British Young People Thrown Under a Bus for Votes in Ageing Demographics

Relevant article from John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde on how age determines divides in British politics, and not class in Conversation article ‘Age, not class, is now the biggest divide in British politics, new research confirms’.

This also suggests the impact of demography i.e. ageing populations living longer, with above median age voters being targeted by not just parties and policies, but consolidated right wing media and US Koch Network linked think tanks at Tufton on broad social economic policies including Brexit, immigration, pensions and health care.

‘Age, not class, is now the biggest divide in British politics, new research confirms

21st September 2023

John Curtice

Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Social Research, and Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde

“Class is the basis of British politics; all else is embellishment and detail.” So wrote Peter Pulzer, the former Gladstone professor of politics at the University of Oxford in the 1960s. Nowadays, however, it is age, not social class, that is the biggest demographic division in Britain’s electoral politics.

According to the British Election Study, at the 2019 general election, the Conservatives won the support of 56% of those aged 55 and over, but only 24% of those under 35. Conversely, Labour was backed by 54% of those under-35s who cast a vote, but by just 22% of those aged 55 and over.

In contrast, support for Britain’s two main parties among those in working class occupations was little different from that among those in professional and managerial jobs.

But what underpins this age divide? We typically think of Labour as a party that is more “left wing”, more concerned than the Conservatives about inequality and more supportive of “big government”. So does young people’s greater willingness to support Labour mean they are more left wing than their older counterparts?

Are they more concerned about inequality and more inclined to believe that government should be acting to reduce it? And are they more inclined than older voters to want the government to spend and tax more?

These questions are addressed in a chapter in the latest British Social Attitudes report, published by the National Centre for Social Research. Based on the 40 years of data the annual BSA survey has collected since it began in 1983, the chapter reveals that while younger people have become more concerned about inequality in recent years, this is not accompanied by greater enthusiasm for more tax and spend.

Since 1986, nearly every BSA survey has regularly presented its respondents with a set of propositions designed to measure how “left” or “right wing” they are on the issue of inequality. People are, for example, asked whether they agree or disagree that “there is one law for the rich and one for the poor”, and “government should redistribute income from the better-off to those who are less well-off”.

Their answers to these and similar statements can be summarised into a scale measure that runs from 0 to 100, where 0 means that someone is very left wing and 100 indicates that they are very right wing.

Young people shift left

When the scale was first administered in 1986, there was no difference between the average score of those aged under 35 and those aged 55 or over. Both had a score of 37.

Equally, 30 years later, in 2016, younger people’s average score of 38 was little different from that of 37 among older people. The growth in Labour’s support among younger people that was already in evidence by then was not underpinned by a more left-wing point of view.

However, a gap has emerged during the last three or four years. In the latest BSA survey, conducted towards the end of 2022, young people scored 28 – ten points below the equivalent figure in 2016. In contrast, at 36, the outlook of older people has barely changed at all.

Yet this does not mean that younger people want more taxation and spending. Every year since 1983 BSA has asked people what the government should do if it has to choose between increased taxation and spending on “health, education and social benefits”, reduced taxation and spending, or keeping things as they are.

In the 1980s, younger people were typically more likely than older people to say that taxation and spending should be increased. In 1984, for example, 42% of those aged under 35 expressed that view, compared with just 33% of those over 55.

But since the mid-90s the opposite has been the case. By 2015, 41% of younger people wanted more taxation and spending compared with 49% of older people.

Meanwhile, the gap has since widened further. Whereas support for increased taxation and spending has risen to 67% among older people – the highest it has been in the last 40 years – among younger people it is still no more than 43%.

Lost faith

So why might have younger people become more concerned about inequality, yet at the same time less supportive of more spending? The answer may well lie in the distinctive economic position in which those in today’s youngest generation find themselves.

The ageing of Britain’s population means that a larger proportion of government spending goes on health and social care from which older people primarily benefit. Meanwhile, while older people are in receipt of relatively generous pensions that have been protected by the triple lock, younger people who have been to university find themselves in effect paying a higher level of “income tax” in order to pay off their student loans.

Meanwhile, although the pandemic posed a greater threat to the health of older people, it was younger people who were more likely to find their educational and economic lives disrupted, and to have found themselves having to endure lockdown in lower quality accommodation. At the same time, home ownership has become more difficult, not least because so many are spending a significant proportion of their income on rent.

There is, then, good reason why younger people have become more concerned about inequality but seem at the same time to doubt that increased taxation and spending would help them.

The challenge to the parties at the forthcoming election could well be to convince these voters that the next government will offer them a brighter future, rather than add to their woes. But to do that they may well need to be willing to think outside the traditional mindsets associated with the terms “left” and the “right”.’

John Curtice, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Social Research, and Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde

For related blogs and articles on Ageing Democracy, Conservative, Demography, Government Budgets, Media, Pensions, Political Strategy, Populist Politics and Younger Generations click through:

Collective Narcissism, Ageing Electorates, Pensioner Populism, White Nativism and Autocracy

Narcissistic Political Leaders – NPD Narcissistic Personality Disorder – Collective Narcissism – Cognitive Dissonance – Conspiracy Theories – Populism

Nationalist Conservative Political Parties in the Anglosphere – Radical Right Libertarian Ideology and Populism for Votes

Ageing Democracy, Nativism and Populism

Growth of Conservative Hard Right Wing or Nativist Authoritarian Regimes

Assange – Useful Idiot or Willing Dupe of the US Right and Putin’s Russia?

Recently there have been calls and pressure on the Biden Democratic administration, by supporters of Assange in Australia and the U.K., for him not to be deported and possibly pardoned (for charges brought by Trump administration), while many others contest his ‘journalism’ credentials, or at least how unhelpful his cause has been for journalism.

Convenient timing, as one observes how this also segues into criticism of Australia’s newish Labor government for not doing enough on his release, but ignores inactivity by both the former LNP conservative coalition government and the UK Conservative government, over many years to reach a solution; they didn’t even try?

Many supporters of Assange ignore salient facts of how he used Wikileaks, or at least went off piste on protocols when releasing material, links with Russia, Trump’s team, FoxNews, murder conspiracy theories and Assange’s vendetta towards Hilary Clinton, favouring Trump and the GOP.

Worse, many of the same supporters also share talking points with RWNJs, FoxNews/RT, Koch’s GOP Freedom Caucus, Trump, conspiracy theorists, pro Russian invasion, anti-vaxxer, anti-Covid science and related health measures.

For context, the experience of the same, including Assange cannot be compared to the risks that journalists, activists, politicians, NGOs and young people take in Russia, Turkey or elsewhere, where they are routinely censored, threatened, beaten, arrested, convicted, long gaol terms and simple murder or assassination. 

‘Mother Jones: ‘Denounce Julian Assange. Don’t Extradite Him.  

David Corn 17 December 2021

The prosecution of the conniving WikiLeaks founder poses a threat to American journalism. Julian Assange deserves condemnation. He doesn’t deserve extradition.

Last week, Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who remains imprisoned in England, received bad news. A British judge ruled in favor of a US government request that Assange be extradited to the United States to face charges under the Espionage Act for having published classified diplomatic and military cables. This was a troubling development for anyone who cares about journalism and free speech.

The court decision was the latest turn in a long-running global legal battle. In April 2019, an indictment against Assange was unsealed in the United States. The charge was relatively minor: conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The maximum possible sentence was five years imprisonment. It stemmed from his alleged effort in 2010 to help Chelsea Manning, then a US soldier, hack a classified database from which she obtained 750,000 secret military and State Department documents that she slipped to WikiLeaks. But weeks later the Trump administration further indicted Assange under the Espionage Act for having publicly posted the material WikiLeaks received from Manning. For that, he faces up to 170 years in prison.

This prosecution poses a serious threat to democracy. I’ll turn to that in a moment. But one PR problem with the case is that Assange is a highly unsympathetic character, for he is partly responsible for the damage done by Donald Trump during his presidency: 400,000 or more preventable deaths of Americans in the COVID-19 pandemic; the lack of action to address climate change; the promotion of disinformation and lies to incite a violent attack on the US Capitol; a tax cut that favored the wealthy and added to the national debt; right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court that could lead to the severe curtailing of reproductive rights for women; the spread of bigotry and racial hatred; the suppression of voting rights; cutbacks in government health programs; creeping (or galloping) authoritarianism; and so much more.

The United States has suffered greatly because of Assange. In 2016, he collaborated with the Russian attack on the US election to help Trump win. As has been detailed by several government investigations—including in special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report and in a bipartisan report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee last year—after Russian intelligence teams hacked Democratic targets, they passed the stolen emails and documents to WikiLeaks, which then publicly disseminated the material.

The Senate report notes that Assange’s group “timed its document releases for maximum political impact.” That is, WikiLeaks wasn’t acting in a noble information-sharing manner. It sought to weaponize the information pilfered by Vladimir Putin’s operatives to cause harm to candidate Hillary Clinton, whom Assange and WikiLeaks had disparaged as a “sadistic sociopath” and a threat to the world. (“We believe it would be much better for [the] GOP to win,” WikiLeaks had tweeted.)

In disseminating the stolen information, WikiLeaks behaved more as a political hit squad than a media organization. For example, when the Washington Post on October 7, 2016, published the Access Hollywood video showing Trump bragging about grabbing women “by the pussy,” half an hour later WikiLeaks began releasing emails Russian hackers had swiped from John Podesta, the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This was a counterblow, an attempt to rescue Trump with a distraction. And to inflict the most pain it could on the Clinton campaign, WikiLeaks did not dump all the Podesta information at once (as it had done with its previous release of Democratic Party material at the start of the Democrats’ convention that July). Instead, the group doled out the documents in batches, almost daily, to ensure there would be a steady stream of negative Clinton stories for the final four weeks of the campaign. Assange and WikiLeaks were full partners with Putin in a plot aimed at electing Trump president.

And Assange tried to cover up Russia’s role in this perfidious operation. As the Senate report states:

Assange and WikiLeaks undertook efforts to obscure the source of the stolen emails, including through false narratives. Assange’s use of such disinformation suggests Assange possibly knew of and sought to hide Russian involvement. One narrative from Assange involved a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer killed in a botched robbery, was the source of the DNC email and had been murdered in response. On August 9 [2016], Assange gave an interview on Dutch television implying that Rich was the source of the DNC emails, and that day WikiLeaks announced that it would be issuing a reward for information about Rich’s murder. In a subsequent interview, Assange commented about the WikiLeaks interest in the Rich case as concerning “someone who’s potentially connected to our publication.” The Committee found that no credible evidence supports this narrative.

Assange was pushing a baseless and odious conspiracy theory (which caused tremendous distress for Rich’s family) that was also being championed by conspiracy nutter Alex Jones, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, and Russian intelligence. His apparent goal was to hide the Kremlin’s role in the pro-Trump/anti-Clinton hack-and-leak scheme that WikiLeaks was facilitating. This is not how a legitimate news organization functions. (By the way, the Senate report also issued this indictment of the Trump campaign: “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.” That is, Trump and his crew aided and abetted Moscow’s attack on the 2016 election.)

Assange and WikiLeaks connived and lied to help Trump vanquish Clinton. The Podesta information dumps were a steady drag on the Clinton campaign in the final stretch, often preventing it from gaining traction for its own messages and themes. These releases also served as a constant reminder to the public of her own email controversy—and as an effective setup for the last-minute revelation from then–FBI Director James Comey that the bureau might have unearthed missing or previously destroyed Clinton emails. (It hadn’t.)

Given how close the election ended up, the Russia-WikiLeaks operation was one of several factors that determined the outcome. Remove Putin’s hackers and Assange’s outfit from the picture, and Clinton probably would have won. (Ditto for Comey’s move, as well as for Clinton’s own decision not to do more in several swing states in the last week.) Assange can (proudly?) claim a degree of ownership of the election results. That means he also partly owns what came afterward. He and WikiLeaks opposed Clinton, they contended, because she was a warmonger. There is no way of telling whether she would have started any wars had she been president. But it’s a damn good bet that had she been in charge during the pandemic, far fewer Americans would have perished.

Assange ought to be punished—if only ostracized and widely denigrated—for his 2016 skullduggery. But the extradition case at hand does not address that. Focused on an earlier episode, it is an excessive use of legal force by the US government—first the Trump administration and now the Biden administration. The Obama administration considered charging Assange for releasing the Manning material under the Espionage Act—which was intended to be used against spies and their collaborators—but it was concerned about a negative impact on journalists. Obtaining and publishing classified documents—and asking sources to provide such material—is a common activity for many news organizations.

When Assange was indicted on these espionage charges, John Demers, then the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, said Assange was “no journalist.” Given Assange’s underhanded partnership with Russian intelligence, that may well be an accurate statement. But the actions for which he has been indicted under the Espionage Act are the actions of reporters. And media organizations are correct to worry about a precedent being established. (Most Espionage Act cases have involved government employees who leaked classified information.) As the New York Times reported at the time of the Assange indictment, “Notably, The New York Times, among many other news organizations, obtained precisely the same archives of documents from WikiLeaks, without authorization from the government—the act that most of the charges addressed… [I]t is not clear how that is legally different from publishing other classified information.”

Media outlets and free speech advocates have justifiably howled about this case. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, noted, “The Assange prosecution threatens these basic elements of modern journalism and democratic accountability.” And the Committee to Protect Journalists last week issued this statement: “The U.S. Justice Department’s dogged pursuit of the WikiLeaks founder has set a harmful legal precedent for prosecuting reporters simply for interacting with their sources. The Biden administration pledged at its Summit for Democracy this week to support journalism. It could start by removing the threat of prosecution under the Espionage Act now hanging over the heads of investigative journalists everywhere.”

Considering all the devastation Assange enabled with his 2016 plot against America, it is tough to embrace him as a free-speech martyr. But those who care about accountability and excessive government power don’t always get to choose the battles that must be waged to preserve First Amendment freedoms. Assange mounted a damaging attack on the United States and facilitated a profound subversion of its political system. Still, his prosecution under the Espionage Act is another assault on American democracy.

Assange’s attorneys say they will appeal the decision, which calls for a lower court to send the case to the British home secretary for a decision on whether Assange ought to be extradited. Meanwhile, Assange will remain in Belmarsh Prison in London. He spent almost seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, ducking extradition to Sweden for a sex crimes case, which was dropped in 2015; he was arrested in 2019 related to bail-skipping charges and the extradition warrant from the United States.

Assange did help put in the White House a wannabe authoritarian who demonized reporters and dangerously claimed the media was the “enemy of the people.” (And the ingrate paid Assange back by indicting him.) Yet now his personal fate is tied to the protection of First Amendment rights. The Biden administration ought to drop Espionage Act case against Assange—not for his sake, but for the rest of us.’

Immigration to Australia – More Opportunities for Temporary Residents?

Interesting analysis from Grattan Institute in Melbourne on how to improve Australia’s migration system, especially for temporary entrants. 

However, although one agrees with the broad argument and sentiments, many assumptions and factors cited including the need to make more temporary residents permanent, would require raising, for now, the modest permanent cap, guaranteed to kick off a negative media campaign.

Further, one thinks it overestimates the desire for ‘temporary migrants’, caught under the ‘nebulous’ (Ian Dunt UK) NOM net overseas migration, to remain in Australia permanently after studies, travel, work etc.? 

On high numbers of temporary residents in Australia it misses important dynamics including Covid, precluding departures and department budget or headcount cuts which significantly slowed immigration processing? 

We have observed a generation of dog whistling all things immigration and population growth to the point where many Australians, including employers, view ‘immigrants’ and supposed ‘population growth’ as negatives to be avoided, or with antipathy? 

House prices and/or rentals may not be related to ‘immigration, especially as no analysis exists apart from FIRE sector’s agitprop in media using PR factors as indicators of market health eg. ‘prices’ not ‘real value’, advertised ‘prices’, auction clearance rates, claims of ‘high immigration’ etc.; but now prices are dropping?  

Capping temporary visas would be chaotic i.e. who decides, ignores multiple types and complexity of visa system, and Australian citizens also; nativists have argued for decades a strictly nativist ‘one person in, one person out’ border regime? 

Warnings of employment perils for temporary migrants, but local employees share similar issues, i.e. non compliance of awards and conditions by employers, with support from unions?  

Nominating a median level salary threshold for any skilled entrant ignores the need for unskilled employment gaps to be filled too?

At least this starts asking some questions and challenges long held assumptions on the benefits, or not, of immigration to Australia.  By coincidence Euractiv published an article titled ‘Sisyphus’ skills shortage’ that challenges the fixed or ‘steady state’ view of employment, insights include:

‘In politics, it’s normal to think about jobs as if there were a fixed amount of potential jobs that society should aim to fill. In this mindset, labour force shortages are half-empty glasses that we need to fill.

The danger of looking at labour markets in such a way is that there is always a danger of overflowing, in which new water pushes out the water already in the glass. This is the picture politicians have in mind when they warn that migrants might steal the jobs of locals.

However, the picture is not only dangerous – it is also wrong. An economy is not static, as a glass of water, an economy is dynamic…

…Companies and governments should do all they can to invest in getting the skills they need, be it through educational programmes, making it easier for women to take part in the labour force, or through labour-friendly immigration systems, even if it is a Sisyphean task.

Labourforce shortages are a sign of a thriving economy, skills shortages point to an innovative economy. Only in a depression is there no skills shortage.

Or, as French philosopher Albert Camus put it: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”’

The Conversation article excerpts from ‘How to improve the migration system for the good of temporary migrants – and Australia’ (Published: February 27, 2023)

‘The biggest review of Australia’s migration system in decades is due to be delivered to the federal government.

Commissioned by the Albanese government last September, its task is to identify reforms that will increase economic productivity, address challenges such as an ageing population, and make Australia a more desirable destination for highly skilled migrants.’

But perhaps its thorniest job is how to provide temporary migrants with clear pathways to permanent residency and citizenship. This won’t be easy, given how much the number of temporary migrants in Australia now outstrips the permanent visas on offer.

It’s impossible to run an uncapped temporary migration program with a capped permanent program and offer all long-term temporary visa holders a road to permanent residency.

Something has to give.’

No, as temporary entrants or residents, described as migrants is incorrect, as most are international students, and understand that long term permanence requires an application for migration, which comes under the permanent cap; many are content being temporary residents but baulk at permanent.

‘Simple arithmetic: demand exceeds supply’

No, as temporary entrants or residents under the NOM net overseas migration, being described as migrants is incorrect, as most are international students who understand that long term permanence requires an application for migration, which comes under the permanent cap (they understand this system better than Australians).

‘This is far in excess of the cap on permanent visas offered. In 2019, the Morrison government reduced the cap from 190,000 to 160,000 places a year. The Albanese government raised it to 195,000 for the 2022-23 financial year. It remains to be seen what will happen in future years.

The queue is getting longer

Not all temporary visa-holders want to stay in Australia, but many do. Most migrants are already in Australia on a temporary visa when they receive their permanent visa.

But with a greater number of temporary residents vying for permanent residency, the wait times are rising, and migrants’ prospects of success are declining.’

Contestable as temporary migration is a solution used as ‘churnover’ of ‘net financial budget contributors’ (not staying long term nor accessing social security later), slow or no processing may be ideologically driven e.g. cutting department head counts or costs and creating uncertainty for applicants i.e. ‘hostile environment’ with suboptimal employment conditions, while Covid helped in backing up both applications and temporary residents onshore.

‘Many employers are reluctant to hire international graduates on temporary visas, instead hiring applicants who already have permanent residency. This helps explain why a quarter of recent graduates (on temporary graduate visas) are either unemployed or not looking for work. Most that do work earn no more than working holiday-makers, despite being more qualified.’

Much of this confusion can be blamed on local and imported nativist agitprop inspired by the original US fossil fueled Malthusian ZPG Zero Population Growth movement viewing (locally), post 1970s ‘immigrants’ as an environmental ‘hygiene’ issue and foil to demands for carbon pricing and transition to renewable sources; most media in Australia unwittingly reflect or even encourage similar attitudes of antipathy towards immigrants.

‘What to do about it?

Offering a permanent visa to every long-term temporary migrant who wants one would require an enormous, and unpopular, increase in Australia’s permanent intake.

Even a smaller, more realistic, increase in the permanent intake would come with costs – notably more expensive housing.’

On housing, there is little compelling evidence or analysis when house prices are falling, even more so in real terms, while most real estate data are PR factors?

‘Capping temporary visas would reduce pressure on already-rising rents. But it would also make it harder for some employers and mean fewer international students paying fees to universities.’

Create chaos through more bureaucracy being applied to foreign entrants i.e. takes decision making of education institutions out of their hands, plus individual students, backpackers etc. and requires an entry approval system a la nativists’ ‘one in one out’; increasing hurdles for everyone including Australians if too many want to return in a short time?

‘So what should we do?

We should continue to give priority to younger, skilled migrants for permanent visas. Pathways to permanent residency should not be automatic nor based on how long temporary migrants have been in Australia. A guaranteed pathway to permanent residency in Australia will only encourage more people to come here on temporary visas, and those already here to stay even longer.

We should also avoid creating new temporary visa programs for less skilled workers in areas such as agriculture or the care economy, because they only add to demand for more permanent visas down the track.

We must acknowledge that not all temporary migrants can stay in Australia, even if they want to.’

Fair, but why is it about doing something about migrants versus ensuring coverage and compliance of employee wages and conditions by employers, with unions, regulators, peak employer groups and local councils for both locals and migrants?

‘Change the selection criteria

The current policy grants permanent skilled work visas on the basis of occupation. This should change to whether migrants can earn a good wage – demonstrated by a sponsoring employer being willing to pay them at least A$85,000 a year.

Another reform would be to allow temporary skilled migrants to work in any occupation, provided they earn more than A$70,000 a year, so they can build their skills and careers in Australia before securing permanent residency.’

Why the arbitrary near median salary threshold when there is a need not only for highly skilled temporary immigrants, but also low skilled below median salary, as our demographic decline does not discriminate between skilled and unskilled occupations and employees, nor does mortality?

‘Creating a better system for points-tested visas – which is how many students secure permanent residency – would also help. The current system encourages migrants to gain points through spending thousands of dollars on low-value courses, or by moving to regional areas where there are fewer job opportunities.

Instead, there should be a single points-tested visa, where points are only allocated for characteristics that point to a migrants’ future success in Australia.

The aim of the migration system should be to create clearer pathways to permanent residency in Australia. But that doesn’t mean that everyone who wants to stay can do so.’

For more related articles on Ageing democracy, Australian immigration news, Demography, Economics, International Student, NOM Net Overseas Migration, Political Strategy and Younger Generations click through or read below:

Economic Research – No Negative Relationship with Immigration and Wages, Income or Employment

Immigration Immigrants and Public Misconceptions

Immigration is not Cause of Unemployment

Immigration Population Growth Decline NOM Net Overseas Migration

Population Pyramids, Economics, Ageing, Pensions, Demography and Misunderstanding Data Sets

International Education – Experience of Students and Stakeholders

International Education – Foreign Student – Value

International Education – National Political Challenges – Return of International Students and Education in Australia

Article in The Conversation Australia titled ‘COVID halved international student numbers in Australia. The risk now is we lose future skilled workers and citizens‘ about the prospects for universities with international students returning, but in much lower numbers. This would also affect the skilled permanent immigration system by decreasing the available pool of potential applicants onshore.

However, there are several related points including the broader sector, neither countering nor rebutting nativist PR in media/politics addressing ageing monocultural voters, backgrounded by local and global demographic decline.

The latter is a contentious point as Australians have been subjected to decades of imported fossil fuel supported ZPG spruiking ‘nebulous’ NOM net overseas migration representing short term churn over (inflated by the UNPD in 2006) demanding more visa, border and immigration restrictions to halt population growth for environmental hygiene; ‘greenwashing’ and ‘dog whistling’.

While most comments reflect the zeitgeist of demanding more support for locals, a comment from Conor King, a Melbourne based academic, elaborates and explains better:

‘The article is a very narrow emphasis on a major achievement of providing education to a great number of people.  With over 80% of students leaving Australia to return to home country or go to another, the residence outcome is both useful but far from typical – 80% figures comes from Immigration-Treasury study of Australia’s population and immigration from early 2000s to mid 2010s.  

That was before the massive expansion in Chinese students in a few unis (far from all) – with Chinese students preferred by Immigration because they do return home in large numbers and otherwise tend to obey visa requirements.

What is interesting is the comments that seem to forget that humans wandered out of Africa through some mix of need, whimsy and opportunity, and have not stopped wandering since.  

For various periods some places experienced less, and the folk there suffering physical, cultural and philosophical isolation turning them inward and inbred. Reflected in current day nationalisms and their appeals to modern day stories of times past.

A national border should be like a state or local government border – an indicator of a set of ever developing local customs and rules, not a barrier to movement of people, ideas or goods.

In sum – Australia’s education institutions educate people – lots of them.  That’s good.’

King points out a misunderstanding that has been encouraged by ‘Australia’s best demographer’ informing media i.e. at times suggesting ALL students are eligible for automatic permanent residency when it’s only a minority who are eligible and then only another minority actually gain residency under the permanent cap.

Further, the sector is much broader than universities, even if they look down their noses, but also includes schools, English colleges and the vocational sector; who are also important for lower skilled pathways but also act as ‘net financial budget contributors’, why is this important?

Although the Anglosphere puts much trust in suboptimal UNPD data analysis, the OECD population data gives a much more stark graphical presentation i.e. all cohorts in most nations are in decline but increasing dependency ratios of pensioners and retirees to be supported by public services, but fewer tax payers?

‘COVID halved international student numbers in Australia. The risk now is we lose future skilled workers and citizens

The saying “you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone” reminds us not to take things for granted. It is often when we no longer have something or someone that we recognise the value of what we’ve lost. This is true of international students in Australia whose numbers halved during the pandemic.

Can hindsight help us understand what we had and help to guide our future? That question lingers as tens of thousands of new and returning international students arrive back in Australia now that borders have reopened.

Students pursue international education for a variety of reasons. The main one is to improve their employment prospects.

International students are looking for high-quality, relevant curriculum and credentials that will best serve their career plans. While studying, they also seek social connections that help them to navigate local education and employment systems.

The pandemic created chaos and uncertainty about enrolments, border closures, flight availability and quarantine requirements. Over the past two years, many international students had to put their plans on hold. They hung on to the possibility of studying and working in Australia.

Let’s not forget, they can choose other countries that will be seeking highly educated and skilled graduates. Some have already moved on to countries where borders were open, such as Canada. These countries offered access to high-quality international education with fewer complications and greater certainty about transitioning to work visas.

Their absence hit us hard

Consider what Australia lost when so many international students were gone. In 2019, they contributed an estimated $40.3 billion to the economy. International education supported about 250,000 jobs in Australia.

Border closures reduced enrolments by up to 70% in some parts of the higher education sector.

The financial impacts on Australian universities have been smaller than originally predicted, but the loss of billions in revenue should not be discounted. Universities were exposed to the risks of depending on a never-ending flow of new international students and their tuition fees. The pandemic’s impacts on university finances led to the loss of as many as 35,000 academic and professional jobs.

Local communities and businesses also missed the consumer power of international students and visiting family members who purchased goods and services. Employers have struggled to find enough local workers for job vacancies that these students would fill.

Australia must extend the welcome mat.

The Australian government recently announced incentives for international students to return soon to help overcome labour shortages and stimulate market growth. Visa fee rebates and relaxed restrictions on allowable working hours are aimed at recovery in the international student market, while filling gaps in the workforce. What remains to be seen is how well entry-level and part-time jobs in service and hospitality will translate into future employment opportunities that match these students’ qualifications.

The fall in international student numbers also meant losing key resources for intercultural learning. Although many of us are longing to travel abroad for a dose of intercultural exposure, learning at home between local and international students is a relatively untapped resource. Increasing the numbers of international and local students studying together is part of the solution identified by the Australian Strategy for International Education.

Many international students will need extra support to develop social capital – the friendships, community contacts, mentors and networks that help to build a sense of belonging now and in the future.

International students have been treated like commodities for higher education and the labour market. But they are people, whose choice of international education is connected to their hopes and plans after graduating.

The global pursuit of talent will increase graduates’ opportunities to decide which country they choose for education, for employment and for permanent migration. Not every international graduate will choose to stay in Australia. Fluctuating immigration policy makes it difficult to predict who will be allowed to stay and who will not.

This is not a short-term issue

Many countries, including Australia, need to attract talented graduates to make up for low birth rates, low immigration due to the pandemic and skilled worker shortages. International students are preferred immigrants because they combine experience from their home countries with experience studying and living locally.

As international students return to Australia, the welcome mat needs to stay out longer. It matters how we support them, not only upon arrival, but throughout their academic programs and as they prepare for their future employment.

International students invest in their education and the country where they study. We in turn need to recognise their many contributions and invest in their potential.

The longer-term view requires strategy for supporting them as students, employees and future associates, within and beyond Australia’s borders. Let’s think carefully about what can be improved as international students return to Australia.’

For blogs and article related to international education and demography click through:

Demography, Immigration, Population and the Greening of Hate

Population Pyramids, Economics, Ageing, Pensions, Demography and Misunderstanding Data Sets

Population Decline and Effects on Taxation, Benefits, Economy and Society

E-Learning for University Students in Africa

International Education – Foreign Student – Value

Immigration is not Cause of Unemployment

Immigration Population Growth Decline NOM Net Overseas Migration

Climate Confusion, Astroturfing, Pseudo-Science, Population Movement and Radical Right Libertarians

With COP26, the environment and net zero being in the news, the following Guardian article ‘Meet the ‘inactivists’, tangling up the climate crisis in culture wars‘ is relevant overview on those confusing the science round climate and measures to ameliorate e.g. Net Zero Watch formerly GWPG the Global Warming Policy Foundation linked to Lord Lawson (situated at 55 Tufton Street, London).

However, this modus operandi or strategy including misinformation, astroturfing, lobbying, accessing media, deflecting from fossil fuels and/or carbon mitigation measures also fits with the old ideology of the many corporate leaders, oligarchs and conservative politicians; radical right libertarian socio economic ideology and eugenics but, both are unpalatable to most voters.

Population Movement, Eugenics, Fossil Fuels & the Environment

The ‘science of eugenics’ went quiet after WWII for obvious reasons but reemerged in the US under the guise of ‘population control’, Population Council (Rockefeller) and the UN Population Division (UNPD).  Meanwhile ZPG Zero Population Growth was founded in the ‘70s with support of Rockefeller Bros. (Standard Oil/Exxon), Ford and Carnegie Foundations with directors being Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich and deceased white nationalist and anti-semite John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton.

This was later replicated in the UK with now Population Matters (Ehrlich is a patron) and in Australia, SPA Sustainable Population Australia, in liaison with both Ehrlich and Tanton.  In Australia their role is transparent, i.e. producing ‘demographic research’ that is used for dog whistling post white Australia immigration through the supposed environmental prism of ‘population growth’ portraying immigrants as an environmental ‘hygiene issue’; ‘greenwashing’ racism.

Further, Tanton can also be linked to UK’s Migration Watch, an anti-immigrant lobby group claiming e.g. there is demographic and/or immigration crisis, for media consumption, then negative headlines for tabloids.

It’s the ‘libertarain trap’ as focus upon immigrants and/or population growth then allows both dog whistling and deflecting from fossil fuels etc. and stymying any attempt at robust regulation of carbon and the environment.

Radical Right Libertarian Socio Economic Ideology

There is a network of Koch linked think tanks across the globe in the Atlas Network promoting low taxes, small government, reduced regulation, fewer public services and nobbling education.  In the USA this includes Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Heartland and American Enterprise Institute, the UK it’s Taxpayers’ Alliance, IEA Institute of Economic Affairs etc. and in Australia it’s the IPA Institute of Public Affairs, CIS Centre for Independent Studies and Taxpayers’ Alliance.

They also can be linked back to the white nationalists etc. round the population movement, including the ‘great replacement’ as Tanton had been active in having IRLI involved with the Koch linked and corporate donor supported Congressional lobbying ‘bill mill’ ALEC.  IRLI is part of another Tanton offshoot, FAIR Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, like CIS Center for Immigration Studies and NumbersUSA which informed the Trump White House, Miller, Sessions and Bannon; while nowadays still being deferred to by US media for expert commentary on immigration.

Common interest in antipathy towards empowered immigrants and citizens, discouraging science or ‘experts, versus more gut instinct and religious belief, underpinned by eugenics?

These seemingly disparate elements in different nations seem to orbit in the same system, though publicly dissociated from each other; global warming, climate, environmental regulation and eugenics is the common strand or theme that is shared.

A stark example exists in London, i.e. 55 Tufton Street, coincidentally houses the following groups within the Koch orbit i.e. IEA, Taxpayers’ Alliance and Lord Lawson’s Net Zero Watch, but the surprise is having the Tanton linked Migration Watch sharing the same building; libertarians, climate and/or science denial, immigration restrictions or eugenics aka 18th or 19th century?

The following Guardian article of Jack Shenker unwittingly stumbles across some of these links which are taken at face value but represent a ‘long game’ (identified by Nancy Maclean regarding radical right libertarians) of anti climate science and pro big business or ‘Big Oil’ to influence policy, regulation, MPs and voters, but it’s neither democratic nor transparent.

Also according to DeSmog, there are also links across to Covid science denial, ‘freedom & liberty’ from sensible constraints and with support from Koch linked networks.  Again, similar has been witnessed round the world but especially US, UK and Australia where nativist and/or conservative libertarians appear compelled to reinforce and maintain concepts of freedom & liberty, scepticism of science, avoidance of regulation and strangling government through ever lower taxes, with assistance of the radical right aka Capitol Hill and street demonstrations against Covid restrictions.

Meet the ‘inactivists’, tangling up the climate crisis in culture wars

As climate science has gone mainstream, outright denialism has been pushed to the fringes. Now a new tactic of dismissing green policies as elitist is on the rise, and has zoned in on a bitter row over a disused airport in Kent.

by Jack Shenker

In May 2020, as the world was convulsed by the coronavirus pandemic and global infections topped 4 million, a strange video began appearing in the feeds of some Facebook users. “Climate alarm is reaching untold levels of exaggeration and hysteria,” said an unseen narrator, over a montage of environmental protests and clips of a tearful Greta Thunberg. “There is no doubt about it, climate change has become a cult,” it continued, to the kind of pounding beat you might hear on the soundtrack of a Hollywood blockbuster. “Carbon dioxide emissions have become the wages of sin.”

The video’s reach was relatively small: according to Facebook data, it was viewed somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 times. But over the following weeks more videos came, each one experimenting with slightly different scripts and visuals. All focused on the supposed irrationality and hypocrisy of climate campaigners, and the hardship they wanted to inflict upon society’s most impoverished communities…..

At one stage, users hovering over the logo of that advertiser – a UK organisation called The Global Warming Policy Forum, or GWPF – were informed by Facebook that it was a “Science Site”. The GWPF is not a science website: it is the campaigning arm of a well-funded foundation accused by opponents of being one of Britain’s biggest sources of climate science denial.

The videos being tested by the GWPF in the spring and summer of 2020 were part of a strategic pivot away from explicit climate crisis denialism, and towards something subtler – a move being pursued by similar campaigners across the world. Welcome to a new age of what the atmospheric scientist and environmental author Michael E Mann has labelled climate “inactivism”: an epic struggle to convince you not so much to doubt the reality of climate crisis, but rather to dampen your enthusiasm for any attempts at dealing with it…..

Mackinlay, who has described Britain’s net-zero aspirations as a “social calamity” and insisted that “sooner or later, the public will rebel against this madness”, was not alone in framing decarbonisation through the lens of cultural division and class privilege…. 

Steve Baker, another Conservative parliamentarian and a close ally of Mackinlay, has dismissed the Committee on Climate Change, which advises the government, as “unelected and unaccountable”. Earlier this year, Baker declared that “In net zero, as with Brexit, the political class has in a very, almost smug and self-satisfied way, built a consensus which is not going to survive contact with the public.” Instead, he predicted, “there’s going to be an enormous political explosion.”….

Popular anger at the economic insecurities that are synonymous with 21st-century capitalism – which in the UK have included soaring housing costs, the casualisation of employment and sustained falls in wages – has provided an opening for any political forces presenting themselves as radical outsiders, fighting on behalf of the voiceless masses (Ed. they promote the former to justify the latter). On the right, these grievances have been fused with a cultural resentment towards highfalutin virtue-signalling and liberal elites…

In the run-up to Cop26, more than 30 leading organisations came together to develop a new set of tools capable both of monitoring the online spread of inactivist messaging, and anticipating the next Texas blackout campaign before it takes off. The ongoing project is being led by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or ISD, a thinktank better known for its work tackling hate and extremism. So far it has yielded valuable insights into the shape of climate debates across Europe, such as the “national sovereignty” arguments being used to defend coal mining in Poland, and the entwining of anti-EU sentiments with inactivist climate messaging in Hungary. It has also led to a major report exploring the global spread of “climate lockdown” alarmism, in which hard-right activists and Covid denialists have found common cause in driving fear of pandemic-type lockdowns that they claim will soon be imposed by tyrannical governments at the behest of environmentalists.

It was back in May this year that DeSmog – a journalism platform that aims to expose and eliminate the “PR pollution” around climate breakdown, and one of the project’s partners – first noticed a newly trending Twitter hashtag: #CostOfNetZero. It was being pushed by Steve Baker, the Tory MP for Wycombe and the former chair of the Brexit-supporting European Research Group, as well as a newly appointed GWPF trustee…..

In the months that followed, however, disquiet over the net zero transition began ramping up in sections of the UK press – initially in outlets such as Spiked Online and GB News, but eventually creeping into the pages of major newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Sun, too. In August, the Spectator magazine printed an image of banknotes tumbling into a void on its cover, with the headline “The cost of net zero”; by September, right-leaning media commentators were homing in on the government’s aim of gradually phasing out gas boilers as part of the decarbonisation plan, and replacing them with air- or ground-source heat pumps instead. The far greater economic costs of inaction on climate crisis were rarely mentioned in these reports, but again and again, efforts to reduce our collective carbon emissions were framed as an elitist power-grab….

By the autumn – as a growing cost-of-living crisis began to dominate the news agenda – the GWPF had rebranded itself as Net Zero Watch, a new parliamentary grouping called the Net Zero Scrutiny Group led by Craig Mackinlay had been formed,….

The idea that decarbonisation is inherently elitist is a myth, peddled largely by political figures who have shown little concern for deprived communities in any other context, and who ignore the fact that without a net zero transition it is the very poorest – globally and domestically – who will suffer most severely. But like all effective myths, it is founded on a kernel of truth: namely that under successive governments, political decision-making has felt remote and unaccountable, the rich have got richer, and life for a great many of the rest of us has grown harder.’

For more blogs and articles click through below:

Dumbing Down and Gaming of Anglosphere Media, Science, Society and Democracy

Anglosphere Triangle – Immigration – Environment – Population Growth – Radical Right Libertarians 

Koch Industries: How to Influence Politics, Avoid Fossil Fuel Emission Control and Environmental Protections 

Trump’s White House Immigration Policies and White Nationalist John Tanton

White Nationalist Extremism – Mainstreamed by Politicians and Media

Tactics Against Bipartisan Climate Change Policy in Australia – Limits to Growth?

Conspiracy of Denial – COVID-19 and Climate Science