Robert Jenrick and the Conservative Party's Embrace of 'Blood and Soil' Nationalism
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
"With the Conservatives, there are no blacks, no whites, just people." That was 1983. But it's hard to imagine Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, who recently complained Dagenham wasn't white enough, repeating those words. His radicalisation reflects a wider swing among some right-wing politicians, commentators and think-tankers away from objecting to immigration on (often flimsy or spurious, but not self-evidently irrational) economic grounds to straightforward "blood and soil" nationalism.
Rather than analysing the economic or social impacts of immigration, the new focus is on demographics, and in particular on the shrinking share of the White British population (with the emphasis on white), often described as the "indigenous" population or the "traditional majority". While this is hardly new - I tracked it from Enoch Powell to Roger Scruton to Douglas Murray some years back - it has recently become much more prominent, most virulently in the overtly racist rhetoric of Matt Goodwin and Douglas Carswell.
So extreme is this, however, it has embarrassed some of the more restrained and thoughtful anti-immigration thinkers, who disavow the racism, but share the broader perspective that the most important thing about immigration is not its economic effects but its impact on British culture and society - and that these are both very large and very negative. Like Goodwin, they argue that demographic change, as measured by the growth in the non-white population, is the key metric.
EXCLUSIVE
Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate
EXCLUSIVE: One leading 'Safeguard Force' figure previously expressed hope Reform would "set the world on fire" if elected. Another shared anti-migrant memes featuring weapons
Olly Haynes
The challenge for them is of course how they reconcile the apparent contradiction - if the problem is too many people who aren't white, in what sense does this differ from old-fashioned Powellite racism? Two good recent examples of their attempt to square this circle come from David Goodhart and Ed West, both often regarded as relatively sensible voices on that side of the debate.
Goodhart predicts that within a decade only one in five Londoners will be "natives" (a category he reserves for white British) and states "demographic change on this scale has not happened before…and the precautionary principle suggests it should be handled with care." West endorses this perspective: "the key issue is David's point that it is not the 1990s: there has been drastic and dramatic demographic change since then, way beyond what any group of people would find tolerable."
This framing is meant to sound reasonable and pragmatic: not racism or xenophobia, just realistic, recognising that it is human nature to be uncomfortable with rapid ethnic change. Nor is it particularly new or unusual - indeed it has often been made by politicians of all parties seeking to justify restrictions on immigration without sounding racist. But once you begin to unpack the logic, it becomes clear that the argument is neither neutral nor rational - it prioritises ethnic identity over all the other profound transformations that British society has undergone.
Take Islington, where I live. Since I moved here more than half a century ago, it has indeed undergone profound changes. The population dropped by a quarter - before recovering and growing by a third. It suffered a deep economic downturn, losing almost the entire manufacturing sector before riding the services boom of the 1990s and 2000s. It's now far richer, but also more unequal, trends reflected above all in the housing market. The population is older, less religious, and much better educated.
Some of these shifts parallel national trends, others reflect local factors. Some...
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
"With the Conservatives, there are no blacks, no whites, just people." That was 1983. But it's hard to imagine Robert Jenrick, the Shadow Justice Secretary, who recently complained Dagenham wasn't white enough, repeating those words. His radicalisation reflects a wider swing among some right-wing politicians, commentators and think-tankers away from objecting to immigration on (often flimsy or spurious, but not self-evidently irrational) economic grounds to straightforward "blood and soil" nationalism.
Rather than analysing the economic or social impacts of immigration, the new focus is on demographics, and in particular on the shrinking share of the White British population (with the emphasis on white), often described as the "indigenous" population or the "traditional majority". While this is hardly new - I tracked it from Enoch Powell to Roger Scruton to Douglas Murray some years back - it has recently become much more prominent, most virulently in the overtly racist rhetoric of Matt Goodwin and Douglas Carswell.
So extreme is this, however, it has embarrassed some of the more restrained and thoughtful anti-immigration thinkers, who disavow the racism, but share the broader perspective that the most important thing about immigration is not its economic effects but its impact on British culture and society - and that these are both very large and very negative. Like Goodwin, they argue that demographic change, as measured by the growth in the non-white population, is the key metric.
EXCLUSIVE
Founders of 'Apolitical' Patrol Group in Bournemouth Include Asylum Hotel Activist and Reform Candidate
EXCLUSIVE: One leading 'Safeguard Force' figure previously expressed hope Reform would "set the world on fire" if elected. Another shared anti-migrant memes featuring weapons
Olly Haynes
The challenge for them is of course how they reconcile the apparent contradiction - if the problem is too many people who aren't white, in what sense does this differ from old-fashioned Powellite racism? Two good recent examples of their attempt to square this circle come from David Goodhart and Ed West, both often regarded as relatively sensible voices on that side of the debate.
Goodhart predicts that within a decade only one in five Londoners will be "natives" (a category he reserves for white British) and states "demographic change on this scale has not happened before…and the precautionary principle suggests it should be handled with care." West endorses this perspective: "the key issue is David's point that it is not the 1990s: there has been drastic and dramatic demographic change since then, way beyond what any group of people would find tolerable."
This framing is meant to sound reasonable and pragmatic: not racism or xenophobia, just realistic, recognising that it is human nature to be uncomfortable with rapid ethnic change. Nor is it particularly new or unusual - indeed it has often been made by politicians of all parties seeking to justify restrictions on immigration without sounding racist. But once you begin to unpack the logic, it becomes clear that the argument is neither neutral nor rational - it prioritises ethnic identity over all the other profound transformations that British society has undergone.
Take Islington, where I live. Since I moved here more than half a century ago, it has indeed undergone profound changes. The population dropped by a quarter - before recovering and growing by a third. It suffered a deep economic downturn, losing almost the entire manufacturing sector before riding the services boom of the 1990s and 2000s. It's now far richer, but also more unequal, trends reflected above all in the housing market. The population is older, less religious, and much better educated.
Some of these shifts parallel national trends, others reflect local factors. Some...
Activity