Last July, four independent MPs were elected in heavily-Muslim seats.
They capitalised on Muslim frustration with the Labour Party's position on Gaza. Their campaigns focused primarily on winning Muslim votes.
But what have they been up to since the General Election? A short 🧵
Adnan Hussain was elected in Blackburn - a seat held by the Labour Party since 1945.
The constituency is 47% Muslim.
Hussain won with a narrow majority of 132 seats - the Muslim vote was split between Hussain and a candidate representing George Galloway's Workers Party GB.
Hussain has spoken twenty-five times in Parliament since he was elected.
Eleven of his interventions have focused on Israel or Gaza.
He has campaigned for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, and the immediate cessation of all arms sales to Israel.
His Twitter feed tells a similar story. Hussain posts regularly about Israel and Gaza.
He has also argued that Muslims make an outsized contribution to the UK.
The figure cited below suggests Muslims generate 2.5% of the UK's GDP despite making up 6% of the population.
Shockat Adam was elected in Leicester South, a seat held by the Labour Party since 1987.
Leicester South is 35% Muslim.
Adam won with a narrow majority of just 979 votes - beating Labour frontbencher Jonathan Ashworth in an upset victory.
Adam has spoken seventy-six times in Parliament since he was elected.
Eighteen of his interventions have focused on Israel or Gaza.
Adam has also been vocal on a number of other foreign conflicts, including the ongoing civil war in Sudan and the recent coup in Bangladesh.
In October, he argued that it should be compulsory for children to learn about race, empire, and slavery.
In December, he complained that Bangladeshi migrants could not find work because of their poor English skills, claiming that this was "affecting their mental health".
In January, he denied the idea that there was any link between "immigration, race or culture" and the predominantly-Pakistani grooming gangs which have terrorised British towns over the past few decades.
He claimed that highlighting such a link "demonised a community".
In the same month, he argued that drawing a link between Muslims and child sexual exploitation was an example of "Islamophobia".
This is despite the fact that the vast majority of those involved in grooming gang cases are, in fact, Muslim men.
Later in the same month, he chastised the Government for "focusing solely" on Islamist terrorism, arguing that this left us "blindsided to real threats" from elsewhere.
That's despite the fact that Islamist terrorism constitutes three-quarters of the MI5 anti-terror caseload.
Ayoub Khan was elected in Birmingham Perry Barr, a seat held by the Labour Party since 1974.
Birmingham Perry Barr is 43% Muslim.
Adam won with a narrow majority of just 507 votes, beating Khalid Mahmood, one of the Labour Party's most prominent Muslim MPs.
Khan has spoken thirty-three times in Parliament since he was elected.
Fifteen of his interventions have focused on Gaza, Kashmir, or Bangladesh.
He has repeatedly argued that Britain ought to take a more assertive role in all of these conflicts.
In October, he sought to downplay the threat of intimidation at pro-Palestine protests on university campuses, instead encouraging the Government to focus more resources on an apparent rise in "Islamophobic hate".
He has argued that fears about "two-tier justice in favour of minorities" are "disingenuous".
That's despite the fact that the Sentencing Council's recently-overturned guidelines would have compelled judges to give lighter sentences to ethnic and religious minorities.
Iqbal Mohamed was elected in Dewsbury & Batley, a new seat previously split between Labour and the Conservatives.
Dewsbury & Batley is 44% Muslim.
Iqbal won with a relatively large majority, of 6,934 votes. His campaigned focused primarily on the issue of Israel's war in Gaza.
Mohamed has spoken fifty-eight times in Parliament since he was elected.
Fifteen of his interventions have focused on Israel, Gaza, or Kashmir.
Like his colleagues, Mohamed has pressured the Government to take a more hard-line stance against Israel.
Infamously, back in December, he defended the value of cousin marriage in a Parliamentary debate.
He described cousin marriage as "very positive overall; as something that helps to build family bonds and puts families on a more secure financial foothold."
In January, he attacked the Government's anti-extremism scheme, Prevent, arguing that it "unfairly associated certain ethnic minorities and religious groups with extremism."
That's despite the fact that three-quarters of MI5's anti-terror caseload concerns Islamist terror.
Similar candidates came close in a number of other Labour-held seats.
Which might be why a number of Labour MPs are now exhibiting similar behaviour - focusing obsessively on Gaza and advocating for the construction of a new airport in Pakistan's Mirpur district.
In Tahir Ali's seat, two such candidates split the opposition vote, allowing the Labour MP to hold on by 5,656 votes.
But while Ali has been silent on Birmingham's ongoing bin strike, he has called for the introduction of laws to criminalise criticism of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Gaza obsession is a symptom of a bigger problem - thanks to decades of mass migration, millions of people in Britain have radically different priorities and interests.
A number of MPs are now focused on obscure issues which bear little relevance to the majority of Britons.
The Labour Party is now explicitly competing with sectarian independents for the support of particular ethnic and religious communities.
In this May's local elections, a number of seats in Lancashire will be fought on this basis - as I set out in my 2025 local elections guide.
This has deeply concerning implications for the future of our politics.
In diverse democracies, politics can descend quickly into a zero-sum competition for power and resources. This leads to social fragmentation, foreign interference - and violence.
This trend shows no sign of slowing. People like Birmingham's Akhmed Yakoob are emerging as prominent figures in the British Muslim community.
Yakoob intends to challenge Birmingham's Labour-led council next year, and is likely to draw his support primarily from Muslim voters.
This problem isn't going away. It's a feature of demographic change. Muslim voters have found a distinct voice, and have begun to organise themselves against the British establishment.
It's time for our country to wake up - and address the underlying causes of this trend.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Home Office has barred Renaud Camus, a controversial French philosopher, from entering the UK.
They claim that his presence is "not conducive to the public good".
But is that a consistent standard? Let's look at some of the people that they've allowed to come to the UK:
Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri, who is banned from preaching in Pakistan, was allowed to travel to the UK in 2016.
Qadri has celebrated the murder of politicians in Pakistan, arguing that it is legitimate to kill people who oppose Pakistan's oppressive blasphemy laws.
Qadri was a key influence on Tanveer Ahmed, a Bradford taxi driver who was convicted of the murder of another Muslim man, who he deemed insufficiently pious.
During his visit, Qadri delivered sermons at several UK mosques, including venues in Leicester, Woking, and Bolton.
Wales has quietly become a hotbed of historical revisionism, anti-white discrimination, and DEI 🏴
For decades, the Labour-led Welsh Government has pushed dangerous ideas about race, culture, and history onto an unwilling population.
A 🧵 on the disaster unfolding in Wales
But first, some context.
Since 1999, Wales has had its own parliament - the Senedd - with devolved responsibility for a number of issues.
Over time, the Senedd has received more powers from Westminster, allowing them to make decisions on things like healthcare and education.
But despite this transfer of powers, the UK press is relatively disinterested in Welsh affairs.
This has allowed successive Welsh Governments to pursue radical agendas, without the kind of scrutiny which similar policies might face if they emanated from Westminster.
Riverway Law has launched a challenge against the UK's ban on Hamas.
They argue that the Islamic terror group should be legalised in the UK. This shouldn't come as a surprise, given some of the other cases that they've supported.
A 🧵 on some of Riverway Law's recent work
In January 2023, Riverway challenged the Home Office's decision to strip British citizenship from a British Pakistani man who travelled to Syria, in order to join Al-Qaeda.
They argued that this was 'arbitrary' and 'disproportionate'. Their challenge were unsuccessful.
In September 2021, Riverway challenged the Home Office's decision to bar an Afghan man from entering the UK on national security grounds - after he had spent months with the Taliban.
They argued that the man would be at risk if he stayed in Afghanistan. They were successful.
52% of British adults are now reliant on the state for their livelihood - and YOU could be paying for it.
That's according to @ASI's inaugural State Reliance Index, which tracks the number of Britons who rely, directly or indirectly, on the state.
A 🧵 on our findings
So what does the State Reliance Index consider?
We looked at adults (1) receiving benefits or state pension, (2) employed by the public sector, (3) in higher education, or (4) who work in the private sector, but in fields which only exist because of public sector regulation.
This was a conservative estimate.
We didn't even look at every area of the private sector which receives state subsidy - and nor did we include the charitable sector, which relies heavily on state support.
In other words, the true figure could be even more than 52%.
The Church of England is our national church, a c. 500-year old institution which is also responsible for the upkeep of many historic buildings 🏴
But increasingly, it is beholden to dangerous ideas about race, culture, and immigration.
A 🧵 on the rot at the heart of the CofE
For centuries, the Church of England has been at the centre of our national life.
The CofE is our national church, and plays a central role in many national celebrations. It stewards thousands of historic buildings, and maintains thousands of Anglican schools.
But increasingly, the priorities of Church leadership are at odds with ordinary Anglicans.
In 2022, the Church commissioned a report into its own historic links to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a formal apology for past wrongdoing.
We often hear about absurd asylum decisions, with criminals spared from deportation by faceless tribunals.
But never forget, these decisions don't happen by accident. They're made by activist judges. Let me introduce you to some of them.
A 🧵 on the judges in our asylum system
First, some context.
In the UK, the Home Office is responsible for making decisions on immigration and asylum.
But these decisions can be reviewed by 'specialist' tribunals. These tribunals can block Home Office decisions, if they feel that these decisions contravene UK law.
The UK has only had specialist immigration tribunals since 1969. This system was expanded in 1971 - with the current iteration emerging in 2007.
These tribunals are full of activist lawyers and judges, with no incentive to consider political broader arguments around migration.