China, Hong Kong and Sir Keir Rodney Starmer - with a little help from David Lammy

"The idea that Britain can have a unique or separate policy on China is worth challenging."

What do the Labour election win and Sir Kier Rodney Starmer's premiership mean for China and Hong Kong? In the short term, not much. However, in the long term, it presents a promising opportunity to reset and strengthen relations with China, as Labour is eager to engage in global trade. 

Before that, Starmer's immediate priorities remain re-engaging with Europe and seeking to repair the damage of the post-Brexit era. That may take some time and effort.

Many surmise that Labour will likely be less ideologically driven than the Conservatives regarding China. This could mean a more pragmatic approach, focusing on economic and trade relations rather than political ideologies.

After all, if they want Britain to be a world-leading trading entity, they cannot ignore China or Hong Kong's role as an entrepôt. However, the bigger geopolitical picture will determine whether China is prepared to accept British overtures. 

The idea that Britain can have a unique or separate policy on China is worth challenging. Washington is widely held to dictate substantial parts of British foreign policy. When Rory Stewart, a former M.P. who served in the Foreign Office, asked for advice on a specific policy, he was told, "Find out what the Americans are doing and do a bit less." That sums it up.

Add to that a view that the "special relationship" was always more unique to the British than the Americans. Presidents Obama and Biden were somewhat indifferent about the whole idea except when it suited their interests. The special relationship didn't earn Britain any post-Brexit trade deal with the U.S. 

Still, it cannot be forgotten that Britain forfeited much of its leverage as the former colonial ruler. The tacit support that British politicians gave to the 2019 violence is still fresh in the memory. Likewise, the BNO scheme irked Beijing. 

And yet, the BNO scheme has not attracted the vast numbers of people that its advocates asserted would leave Hong Kong. They spoke of millions departing for Milton Keynes, Nottingham and Crewe. With their impoverished perceptions and blinded by one-sided media coverage, they assumed the whole of Hong Kong was destined to leave. It didn't happen. 

I suspect that had it happened, the numbers would have added weight to the rhetoric offered by Reform U.K. and others who object to mass migration. Plus, the lack of infrastructure, housing, and public services for such a large influx would further drive negative public sentiment.

Times have changed. It is now apparent that the U.K.'s anti-migration sentiment, which coursed below the surface, has come to the fore and translated into seats in parliament for Farage and his crew.

Even former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who quietly opened the floodgates to migrants during his long premiership, is now cautioning Starmer to get ahead of the debate by limiting the numbers allowed in the U.K. 

This shift in mood, a faltering economy, expected tax rises, and the possible taxation on assets held in Hong Kong may discourage further migration to U.K. 

Likewise, international students could see significant fee increases given the near bankruptcy of many U.K. colleges and the desire to keep fees stable for local students. Such a move further dampens the attractiveness of the U.K. universities, although given their international standing, they won't see a mass exodus.

Starmer's first week in office signals a shift towards a more rational and calm approach on the world stage. The previous psychodrama propagated by Liz Truss and Boris Johnson seems to have dissipated. However, Labour must be cautious in its choice of David Lammy as the new foreign secretary, as his tendency to speak before thinking could potentially lead to missteps. 

In 2013, Lammy took to Twitter, slamming a BBC news item about the chimney erected over the Sistine Chapel. The "Will smoke be black or white" headline Lammy labelled racist. After colleagues and the media widely mocked him, he was forced to apologise. He didn't understand the smoke signals used to mark the Pope's elections. This single incident demonstrates ignorance and a distorted mindset. 

In 2018, Lammy branded Trump, who was then President, a "woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath" and a "profound threat to the international order". This language of hate that supercharges the political debate could return to haunt Lammy. 

Lammy set out his "progressive realism" foreign policy vision in April. What that means remains to be seen. Lammy said the U.K.'s approach to China had "oscillated wildly over the past 14 years" of Conservative rule and vowed to "adopt a more consistent strategy."

Still, Lammy will need to step carefully so as not to invite any retaliations from the U.K.'s sixth-largest export market and the world's second-largest economy.

For example, Britain's luxury automakers are fearful they could become targets in any tit-for-tat trade war with China. Other sectors could feel the pinch if Labour antagonises Beijing. Ask the Australians how their wine and seafood industry faired when a political dispute escalated. 

In summary, Britain's attractiveness to Hong Kong migrants may wane, especially if taxes go up and public services continue to fail. No one expects a return to the warm relations marked by the period when David Cameron was Prime Minister and hoisting President Xi in his local pub.  

Interestingly, a potential thaw in relations could be indicated if Lammy or Starmer take a trip to Beijing. Such a visit could signal a new chapter in UK-China relations.