it comes to Farage and his ‘principles’.While he has spoken against the influence of billionaires in politics, it seems this moral stance doesn’t extend to all billionaires. Reform UK, under Farage’s guidance, is reportedly open to receiving funding from none other than Elon Musk—the richest man on the planet. Musk is no ordinary billionaire either; he’s the textbook definition of excessive wealth, with enough money to fund political movements on a scale no one else could match.So what’s going on here? Reform UK’s supposed principles about money in politics seem to evaporate when the cheque comes from someone they like… or is it more to do with a bias of the hard Right in general about the ‘right sort’ of people being involved in politics?Soros vs Musk: What’s the Difference?This brings us to the apparent inconsistency. Reform UK and Farage have no issue with Musk potentially funnelling millions into their coffers. Yet, when it comes to Jewish-born philanthropist George Soros, the mood changes dramatically. For years, Soros has been a lightning rod for criticism from the hard right, accused of everything from funding liberal causes to orchestrating shadowy global conspiracies—a favourite target of far-right conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, Musk, a Christian-born billionaire, has emerged as something of a darling for the libertarian and conservative crowd, despite his increasing advocacy of fringe conspiracy theories and blatant disinformation when it comes to UK politics. More worryingly, he controls a social media platform that many use for ‘news’ and controls what they get to see.Reform UK proudly declares its commitment to “free speech” and insists that all political opinions deserve airtime, yet they seem comfortable with this glaring double standard.A Question of Bias?So what’s the difference? Could it be that Soros, who supports liberal and progressive causes, doesn’t align with Reform UK’s hard-right agenda? Is it simply a case of accepting support only from those who share their views? Or is there something more troubling at play?The contrast between Soros and Musk raises uncomfortable questions. Why is one billionaire demonised while the other is courted? Why is it acceptable for Musk to spend eye-watering sums on influencing politics, but not Soros?And let’s not ignore the broader context. Anti-Semitic undertones have long haunted the far-right’s obsession with George Soros. The vilification of Soros, often laced with conspiracy theories, has roots that go beyond political disagreement. It’s worth asking: does Reform UK’s stance on Soros versus Musk reflect a deeper bias?Food for ThoughtIf Reform UK genuinely believes that billionaires should not have undue influence on UK politics, they ought to reject donations from both Musk and Soros—or any other ultra-wealthy individual. Otherwise, their claims of principle look more like a convenient smokescreen.As voters, we should be asking these questions, especially when hypocrisy rears its head. Because at the heart of this issue isn’t just Reform UK or Nigel Farage—it’s the integrity of our political system and how easily it can be bought.What do you think? Why does Soros spark so much ire in the hard right that Musk seems to escape? And what does this double standard say about Reform UK’s commitment to free speech and democracy? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

In case you missed it, the government has just approved the sale of a majority stake in Royal Mail to Czech billionaire Daniel Kretinsky's EP Group. This means that one of the UK’s most historic institutions will now be predominantly owned by a foreign national. Many were surprised by this news, with some mistakenly believing this marks the start of Royal Mail’s privatisation. However, the truth is that this process began years ago.A Brief History of PrivatisationRoyal Mail was privatised in stages between 2013 and 2015, spearheaded by Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats during the coalition government. It’s worth noting that the Lib Dems, often perceived as a moderate or progressive party, lean quite heavily towards free-market economics, similar to the Conservatives. This sale was a continuation of their economic philosophy, and now we’re seeing the consequences of that decision unfold.The recent government deliberations weren’t about whether Royal Mail should be privatised—they consider that ship as long since sailed—but whether foreign companies or individuals should be allowed to own what remains a vital part of the UK’s infrastructure.The Problem with Privatising a Natural MonopolyRoyal Mail is what economists refer to as a “natural monopoly.” Simply put, it’s nearly impossible for another company to replicate its reach and infrastructure, especially when it comes to letters. While parcels are a more competitive market, the universal postal service—a commitment to deliver letters anywhere in the UK for the same price—is a unique obligation.The government has ensured that this universal service requirement will remain for at least five years under the new ownership. But after that? Who knows?I want to be very clear about what I believe about this and similar sell-offs: vital infrastructure like Royal Mail, healthcare, and public transport should not be privately owned. The argument that privatisation makes services more efficient simply doesn’t hold up. Has Royal Mail become better since it was privatised in 2013? Has it become cheaper? The answer to both questions is a resounding “no.” By every objective measure, the service has deteriorated.Infrastructure Shouldn’t Be About ProfitNatural monopolies like Royal Mail should exist to serve the public, not to generate profit. Expecting services that are essential to daily life to turn a profit is nonsensical. Do we expect pavements in our towns or schools to be profitable? No, because they’re fundamental to a functioning society. I say ‘we’ because I think this is what the vast majority of the public believe, but unfortunately we are seeing this push form all the big parties for schools to be ‘profitable’ via ‘academisation’. It shows how dangerous this thinking is - it can lead to real problems, where everything is about money rather than public good.Royal Mail plays a critical role in the economy, enabling businesses to send letters and parcels at a consistent cost, regardless of the recipient’s location. Without this universal pricing, businesses would face chaos—imagine having to get a bespoke quote for every letter you wanted to send!This consistency is something a private company, driven by the need for profit, struggles to maintain. It’s not commercially viable to offer uniform pricing for deliveries to both central London and remote parts of Scotland, but it is vital for the country as a whole.Labour’s Missed OpportunityYou might think that a Labour government, theoretically more sympathetic to public ownership, would have stepped in to address this. But today’s Labour isn’t the party of the 1970s; it’s not committed to left-wing policies in the way many assume and hope for. In fact, the decision to allow this sale reflects a broader ideological consensus across most of the political spectrum: an embrace of privatisation and market forces, even for services that should remain public.This isn’t a problem exclusive to the Conservatives or Reform. The Liberal Democrats initiated the privatisation, and Labour, despite being nominally on the left, hasn’t challenged the broader trend.A Green Party PerspectiveThe Green Party remains one of the few political voices advocating for public ownership of vital services. Whether it’s water, transport, or the postal service, the Greens argue that these essential elements of our infrastructure should be run for the public, not for profit.As a Green, I’ve been saying this for years: the UK needs to rethink its approach to public services. Universal services like Royal Mail aren’t just businesses—they’re the backbone of our society. Allowing them to be sold off to the highest bidder, whether they’re British or foreign, erodes that foundation.The Future of Royal MailSo, where does this leave us? For the next five years, the universal service obligation will remain. But after that, there are no guarantees. Will we still be able to post a letter for the same price to anywhere in the UK? It seems unlikely.Royal Mail’s infrastructure is unmatched, and no competitor is likely to replicate it, particularly for letters. The further we drift towards a fully privatised, profit-driven model, the more we risk losing the basic, dependable service we’ve taken for granted.What Can Be Done?If you’re frustrated by this, the solution is simple: stop voting tactically. Vote for what you believe in. Vote for what this country truly needs. Poll after poll shows that a large majority of the public believe that public services should be publicly owned and yet they often fail to connect that with how they vote.The Greens are one of the few parties standing firm on the principle that public services should be run by the public, for the public.The sale of Royal Mail is just one example of how we’re chipping away at the fabric of our society. Bit by bit, vital services are being handed over to private interests, often to the detriment of the public. This ideology isn’t about efficiency—it’s about profit. And it’s an ideology shared by parties across the political spectrum.If we want to see real change, we need to demand it—from all parties, not just one. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

I set out today to discuss the Conservative Party leadership election here in the UK and the implications of our new Tory leader. However, as events have unfolded across the Atlantic, my initial plan feels a bit trivial in light of the bigger picture. Like many, I presumed—perhaps naively—that the American election would head in a different direction.Yet, here we are: Donald Trump has won.While the outcome of the Conservative leadership contest certainly holds significance within British politics, it pales in comparison to the potential ramifications of Trump’s return to power. The issues we face with certain Tory figures, however controversial or disagreeable they may be, cannot compare to the scale of dismay surrounding Trump. Unlike Conservative leaders, Trump openly denies climate change, has a history of convictions and accusations of sexual assault, and is embroiled in controversies ranging from mishandling state secrets to even more shocking accusations. Despite any criticism one might level at Kamala Harris or the American Democrats, the contrast in leadership styles and values between the two parties is stark.Certainly, I have my qualms with the American Democrats. They aren’t truly left-leaning, and their pro-Israel stance, particularly regarding the ongoing Gaza conflict, is far from something I align with. Nonetheless, whoever they put forward—whether it’s Biden, who many argue is too old, or Harris, with her policy positions that I can’t support—is fundamentally better for democracy than someone with Trump’s record. Here is a man who openly admits to behaviour many would find repulsive, has mused about using military force against his political opponents, and has even chosen a running mate who has questioned the voting rights of childless women. It’s a surreal scenario, almost like something out of a dark political satire.When Trump lost the last election, he didn’t just concede quietly; he attempted a coup.The images of him hoarding classified documents in his bathroom, allegedly sharing secrets with foreign powers, paint an astonishingly grim picture. Meanwhile, figures like Elon Musk and other so-called ‘crypto bros’ are aligning themselves with Trump, seeing in him an easily manipulable figure who could serve their interests. It brings to mind the oligarchs in 1990s Russia, only this time it’s in America, with the ultra-wealthy vying to consolidate power.Some might try to dismiss this outcome with the assurance that it’s only four years, and people will see reason in time. Yet, America’s political landscape doesn’t work that way.The politically appointed Supreme Court is already stacked in the Republicans’ favour, and within the next four years, Trump could appoint additional justices. This would likely solidify a hard-right majority, capable of dismantling rights and protections long held dear by many Americans. Even if something were to happen to Trump, his influence would remain entrenched in the judiciary and the Senate for years, shaping policy far beyond his own tenure.What’s particularly staggering is that this time, Trump might even have won the popular vote, a feat he didn’t achieve in his first election. It’s baffling to think that so many could support a figure who openly disregards democratic principles and exhibits disdain for so many groups within his own voter base—women, non-white citizens, and immigrants, to name a few. It’s enough to make Brexit seem like a minor hiccup in comparison.While I still hold the belief that people are generally decent, albeit sometimes misled, today has sorely tested that faith. Watching the outcome of this election unfold, I find myself deeply concerned about what lies ahead. America’s leadership doesn’t only impact its own citizens but has a ripple effect on global issues—especially the climate crisis and conflicts in places like Ukraine.In any case, here we are on November 6th, faced with an unpredictable and turbulent path ahead. Perhaps, when the dust settles, I’ll muster the energy to revisit the topic of the Tory leadership. But for now—well, let’s just brace ourselves. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

Earlier this week I had an appointment to go to my GP for my annual flu and Covid vaccinations. The vaccinations themselves were very well organised and I was in and out of the surgery within five minutes.On the walk home I started to think about how lucky I am, compared with so many in the UK, that I can walk from my front door to my GP in less than five minutes. It made the whole thing take less than quarter of an hour. How long would it have taken if I had been forced to drive? How many people would find attending their vaccinations difficult if they had to? This is especially important for seasonal vaccinations given that many of the people receiving them are older.The concept of a 15 minute city is very simple: all necessary services should be within 15 minutes active travel from your home. Obviously this is difficult to achieve in rural areas, but in anything larger than a small town it is absolutely possible. Not only is it possible, but it is desirable - why shouldn’t everyone enjoy what I experienced with my very quick visit to my GP today? Unfortunately there is money and electoral gains to be made by making people fear that the 15 minute city concept is more something more sinister. This is a real shame, because so many of us would have our quality of life improved if the concept was applied in every town and city.If you want to read more about the ideas behind the concept, this is a good start. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com

We need to talk about what the Tories are doing when it comes to the environment and how dangerous it is. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit domtristram.substack.com