Dom Tristram's Soapbox copertina

Dom Tristram's Soapbox

Dom Tristram's Soapbox

Di: Dom Tristram
Ascolta gratuitamente

3 mesi a soli 0,99 €/mese

Dopo 3 mesi, 9,99 €/mese. Si applicano termini e condizioni.

A proposito di questo titolo

 Dom Tristram presents his thoughts on UK news, politics and current affairs.

domtristram.substack.comDom Tristram Politica e governo Scienze politiche
Episodi
  • 'Trump Gaza'

    'Trump Gaza'
    Feb 26 2025

    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
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    1 min
  • Labour Government Paves the Way for Large Scale NHS Privatisation: A Critical Look at Increased Private Healthcare Use

    Labour Government Paves the Way for Large Scale NHS Privatisation: A Critical Look at Increased Private Healthcare Use
    Jan 7 2025
    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...
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    7 min
  • Farage, Reform UK, and the Billionaire Double Standard

    Farage, Reform UK, and the Billionaire Double Standard
    Dec 18 2024

    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 Thought

    If 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
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    1 min
Ancora nessuna recensione