The recent headlines covering UK-China relations, such as the Prime Minister\u2019s visit to China and the approval of the \u2018mega embassy\u2019 development at Royal Mint Court, have largely confirmed the Labour government\u2019s policy of warming relations with China. The opposition Conservative Party has, expectedly, made highly critical remarks about these moves. However, the UK\u2019s two main disruptor parties \u2013 Reform UK and the Green Party of England and Wales \u2013 remained relatively quiet throughout these events.<\/p>\n
Although diametrically opposed in politics, both Reform UK and the Green Party have enjoyed a recent surge in support, profiting from growing disillusionment with the traditional parties. The result of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election shows that these parties are increasingly major players in national politics. While a general election is some years out, British politics is increasingly driven by those who control the conversation on key issues. Should their support hold or grow, they will be increasingly called to speak on issues that reach beyond their usual areas of focus.<\/p>\n
Given its economic dominance in vital industries, rising status as a global rule maker, and the threats and risks it poses across multiple domains, it is vital for all UK parties to be thinking seriously about China. However, neither party\u2019s manifesto for the 2024 General Election mentioned China. At the time, both were relatively fringe parties without serious expectation of entering government and a focus on specific issues. As others have recently argued<\/a>, the rising prominence of these disruptor parties makes it important for them to spell out their foreign policy approaches beyond headline commitments.<\/p>\n The Green Party<\/strong><\/p>\n The Green Party\u2019s approach to China, insofar as it exists, appears to be grounded largely in human rights concerns. When contacted about the Green Party\u2019s China policy for this article, a Party spokesperson responded that the Green Party\u2019s foreign policy core stances would apply equally to critical issues, focusing largely on human rights concerns such as the human rights violations against the Uyghurs, freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and government suppression of dissent. Other issues, such as globalisation, migration, trade, and climate justice were mentioned, although no specific policies for these issues were described.<\/p>\n Green Party MPs have barely mentioned China in Parliament since the 2024 election; at the time of writing, only two passing references to China were found in Hansard. A House of Lords speech<\/a> by Green Party Peer and former leader Baroness Natalie Bennett may offer some insight into the Greens\u2019 thinking. Baroness Bennett argued that it is important to not let business interests interfere with a strong response to human rights concerns, but also, somewhat predictably, that \u201con the climate emergency and nature crisis, it is a crucially important actor.\u201d<\/p>\n While admirable in terms of its overt focus on human rights, this position makes clear that little to no direct consideration has been given to China in Green policymaking circles. A general commitment to rights and justice is unlikely to be adequate for managing the UK-China relationship, given China\u2019s economic heft, the highly unequal trading relationship and longstanding security concerns about Chinese government-backed interference in the UK. The clearest challenge the Greens would face in government would be the tensions between human rights and China\u2019s dominance in green tech and sustainable energy. The case<\/a> of solar panels being made in China using forced labour encapsulates this dilemma starkly \u2013 raising the question of how a governing Green Party would meet its foreign policy commitment to a \u2018Fairer, Greener World\u2019.<\/p>\n Reform UK<\/strong><\/p>\n As a new party mostly defined by its opposition to the traditional parties, Reform currently lacks a detailed China policy. However, statements by various senior party figures such as Nigel Farage MP and Richard Tice MP paint a broadly hawkish picture of their views toward Beijing. Calls for a more autarkic manufacturing base is a key theme among these figures, who criticise the UK\u2019s reliance on China and the UK\u2019s comparatively small manufacturing output. This aligns with Reform\u2019s broadly populism-driven foreign policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many of Reform\u2019s policy statements describe grievance, rather than strategy.\u00a0 Indeed, while threats from China are clearly identified<\/a> under Reform\u2019s armed forces policy, vague approaches such as \u2018invest in capability and readiness\u2019 and \u2018end woke\u2019 are listed as solutions, with no clear vision for strengthening UK resilience to the various domains \u2013 cyber, economic, political, defence \u2013 in which threats from China can and do arise.<\/p>\n When asked in 2025 what his policy on China would be, Reform leader Nigel Farage MP responded that \u201cbecause of Hong Kong, we have a direct relationship of trust with the CCP being broken,\u201d referring to violations of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. He added, \u201cwe\u2019re reliant on them, so until we can start building up our own manufacturing base, we\u2019re not in an easy position\u201d and that it was a \u201cgood thing we kept Huawei out of our 5G phone network\u201d. In turn, Farage called for the UK to be able \u201cto make our own stuff, at a decent price, that is decent quality, and if [the United States does] it, and we do it, we will not be dependent upon China.\u201d Farage also made\u00a0 criticised<\/a> criticism the Prime Minister\u2019s decision to visit China, focusing on the high-profile case of Jimmy Lai, the convicted media magnate and British citizen and China\u2019s history of spying in and on the UK.<\/p>\n Reform\u2019s Deputy Leader, Richard Tice MP, has also been relatively strident on China, criticising the country\u2019s perceived support for Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine and stating that, should China invade Taiwan, it should be made clear that \u201cthe West would come down on them like a ton of bricks\u201d. Tice previously tabled a debate<\/a> on British steel production 16 October 2024, criticising the decision to sell British Steel to its Chinese owner Jingye Group. Later, in June 2025, Tice called for<\/a> the full nationalisation of British Steel. While calls to reduce dependencies in areas in which China is willing to use it monopolies to political ends are clearly important, it is unclear how this will be achieved amid Reform\u2019s wider nativist policy approach, which would see the UK withdrawing from prominent international agreements<\/a> and likely souring relations with likeminded countries. Diversifying the UK\u2019s supply of key resources such as critical minerals will require widening<\/a>, not narrowing, cooperation with key partners, as emphasised by recent positive steps such as the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan<\/a>.<\/p>\n Few new ideas in sight<\/strong><\/p>\n Our relationship with China represents one of the most important foreign policy challenges facing the UK. Navigating the complicated and paradoxical dynamics of this relationship is something no party in the UK has yet managed effectively. This broad lack of vision across Britain\u2019s political parties is dangerous, and developing a coherent China policy should be a foreign policy priority for any party serious about governing.<\/p>\n So far, for all the other ways in which they are upheaving UK politics, neither the Green Party nor Reform have put the policy foundations in place to suggest anything different. In this regard, the disruptor parties are keeping up the status quo, proving that, when it comes to China, policymakers in all parties still have a lot more thinking to do.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" James Jennion explores the foreign policy positions of Reform UK and the Green Party on China.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":22113,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[133,169],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-uk-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22131\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bfpg.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}