Why is Identity Voting Problematic: A Case Study of Hongkongers in the UK

The beauty of British democracy is that anyone eligible can stand in an election, and voters are free to choose their representative as they wish. However, elections can sometimes be shaped by assumptions about identity, rather than by policies and ideas. During the campaign period for the 2026 local election, I have come across many social media posts from media outlets that have a large Hong Kong (HK) following that emphasize certain candidates’ background and ethnicity. While their intention might not be to promote ethnic voting, the frequency and volume do raise questions. Being originally from HK has positioned me in this community with both intimacy and perspective. From that perspective, I have observed this problem. Yet, the studies of this area largely remain scattered, and this topic deserves more attention in the UK. 

In 2024, Hongkongers (HKers) made up around 0.4% of the UK population. This figure combines ‘original’ HK-born UK residents and those who emigrated to the UK via the BN(O) scheme. It is important to note that there might be potential cultural variations between the two groups. Also, please keep in mind that I am mainly focusing on those who immigrated via the BN(O) scheme. To put this into context, the overall Hong Kong-born population has doubled since the BN(O) visa scheme was introduced in January 2021 under Boris Johnson, with the first wave beginning to gain settled status in early 2026. 

I came across outlets like The Points and Green Bean Media making various posts and interviews about candidates who were originally from HK or have HK heritage, which can be seen here (English translation), here (English translation), and here. While this is arguably the norm for platforms that emphasise their HKer identity, and there is nothing wrong with engaging with news from a specific perspective, what is worrying is that these are created almost entirely due to their background as a HKer, with some of them highlighting the aim to raise awareness about HK. 

I understand that those from HK feel a responsibility to speak out about issues related to HK, and obviously, there is nothing wrong with speaking out for a cause that you care about. In fact, I personally have written about issues in HK. However, the priority for politicians, no matter their origin, should be their ward and its people. What these biased media and their implicitly endorsed candidates are doing is feeding into a negative cycle of ethnicity-based identity politics: the candidates lean into their personal background to gain support from a specific voter base, and the media highlight them to align with their limited target audience base. 

Just as Alan Mak, the first British Chinese MP, said, ‘I don’t represent every single British Chinese person’, which shows that one’s background should not heavily influence their political priorities. It is clear and simple: if you are going to run in a local election, the people who live in the area should be your priority. Local elections are about when and if your bins are collected, whether your potholes are filled, whether new houses are getting built, and any other local issue you can think of.

I would also like to point out how identity voting can undermine the diversity of opinion. As I have mentioned before, HKers are making up an increasing proportion of the UK population, and it would make sense to say that the diaspora might find some representation of their own desirable. The appearance is that part of the HK community is rallying around the Liberal Democrats, primarily due to their previous promise of ‘to provide the right to abode to all holders [of BN(O) passports]’. Although their current stance focuses on defending the existing rules while pushing to ‘close gaps’ in potential loopholes, they still benefit from legacy support as the first to fight for HKers’ citizenship. However, HKers’ voting intentions remain relatively diverse, based on my personal observations and direct interactions with HKers. Electing a HKer as a local councillor does not necessarily mean they will represent every single person from HK. While it would set a great example for the community to show that HKers are capable of engaging with politics, just because they came from the same place does not mean they have the same values, opinions, and political leanings. Then what about those in the area who didn’t vote for them?

A similar ‘identity voting’ example would be British Muslims. They have historically been one of Labour’s most reliable voter bases, with 85% of them voting for Labour in 2017. However, voting in this community has been increasingly swayed by international issues. Labour’s stance on the conflict in Gaza has led to many Muslim voters shifting their support to independent candidates that prioritise such matters in their campaigns. In the 2024 general election, five of the seven seats Labour lost had a Muslim population of 25% or more. 

This was not just voters switching allegiance over policy on Gaza. An unprecedented campaign named The Muslim Vote formed explicitly to organise Muslims as a religious voting bloc, independent of individual candidates’ local records, and endorsed a list of MPs to vote against based on their stance on Gaza. This organising logic reflects the HK trend illustrated above, with an organisation encouraging members to vote as a collective identity rather than as constituents evaluating a candidate on their own merits.

There is nothing wrong with speaking out for a cause that you care about or taking pride in your background. However, basing your vote simply on a candidate’s background is problematic. Voting based on an unchangeable characteristic that has no direct relevance to a candidate’s merit or values would, by extension, undermine the democratic process. Almost 170,000 HKers have come to the UK on a humanitarian scheme, so it would be disrespectful to undermine the very democracy that they value by voting for a candidate simply because ‘they are one of us’.