The local elections have shown how politically fragmented the UK has become in recent years. Both Labour and the Conservatives – the traditional parties of Government – have lost out. Reform UK are the big winners; and the Greens and Liberal Democrats are making gains, with the Greens continuing to make inroads into the UK’s urban centres.

This turbulence is likely to have impacts on the UK’s foreign and national security politics. It has long been the case that foreign policy in the UK has been driven by a broad, cross-party consensus. Yet the emergence of Reform, and to a lesser extent the Greens, threatens to disrupt this.

In my research, I have been looking into how people in the UK think about national security and foreign policy. What threats do they perceive as most significant? What makes them feel secure or insecure? And what are people’s national security priorities? My research (conducted at the end of 2025, prior to subsequent developments such as the war in Iran) shows that people’s perspectives on national security have become inseparable from their politics. National security is experienced and perceived differently within the UK – with those in different political communities believing very different things.

A notable finding is that those saying they would vote Reform UK tended to feel less secure in the UK. It is perhaps unsurprising that a sense of insecurity might lead people to vote for parties outside of the mainstream. They identify migration as their biggest concern, and are much more likely to do so than others in the UK. Conversely, they are much less concerned than others about global instability and climate change. They are more likely to see the UK’s nuclear deterrent as a source of security, and at the time of polling, were the voting cohort who were much more likely to see the UK’s relationship to the US, and President Donald Trump himself, as contributing positively to UK security They felt that UK foreign and economic policies made them less secure, and are less likely to see the UN and NATO as sources of security. Their policy priorities tend to include reducing migration and increasing defence spending.

Those intending to vote Green shared some similarities with potential Reform voters. They too, were less likely to feel that UK foreign and economic policies would make them secure. Yet their diagnosis of the problem was fundamentally different. Green voters were much less concerned about ‘traditional’ security threats such as terrorism, and instead placed greater emphasis on climate and economic insecurity. They were the voting cohort most concerned about President Trump and the UK’s relationship to the US, as well as the only cohort who overall felt that the UK’s nuclear deterrent made them less secure. They were notably the most opposed to increasing defence spending, instead, they would prioritise human security concerns, such as the economic and health insecurities of those living in the UK, alongside efforts to tackle climate change.

Green voters nevertheless viewed the UK as a global actor, seeing the UN as a source of security, and the UK as playing a role in global peacebuilding. When asked about the UK Government’s policy towards Ukraine, they were the cohort most likely to state that we have a moral obligation to help Ukraine protect itself. This contrasts with Reform voters, who were most likely to state we should instead prioritise spending money on those in need at home.

While these findings are not necessarily surprising, they are nevertheless important. In essence, they outline divergent paths for the UK’s national security and foreign policy that depart in significant ways from the current broad consensus.

Reform voters tend to want a more insular and self-sufficient United Kingdom, with resources focused domestically rather than on involvement in foreign conflicts, while maintaining ties with the US and Trump.

Green voters, by contrast, tend to be highly critical of the UK’s current tools of deterrence, such as defence spending and the nuclear deterrent, and instead see security as being produced through multilateralism, tackling the climate emergency, and investing in the human security needs of the UK.

The recent Strategic Defence Review and National Security Strategy both called for a ‘national conversation’ on the future of UK defence and security.^[1] My research highlights the challenges involved in that ambition.^[2] As the two-party system fractures, questions around what the UK’s national security and foreign policy priorities should be are likely to become increasingly politicised. If the UK is going to achieve cross-societal solidarity in a more difficult and dangerous world – and convince the public to pay for coherent long-term responses to wide-ranging security challenges – it is going to need a much more expansive, democratic conversation about what security is for, who it is for, and how it should be delivered.

Dr Thomas Martin is a Senior Lecturer in International Studies at The Open University. He is interested in national security politics, public opinion, and terrorism and counterterrorism.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual author and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

^[1] Ministry of Defence, The Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad, June 2025 ,https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_-_secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf

^[2] Forthcoming research to be published on The Open University’s website: Dr Thomas Martin, Public Opinion & National Security in the UK: A People-Centred Approach, Centre for Global Challenges and Social Justice, The Open University.