A political party's decline begins the moment it abandons common sense.
Britain's ruling Labour Party is moving to repair ties with China, with party leader Keir Starmer planning a visit to Beijing. But one persistent thorn in Sino-British relations remains: London's foot-dragging on approving China's proposed grand new embassy. China bought the old Royal Mint site and wants to build there, but anti-China forces have mobilized against it on all sorts of political grounds.
On January 17, opponents staged another big protest in London. The rally was basically a jamboree of "all five poisons"—not just the usual exiled Hong Kong independence activists, but Tibetan and Xinjiang independence flags flying everywhere. Naturally, no Labour MPs showed up. But Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch did—making her the highest-ranking political figure to grace such an opposition event.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent
Missing the Bigger Picture
Hong Kong exiles in Britain seized on this for maximum propaganda value, crowing that even the Conservative Party leader came out to support them. I see it differently—as a sign of the Conservatives' decline. What politician with any real shot at becoming Britain's next Prime Minister would wade into such murky waters?
First, there are degrees to being anti-China. How does a rally opposing an embassy construction turn into a carnival featuring "all five poisons"? Having opinions about a country versus supporting independence movements within that country—these are two completely different things. For a major political figure to attend a rally plastered with propaganda for other countries' independence movements is itself highly inappropriate. Does this mean the Conservative Party backs Hong Kong independence and Tibetan independence? Don't talk to me about freedom of speech—politicians have the freedom not to attend extremist political rallies. If Chinese politicians showed up at rallies flying Northern Irish independence flags, how would the British government react?
Second, the Conservative Party lacks the presence of a governing party. According to old assumptions, we might think that with Labour's current abysmal approval ratings, the Conservatives would naturally take power next term—so they should act prudently and avoid extreme positions. But reality tells a different story. The Conservative Party has already declined to third-rate status. If Labour loses power next term, I'm afraid the Conservatives won't have a chance at governing either.
The Reform Party Surge
The ruling Labour Party's recent popularity has tanked, running neck and neck with the Conservatives. According to a poll published in January by British think tank More in Common, Conservative support stands at 21%, while Labour sits at 20%—the two parties evenly matched. But the far-right Reform Party enjoys 31% support, far ahead of both the Conservatives and Labour. If a general election were held, the Reform Party would achieve a sweeping victory. So no matter how you look at it, Badenoch doesn't have the bearing of a Prime Minister—she seems more like a radical white-left politician.
Third, major party politics must follow common sense. Many Western politicians now chase politically correct lines, doing whatever they think voters like—but these politically correct actions often violate basic common sense. For example, believing voters are anti-China, they specifically do anti-China things, but whether being anti-China actually benefits their own country is something they couldn't care less about.
Canada's 180-Degree Turn
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently visited China, comprehensively improving relations with Beijing. Just last year, Canada claimed "China is the greatest security threat facing Canada," but now Canada has turned 180 degrees, believing that compared to the United States, "China is a more predictable and reliable partner." Canada slashed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle imports from 100% to 6.1%. China also relaxed restrictions on imports of Canadian canola and other agricultural products. Canada now strongly welcomes Chinese investment in electric vehicles and clean energy sectors—China-Canada economic and trade relations have rapidly risen to a very close level.
The premise for this change is naturally Canada facing deep pressure from the United States. Trump has threatened to make Canada the 51st state. Under this pressure, Canada seeks to improve relations with China to rescue its economy. After Prime Minister Carney's visit to China, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are also queuing up to visit Beijing—all seeking to improve relations with China. In today's chaotic world, with Trump specifically bullying allies, improving relations with China has become the best way out for these Western countries. Western politicians only need sufficient common sense to find the answer in improving relations with China.
No Leadership Presence
Conservative Party leader Badenoch's attendance at an anti-China rally can only mean one thing: no matter how you look at it, she doesn't have the bearing to be British Prime Minister, nor the energy to lead Britain out of its predicament. By the way, the Conservative Party's election of an ethnic African leader is not "conservative" at all—it's actually quite radical. No wonder more conservative Britons have turned to support the far-right Reform Party.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
We are living inside One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest — and Washington is running the ward. The leader of the world's most powerful nation produces a fresh justification for war every single day. The lies cycle so fast that we have grown numb to them, and we begin to ask the more disturbing question: Are they mentally abnormal? Or are we?
Since the United States launched its war against Iran on 28 February, the administration has repeatedly rewritten the stated justification for a conflict it entered without legal standing. At a press conference on 2 March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the US launched military strikes against Iran because Israel was about to strike first, and Washington feared Iranian retaliation on the U.S. — so it decided to pre-empt. By invoking self-defence, Rubio was attempting, however clumsily, to frame the assault as compliant with the UN Charter, forcing the argument that the US faced an "imminent threat".
Trump, however, found that version too meek. Eager to claim credit for what he called a successful campaign, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on 3 March that he personally pushed Israel to act against Iran — reasoning that if Israel did not move first, Iran would.
Within hours of Trump's remarks, Rubio reversed course entirely. His new version: Trump struck Iran after concluding that US-Iran nuclear negotiations would not succeed — and Israel's action plan had nothing to do with it.
When the Story Changes Daily
CNN put it plainly: the rotating statements from White House officials exposed a government capable only of concocting shoddy justifications for war. In fewer than ten days, the Trump administration produced at least four different explanations for how Iran constituted an "imminent threat" — two of which directly contradicted each other.
Set that American farce aside and turn the camera to China. On the eve of the annual "Two Sessions" — the plenary meetings of the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — CPPCC spokesperson Liu Jieyi addressed China's diplomatic priorities at a press conference on 3 March. He observed that the world today is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century at an accelerating pace, with the international situation marked by turbulence and entanglement, and global challenges growing ever more acute. Liu stated that China has always been the "most stable, most reliable, and most constructive" force in a turbulent world.
Those few words from Liu Jieyi capture the China-US contrast precisely. China's role as the world's most stabilising force is visible across three concrete dimensions.
First — The Economic Ballast
Despite the Trump administration's global trade war last year, the Chinese economy demonstrated remarkable resilience, maintaining 5% growth. China's total economic output crossed the new threshold of 140 trillion yuan, with its growth rate remaining among the highest of the world's major economies. China's 5% growth contributed 30% of global expansion, making it the single largest engine of world economic growth. The United States, by contrast, both restrained the economic growth of many nations through its tariff war and undermined itself in the process — America's growth last year is estimated at only around 2%, well below the global average of 3.2%, effectively dragging that average down.
Second — The Diplomatic Stabiliser
Since taking office, the Trump administration launched a first war against Iran in June last year in coordination with Israel — bombing targets across the country, particularly its nuclear facilities. Then, in February this year, it launched a war against Venezuela, abducting President Nicolás Maduro. At the end of February, it struck Iran again, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Make no mistake: Trump still has the audacity to set up a peace commission. The reality is that the United States not only wages outright wars, but serves as the principal behind-the-scenes instigator of multiple regional conflicts around the world.
China, by contrast, has not been involved in a single external war since 1979. Even when disputes arise with other nations, China seeks resolution through peaceful means. The Global Security Initiative put forward by China has already received the support of more than 130 countries and international or regional organisations. China's consistent stance of urging dialogue and reconciliation stands in direct contrast to America's trigger-happy resort to military force.
Third — The Engine of Openness
The United States is practising a "new Monroe Doctrine" — pursuing an isolationist path in the name of American interests, placing self-interest first, sharply hiking tariffs on other nations. This self-serving posture has drawn widespread criticism globally. Washington has even compelled several allied nations to make massive investments on American soil — a brazenly extractive form of conduct.
China, by contrast, has granted comprehensive tariff-free access to imports from the vast majority of developing nations — particularly African countries. China has also extended visa-free entry to a growing number of countries; last year, the number of foreign visitors entering China visa-free rose 75.6% year-on-year. One side is closed and extractive; the other is open and mutually beneficial — the contrast could not be more apparent.
The Counterweight the World Needs
When the world is full of madness, the voice of reason may not always command the spotlight. But if we still believe that rationality exists in this world, then everyone will ultimately find a way through this predicament — and China, as a stabilising force in a turbulent world, will become the counterweight against America's disruptive tide.
Lo Wing-hung
