Rachel Reeves’ Tax Raid: The Death Knell for British Businesses

 

In a move that will be remembered as a masterclass in economic self-sabotage, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has unleashed a fiscal storm that is tearing through Britain’s high streets, shuttering businesses and crushing livelihoods. The latest casualty? Beales, one of Britain’s oldest department stores, which, after 144 years of trading, is holding a “Rachel Reeves Closing Down Sale” in its final outlet in Poole, Dorset. The store’s chief executive, Tony Brown, has pinned the blame squarely on Reeves’ “punitive” tax hikes, specifically a £200,000 increase in costs driven by her National Insurance (NI) and minimum wage rises. This isn’t just a single store’s tragedy—it’s a grim omen of what’s unfolding across the UK, as Reeves’ policies choke the life out of businesses already battered by years of economic turbulence.

 

Founded in Bournemouth in 1881, Beales was a retail institution, a symbol of British high street resilience. Its closure in May 2025 marks the end of an era, with Brown stating that the business, which employs 30 people in Poole, was rendered “unviable” by Reeves’ October Budget. The Chancellor’s decision to raise employer NI contributions from 13.8% to 15% and lower the threshold for payments from £9,100 to £5,000 has piled unbearable costs onto businesses, particularly those like Beales that rely on modest margins and local loyalty. Add to that a 6.7% minimum wage hike—from £11.44 to £12.21 per hour for workers over 21—and a reduction in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, and you have a recipe for collapse. Brown’s posters, plastered across Beales’ windows with Reeves’ face and the tagline “Rachel Reeves’ closing down sale, up to 80% off, everything must go,” are less a marketing stunt than a desperate cry from an industry on its knees.

 

The numbers are stark. Beales’ £200,000 cost increase is not an outlier but a microcosm of the broader devastation. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) estimates that Reeves’ Budget will cost the retail sector £7 billion annually, with £2.3 billion from NI hikes, £2.7 billion from minimum wage increases, and £2 billion from other levies. A Bank of England survey found that 54% of businesses plan to raise prices to cope, while 53% expect to cut staff and 41% anticipate slashing wages—directly contradicting Reeves’ claim that her NI raid wouldn’t hit workers’ pay. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projects that 76% of the NI cost will be passed onto employees through lower wage growth, equating to a £600 hit per worker by 2026-27. Far from protecting “working people,” as Labour promised, Reeves is squeezing them from both ends: higher prices and stagnant pay.

 

Beales’ story is echoed across the UK. Marks & Spencer faces a £120 million hit, half from NI increases, prompting its CEO to “rework” long-term plans. Tesco is grappling with a £250 million NI burden, while smaller firms like WH Pubs in Kent, employing 150 people, describe the changes as “the hardest thing” to hit hospitality. UKHospitality warns that the NI threshold cut will drag 750,000 low-wage workers into the tax net, costing the sector £1 billion and making some minimum-wage jobs “unviable.” From pubs to retailers, the message is clear: Reeves’ policies are a sledgehammer to industries already weakened by online competition, high rents, and post-Covid recovery struggles.

 

Reeves defends her Budget as necessary to plug a £22 billion “black hole” in public finances—a figure the OBR has not endorsed and which critics argue is a convenient excuse for ideological tax grabs. Her claim to be “pro-business” rings hollow when the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that her NI raid will raise closer to £10 billion than the projected £20 billion, as businesses cut profits, wages, and jobs, shrinking other tax revenues. The Centre for Policy Studies notes that 21.3% of labour costs for minimum-wage workers now go to taxes, the highest on record. This isn’t economic stability—it’s a death spiral for growth.

 

The human cost is palpable in Poole. Shoppers like Di James, a retired council worker, express visceral anger: “I hate [Reeves]! She is taking the heart out of this area.” Long-time customers recall Beales as a “special” place, a community hub where memories were made over decades. Now, they face a high street increasingly dominated by “cafes and vape shops,” as Brown predicts, with the Dolphin Centre’s manager warning that Beales’ closure is part of a wider retail bloodbath. Over 203,000 UK businesses have shuttered since Labour took office, a staggering toll that Reeves seems content to ignore.

 

Reeves’ supporters might argue that raising the Employment Allowance to £10,500 exempts some small firms from NI contributions. But this is cold comfort for mid-sized businesses like Beales, which fall outside such relief yet lack the financial muscle of corporate giants to absorb the costs. Her insistence that household incomes will rise over five years, per OBR forecasts, ignores the immediate pain: job losses, price hikes, and community erosion. The Chancellor’s refusal to heed warnings from the BRC, UKHospitality, and even her own party’s business allies reveals a disconnect bordering on arrogance.

 

The Beales closure is more than a retail footnote; it’s a warning of a high street hollowed out by a Chancellor who prioritissses short-term revenue over long-term prosperity. Reeves’ tax hikes are not just destroying businesses—they’re dismantling the social fabric of towns like Poole. If she continues on this path, the UK risks a future where the only thriving enterprises are those peddling coffee and e-cigarettes, while historic institutions like Beales become distant memories. Shame on Rachel Reeves for turning Britain’s high streets into graveyards.

Spain's Net Zero Failure Serves as a Wake Up Call To The UK

 

What happened in Spain yesterday? On April 28, 2025, Spain witnessed a major energy event: a nationwide blackout.

What was the cause? A massive overload of the electrical grid due to a huge spike in solar production.

What happened?

At around 11:00 AM, Spain’s solar power… pic.twitter.com/UTcSrJRc1T

— Cata Paul (@CataPaul2) April 29, 2025

The fact that the power outage in Spain was caused by the instability of the grid which is over reliant on renewables should serve as a warning klaxon to the cretins in the UK government (ie Miliband and Starmer) who are net zero zealots. 

They will of course ignore this, and try to blame climate change.

Slimy Toad

 

Absolutely *brutal* cut to Rosie Duffield by the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit #PMQs pic.twitter.com/mFhdwJP4ow

— Ben Bloch (@realBenBloch) April 23, 2025

Starmer’s Disastrous Misstep: Appointing Tulip Siddiq as Anti-Corruption Minister

 

Keir Starmer’s leadership has been plagued by questionable decisions, but none so glaringly indefensible as his appointment of Tulip Siddiq as the UK’s anti-corruption minister—a role she held until her resignation in January 2025, only to be followed by a shocking arrest warrant issued by Bangladeshi authorities on April 14, 2025. The warrant, linked to allegations of corruption involving her aunt, the deposed Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, exposes not just Siddiq’s unsuitability for the role but Starmer’s staggering lack of judgement. At a time when the Labour Party promised to restore trust in politics, this appointment has done the opposite, revealing Starmer’s administration as either woefully naive or dangerously complicit in its own ethical blind spots.

The Arrest Warrant: A Predictable Scandal

On April 14, 2025, Bangladeshi authorities issued an arrest warrant for Tulip Siddiq, the MP for Hampstead and Highgate, as part of a broader probe by the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) into the regime of Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted in August 2024. The allegations are serious: Siddiq is accused of illegally receiving land in Dhaka, tied to claims that Hasina and her family embezzled up to £3.9 billion from infrastructure spending. Court documents also allege that Siddiq helped broker a 2013 deal with Russia that inflated the cost of a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh, further enriching her family’s political dynasty.

 

Siddiq has denied the charges, calling them a “politically motivated smear campaign” and insisting she has never owned land in Bangladesh. Her lawyers argue that the ACC has provided no evidence, and Sir Laurie Magnus, the PM’s ethics adviser, previously cleared her of impropriety in January 2025, though he noted her failure to recognise the “potential reputational risks” of her ties to Hasina. But the issuance of an arrest warrant—whether politically motivated or not—casts a long shadow over Siddiq’s credibility, especially in a role meant to champion integrity and combat corruption.

Starmer’s Appointment: A Catastrophic Error in Judgement

Starmer appointed Siddiq as economic secretary to the Treasury with a specific brief to tackle corruption in the City of London—a role dubbed the “anti-corruption minister” by the press—shortly after Labour’s 2024 election victory. The decision was baffling even then, given Siddiq’s well-documented ties to Bangladesh’s political elite. As the niece of Sheikh Hasina, a leader whose 15-year tenure was marked by increasing authoritarianism and corruption allegations, Siddiq was always a walking conflict of interest. A 2015 photograph of her standing alongside Hasina and Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin, during the signing of a billion-dollar nuclear power deal, had already raised red flags within Labour when she was a candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. Yet Starmer, who campaigned on a platform of “cleaning up politics,” ignored these warning signs.

 

The arrest warrant has now turned what was already a questionable appointment into a full-blown scandal. How could Starmer, a former Director of Public Prosecutions who prides himself on his legal acumen, fail to see the reputational disaster waiting to happen? Labour insiders have admitted it was an “own goal,” with one MP quoted in The Guardian asking, “Who on earth thought it was a good idea drawing attention to all that by giving her that job?”. The answer, apparently, is Starmer himself—or at least his chief of staff, Sue Gray, who was tasked with vetting prospective ministers for precisely these kinds of risks.

A Betrayal of Labour’s Promises

Starmer’s 2024 election campaign was built on a pledge to restore trust in British politics after years of Tory scandals, from Partygate to PPE fraud. In a January 2024 speech, he vowed a “total crackdown on cronyism,” promising “no more VIP fast lanes, no more kickbacks for colleagues, no more revolving doors between government and the companies they regulate”. Appointing Siddiq as anti-corruption minister directly undermines that promise. Her familial ties to a regime accused of embezzling billions, combined with the 2013 nuclear deal allegations, make her the antithesis of the clean, transparent governance Starmer claimed to champion.

 

Worse, Starmer’s response to the unfolding scandal has been tepid at best. When Siddiq resigned in January 2025, following initial reports of the ACC investigation, Starmer left the door open for her return, writing in his resignation letter that “the door remains open” for her to rejoin the government. Even after the arrest warrant, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister refused to comment on the case, citing a policy of not addressing individual matters. This reluctance to take a firm stand smacks of political cowardice, further eroding public confidence in Labour’s commitment to ethical governance.

The Wider Pattern: Starmer’s Ethical Blind Spots

Siddiq’s appointment isn’t an isolated lapse—it’s part of a broader pattern of ethical missteps under Starmer’s leadership. In September 2024, Starmer and senior ministers, including Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves, faced criticism for accepting gifts from Labour donors, including £5,000 worth of clothes for Starmer’s wife from Lord Alli. Starmer himself has received £107,145 in gifts and hospitality since 2019, more than two-and-a-half times any other MP, according to Sky News. When challenged, Starmer and his team brushed off the criticism rather than tightening the rules, a move that Martin Kettle in The Guardian called a “blind spot on standards”.

 

This pattern of complacency extended to Siddiq. Labour circled the wagons around her when questions about her property arrangements first arose in 2022, and Starmer’s team failed to conduct proper due diligence before her appointment. The result is a government that appears tone-deaf to the public’s demand for integrity, especially at a time when households are grappling with inflation (currently at 2.8%, projected to hit 3.7% by Q3 2025), rising taxes, and global trade tensions like the U.S.’s 245% tariffs on Chinese imports.

The Fallout: A Damaged Premiership

The arrest warrant has amplified calls for accountability. A Conservative Party spokesman demanded that Siddiq “immediately stand down as Labour MP,” arguing that it’s “shocking that Keir Starmer believes ‘the door remains open’ for Ms. Siddiq returning to a government position”. While the Conservatives’ outrage may be opportunistic—given their own history of ethical scandals—it’s hard to disagree with the sentiment. Siddiq’s continued presence in Parliament, let alone the possibility of her return to government, is a slap in the face to voters who expected better from Labour.

 

Starmer’s handling of the affair has also drawn scrutiny to his successor choice, Emma Reynolds, who replaced Siddiq as City minister. Reynolds, a former lobbyist, has faced questions about her own conflicts of interest, having previously lobbied against restrictions on Chinese businesses. This only deepens the perception that Starmer’s government is more comfortable with cronyism than combating it.

What Starmer Should Have Done—and Must Do Now

Starmer’s first mistake was appointing Siddiq in the first place. Given her ties to Hasina, a basic vetting process should have flagged her as a liability for any role involving anti-corruption. Sue Gray, tasked with preparing Labour for government, failed spectacularly in this regard. Starmer’s second mistake was his reluctance to act decisively when the allegations surfaced. Rather than allowing Siddiq to refer herself to the ethics adviser—a move insiders say she was “leaned on” to do—Starmer should have demanded her resignation immediately.

Now, with the arrest warrant in play, Starmer must take unequivocal action:

 

• Demand Siddiq’s Resignation as MP: If Siddiq won’t step down voluntarily, Starmer should expel her from the Labour Party. Her continued presence undermines Labour’s credibility on anti-corruption.
• Overhaul Vetting Processes: Starmer must ensure that future appointments are rigorously vetted for conflicts of interest, with no exceptions for personal allies or party loyalists.
• Lead by Example: Starmer should address his own ethical lapses, such as the acceptance of donor gifts, by implementing stricter rules for himself and his ministers, as he promised in 2024.
• Apologise to the Public: A public apology for the Siddiq appointment, coupled with a clear plan to restore trust, could help mitigate the damage—though it may be too late to fully repair Starmer’s reputation.

Conclusion: A Leadership in Crisis

Keir Starmer’s appointment of Tulip Siddiq as anti-corruption minister was a catastrophic error, one that has been brutally exposed by the arrest warrant issued against her on April 14, 2025. Far from cleaning up politics, Starmer has presided over a scandal that reeks of the very cronyism and ethical lapses he vowed to eradicate. His failure to vet Siddiq properly, his reluctance to act decisively, and his broader pattern of ethical blind spots have left his premiership on shaky ground, just months into his tenure.

 

The British public deserves better. They voted for a government that would restore trust in politics, not one that would appoint a minister with ties to a corrupt regime—and then dither as her arrest warrant made headlines. Starmer must act swiftly to salvage his credibility, but the damage may already be done. If this is the “change” Labour promised, it’s no wonder voters are losing faith faster than Starmer can say “anti-corruption.”

The Consequences of Raising NI Contributions

 

Labour MPs’ Twitter Stunt Over Steel Vote: A Masterclass in Virtue Signalling

 

On April 12, 2025, the House of Commons was recalled for a rare Saturday session to debate emergency legislation aimed at securing the future of British Steel’s Scunthorpe plant. The vote was critical, no question—thousands of jobs and a cornerstone of British industry hung in the balance. But for Labour MPs, it seems the real priority was not just saving steel but ensuring their followers on X knew they were heroically turning up to work. The flurry of self-congratulatory posts, complete with train selfies and hashtags like #LabourSavesSteel, was less a call to action and more a shameless exercise in virtue signalling. Meanwhile, millions of Britons work Saturdays and antisocial hours without feeling the need to broadcast their efforts to the world. Labour’s MPs should take note: doing your job isn’t a photo op.

 

Let’s set the scene. Parliament was summoned after Chinese owners Jingye threatened to halt raw material shipments, increasing fears of the plant’s collapse. The government’s response—rushing through a bill to take control of the blast furnaces—was a pragmatic move, backed by cross-party support. Yet, Labour MPs couldn’t resist turning a serious moment into a social media circus. Anna Turley, MP for Redcar, posted a sunny video from a train platform, lamenting missing her local football match but assuring followers she was off to “save our steel.” Sarah Sackman KC MP shared a snap from the Northern Line, gushing about the “moving” sight of MPs and staff “dedicating their weekend to democracy.” Preet Kaur Gill MP joined the parade with a train selfie, proclaiming she was “racing” to Westminster to “safeguard British jobs.” The pattern was clear: Labour MPs wanted the public to know they were sacrificing their Saturday for the greater good.

 

Contrast this with the reality for millions of Britons. Nurses clocking into 12-hour shifts, delivery drivers navigating dawn traffic, hospitality workers serving brunch crowds—Saturday is just another workday. Firefighters, retail staff, and factory workers don’t pause to tweet about their commute or demand applause for showing up. According to the Office for National Statistics, over 10 million UK workers regularly take on weekend or shift work, often in gruelling conditions, without a single hashtag. A&E doctors don’t post selfies en route to saving lives; bus drivers don’t film themselves steering through rush hour. Yet Labour MPs, earning £91,346 a year plus expenses, seem to think their one-off trip to Westminster merits a digital pat on the back.

 

The hypocrisy is glaring. These same MPs rarely highlight the daily grind of their constituents—many of whom work antisocial hours in industries like steel, ironically the very sector they were voting to protect. Where are the X posts championing the Scunthorpe steelworkers who’ve toiled weekends for decades? Instead, we get curated glimpses of MPs’ “dedication,” framed to maximise likes rather than reflect reality. It’s not just tone-deaf; it’s insulting. As one X user put it, “You’d think they’d cured cancer after seven days down the pit, not walked through a lobby to vote.” Another quipped, “Labour MPs demanding praise for a Saturday shift while their policies kneecapped steel in the first place—rich.”

 

This isn’t about denying the vote’s importance. Securing British Steel’s future matters deeply, and MPs should be there to make it happen. But the self-aggrandisement cheapens the moment. Posting selfies doesn’t save jobs; it signals a disconnect from the people Labour claims to represent. If Turley, Sackman, and Gill wanted to show solidarity, they could’ve amplified the voices of steelworkers or pushed for long-term industrial strategy, not staged a social media stunt. The #LabourSavesSteel hashtag feels less like a rallying cry and more like a branding exercise, especially when Labour’s broader record on industry—think decades of globalisation policies that hollowed out manufacturing—invites scepticism about their sudden zeal.

 

The steel vote deserved better than being reduced to a backdrop for MPs’ egos. Labour’s leaders should rein in this performative nonsense and focus on substance. Next time, skip the selfies and do the job you’re paid for—quietly, like the millions who don’t need a camera to prove they’re working.

The Government’s Shameful Failure on Grooming Gangs: A Betrayal of Britain’s Most Vulnerable

 

“I cannot tell you how cross I am about it,” Sir Trevor Phillips, the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, declared in a blistering condemnation of the government’s handling of the grooming gang crisis. His words, dripping with justified fury, echo the sentiments of millions who have watched in horror as successive administrations have failed to protect some of the most vulnerable girls in our society. Sir Trevor’s assessment that the government’s response is “utterly, utterly shameful” is not just a critique—it’s a damning indictment of a system that has repeatedly turned its back on victims, prioritising political expediency over justice.

 

For years, the scourge of grooming gangs—more accurately described by J.K. Rowling as “rape gangs”—has cast a dark shadow over towns like Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford, and Oldham. These are not isolated incidents but a systemic failure, one that has seen thousands of young, often working-class girls subjected to unimaginable horrors: rape, torture, and threats of murder. The perpetrators, many of whom have been identified as predominantly Pakistani-heritage men in numerous inquiries, have operated with impunity, emboldened by the inaction of local councils, police forces, and, most disgracefully, the government itself. The Hansard record from January 6, 2025, lays bare the scale of this failure, noting the “deep concern about the scale of the hidden abuse and about the total failure of institutions to respond.” Yet, despite this acknowledgment, the government’s response remains woefully inadequate.

 

Let’s be clear: this is not a new problem. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which cost the previous government over £150 million over seven years, included a two-year investigation into grooming gangs and organised child exploitation. It confirmed what survivors and whistleblowers have been screaming for decades: institutions failed to act, whether in care homes in Rochdale, faith organisations, or even family homes. The inquiry’s findings should have been a clarion call for action. Instead, the government has dithered, deflected, and dodged responsibility, leaving survivors to fend for themselves while perpetrators walk free. The fact that further work is only now being “taken forward” in places like Oldham is a slap in the face to victims who have waited years for justice.

 

And then there’s Jess Phillips, the Labour MP who has built a public persona as a champion of women and girls. Every year, Phillips takes to the Commons to read out the names of women killed by men—a gesture she describes as an “honour” but one that leaves her “weary and tired.” On February 29, 2024, she told a near-empty chamber that she is “tired that women’s safety matters so much less” than small boats in parliament. Fine words, but where is her outrage for the girls raped by grooming gangs? 

 

Why does her annual ritual of remembrance exclude the names of the countless young girls—some as young as 11—whose lives have been shattered by systematic abuse? Phillips’ refusal to even support an inquiry into the Oldham rape gangs, as reported by The Telegraph on January 2, 2025, is nothing short of hypocrisy.

 

Here is a self-proclaimed feminist who has railed against men’s violence against women, yet when it comes to the most heinous, organised abuse of young girls, she washes her hands of responsibility. Phillips’ claim that it’s up to the council to decide on an inquiry is a cowardly cop-out, one that plays directly into the hands of those who suspect Labour politicians are more concerned with their careers than with justice. 

 

As The Telegraph pointed out, there is a “large, angry constituency” that believes Labour would rather “sacrifice the lives and safety of young white girls for the sake of their parliamentary careers.” Phillips’ inaction only fuels this suspicion. Her selective activism—happy to read out names when it suits her narrative, but silent on the victims of rape gangs—reeks of political posturing. If she truly cared about women’s safety, she’d be leading the charge for a nationwide inquiry, not hiding behind platitudes.

 

The government’s broader failure is equally egregious. The Hansard record highlights the “horrific abuse of children by grooming gangs” in Rochdale, compounded by failures from local councils and police. Yet, instead of decisive action, we get empty promises. The government claims it is “determined to act,” strengthening laws and supporting police action, but where is the evidence? Why has it taken so long for Oldham to even begin addressing its own failures? And why, as Sir Trevor Phillips so rightly points out, does the government continue to treat child rape as a political football rather than the “appalling crime” it is? The suspicion lingers that some in power fear the consequences of a full inquiry—particularly the impact on “community relations” if the ethnic backgrounds of perpetrators are highlighted. This fear, as noted in The Telegraph, is a betrayal of the victims, who deserve justice regardless of the political fallout.

 

Let’s not forget the chilling words of Labour MP Naz Shah, who once reposted a tweet suggesting that abused girls in Rotherham should “shut their mouths for the good of diversity.” That sentiment, whether Shah intended it or not, encapsulates the moral rot at the heart of this crisis. The government’s refusal to confront the issue head-on—whether through fear of being labelled racist or a desire to protect its multicultural dogma—has left a generation of girls to suffer. 

 

Sir Trevor Phillips, a man who has long championed community and solidarity, is right to call this shameful. It’s a betrayal of the values that should define us as a nation.

 

The government must stop hiding behind inquiries and half-measures. It must launch a full, nationwide investigation into grooming gangs, no matter how uncomfortable the findings may be. It must hold institutions accountable, from local councils to police forces, and ensure that survivors are heard and supported. And it must call out the hypocrisy of figures like Jess Phillips, who claim to fight for women while ignoring the cries of the most vulnerable. Anything less is a disgrace—a stain on the conscience of a government that has failed its people in the most profound way imaginable.

Why Israel Banned Two British MPs from Entering: A Closer Look

 

On April 6, 2025, Israel denied entry to two British Labour Party MPs, Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang, sparking a diplomatic row and igniting debate across the UK political spectrum. The decision, made by Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority, was based on suspicions that the MPs intended to “document the activities of security forces and spread anti-Israel hatred.” This incident has drawn sharp criticism from UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who called it “unacceptable” and “deeply concerning,” while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch defended Israel’s right to control its borders. To fully understand this event, it’s worth examining the key factors behind Israel’s decision, including the MPs’ unofficial status, their history of anti-Israel rhetoric, Israel’s sovereign border rights, and the irony of the UK’s criticism given its own border management struggles.

 

Not an Official Parliamentary Trip

First and foremost, the MPs were not travelling as part of an official parliamentary delegation. Despite their claims of being on a mission to “visit humanitarian aid projects and communities in the West Bank” alongside UK charity partners, Israel’s Interior Ministry found no evidence that any Israeli authority had approved or been notified of such a delegation. The Council for Arab-British Understanding (Caabu) and Medical Aid for Palestinians (Map), organisations with a history of facilitating such trips, confirmed their involvement, but this did not equate to official sanction from either the UK or Israeli governments. During questioning at Ben-Gurion Airport, the MPs and their aides reportedly misrepresented their visit as an official parliamentary endeavour, a claim that unravelled under scrutiny. This lack of transparency and official status likely raised red flags for Israeli authorities, who saw it as a pretext for ulterior motives.

 

A Track Record of Anti-Israel Rhetoric

The MPs in question, Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) and Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley), both elected in 2024, have a well-documented history of vocal criticism against Israel. Mohamed, the first British Yemeni MP, has accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” and “pursuing the destruction of Gaza” in parliamentary speeches, notably on April 2, 2025. She has also called for sanctions against Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich for their support of resettlement in northern Gaza, and in February 2025, she spearheaded a cross-party letter signed by 61 MPs and lords advocating a ban on goods from Israeli settlements. 

 

Yang, similarly, has supported sanctions against the same ministers and criticised Israel’s actions in the ongoing conflict with Hamas. Both MPs have endorsed boycotts of Israel and framed their positions as defence of international humanitarian law, but Israel views their rhetoric as inflammatory and biased, accusing them of intending to “spread hate speech” and provoke anti-Israel sentiment during their visit. Given their public statements, Israel likely perceived their trip as a platform to further an anti-Israel agenda rather than a genuine humanitarian fact-finding mission.

 

Israel’s Sovereign Right to Refuse Entry

At the heart of this decision lies a fundamental principle: Israel, like any sovereign nation, has the legal right to control its borders and refuse entry to individuals it deems a threat to its security or interests. This is not unique to Israel—countries worldwide, including the UK, reserve the right to deny entry based on national laws and discretion. Israel’s 1952 Entry into Israel Law allows the Interior Minister to bar individuals suspected of intending to harm the state, a provision reinforced by a 2017 amendment banning supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Mohamed and Yang’s vocal support for boycotts and sanctions aligns with this criterion, providing legal grounding for their exclusion. The Israeli embassy in the UK further noted that the MPs had “accused Israel of false claims” and “supported campaigns aimed at boycotting the state,” justifying the decision as a protective measure during a time of heightened conflict, with Israel facing threats on multiple fronts following the resumption of its offensive in Gaza.

 

The UK’s Hypocrisy in Criticising Israel

The UK’s swift condemnation of Israel’s actions, led by Foreign Secretary David Lammy, rings hollow when viewed against its own border management failures. The UK has struggled to secure its borders, with record numbers of illegal Channel crossings—over 45,000 in 2022 alone—and a backlog of asylum claims exposing systemic weaknesses. Critics, including some X users, have pointed out the irony of a nation unable to stem its own influx of undocumented migrants lecturing Israel, a country under constant security pressure, on border control. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch seized on this point, arguing that “every country should be able to control its borders” and questioning why Labour MPs expect unrestricted access abroad while the UK fails to enforce its own sovereignty. This double standard undermines the UK’s moral authority to criticise Israel, especially when the latter’s decision aligns with its legal framework and security imperatives.

 

Additional Context: Timing and Broader Implications

The timing of the MPs’ attempted visit—April 2025—adds another layer of relevance. Israel is currently engaged in a multi-front conflict, with its war against Hamas in Gaza intensifying after a brief truce ended in March. The Gaza health ministry reports over 50,000 deaths since October 2023, while the West Bank has seen escalated military operations, including airstrikes killing 261 Palestinians since the conflict began. Amid this tension, Israel is particularly sensitive to external actors perceived as amplifying anti-Israel narratives. The MPs’ stated intent to “witness first-hand the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory” could be interpreted as an attempt to gather material for further criticism, especially given their past accusations of Israeli war crimes. Moreover, their deportation follows a precedent: Israel has previously barred UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and European Parliament members for similar reasons, signalling a broader policy of restricting entry to outspoken critics.

 

The Political Fallout in the UK

The incident has also exposed divisions within the UK. Lammy’s rebuke of Israel and his accusation that Badenoch was “cheerleading” another country’s actions reflect Labour’s broader push for a ceasefire and hostage negotiations in Gaza. Badenoch’s defence of Israel, meanwhile, aligns with a Conservative stance prioritising allied nations’ sovereignty and highlighting Labour’s perceived hypocrisy. The MPs themselves framed the ban as an attack on parliamentary freedom, arguing that they should “feel free to speak truthfully in the House of Commons without fear of being targeted.” Yet, this plea overlooks the reality that free speech does not guarantee unrestricted access to foreign soil—especially when that speech has consistently demonised the host nation.

 

Conclusion

Israel’s decision to ban Abtisam Mohamed and Yuan Yang from entering was not an arbitrary act but a calculated response rooted in their unofficial travel status, their history of anti-Israel propaganda, and Israel’s sovereign right to protect its borders. The UK’s indignation, while politically expedient, smacks of hypocrisy given its own border vulnerabilities. Far from being an “unprecedented step,” as the MPs claimed, this action fits a pattern of Israel guarding against perceived threats during a time of war. Whether one agrees with Israel’s policies or not, its right to determine who enters its territory is indisputable—a principle the UK might do well to emulate rather than criticise.