Where were you when you heard the news? As the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford noted in the early morning of 24th June 2016, this is an event which we shall all look back upon and remember the exact place we were when we heard the news. I know exactly where I was and it too will remain transcribed upon my memory. After the very successful International Federation of Ageing (IFA) conference in Brisbane, where we discussed major global issues concerning the wellbeing of older people across the world, to a two day meeting in Wellington, awarding the Ryman Prize for excellence in age related research, I was spending a day travelling to Auckland, and stopped off to explore the beautiful volcanic valley of Waimangu . As the iPhone signal diminished I lost the in-coming results at around 50-50. Concerning but not alarming I thought. After an hour of experiencing the absolute stunning magnificence of the natural world, I descended to the lake shore to receive a two worded text from my 22 year old son – “we’re finished”. As the hours unfolded, our story – of tackling global poverty, awarding excellence in science, the essential need to preserve our natural environment - descended into one of shock and concern for a man-made crisis that will distract the minds and energies of some of the world’s leaders, and our entire country, away from these pressing global needs for some time to come. A crisis that as the Irish Press declared is “ a bewildering act of self-harm.”
Whatever follows – whether Europe and the UK become more stronger or diminished – three factors have emerged which are of real concern to the scientific endeavours we pursue here at the Institute of Population Ageing.
- The complete public misunderstanding of the net contribution made by migrants to the UK – further inflamed by the press.
- The skewed voting behaviour along age and income lines.
- The concerning and ongoing lack of public understanding of scientific and other expert evidence – evidence seemingly ridiculed at every opportunity by some politicians.
The institute, along with colleagues across the globe, has consistently produced evidence to show the importance of migration in the new global world. Evidence that the net contribution is nearly always positive, and that the major challenge facing the ageing high income countries is one of growing skills shortages. We failed to get this message across – despite the concerted efforts of the migration experts here at Oxford – who were accorded significant press time. In addition, however, the evidence that globalisation with its inevitable mass movement of peoples across the globe would have significant economic and social impacts on local communities was not taken seriously by our politicians. Of particular interest, as the post-referendum data are analysed, are the findings that those communities experiencing high levels of immigration voted to remain, while communities with low levels of migrants generally voted to leave. A further example of lack of real understanding of the dynamics involved and the exploitation of fear for political gain.
Consistent evidence from elections is that individuals do not generally vote on age lines. Yet it appears from released data that while older people voted to leave, younger people voted to remain. (Also older people voted in far higher proportions than younger ones).
Source: Lord Ashcroft Polls
Despite all that, I feel that the young are still an extremely lucky generation with health, educational and global opportunities denied to those before, but it does seem that their wishes and interests have been ignored by their elders. (I should here note that my 91 year old mother voted – for Remain). While elections are short-term and can be easily reversed – this decision was one of monumental concern and has ramifications across their life time; for the first time I heard my 25 year old daughter raising concern for the future of her children and grandchildren in the Britain which is to come. To quote from an Instagram currently circulating – a return to Baked Bean Britain was not what they envisaged.
We must of course be cautious with these data – that it was directly related to age. There was also a strong association with university education and travel and Remain – and younger people have had the advantage of both of these over older generations. Given the low turnout of those under 24, and the relatively high turnout of older people, it may well also be that in low income areas grandparents did take the concerns of their grandchildren into account – but that they were the only members of the family to actually turn out to vote. It may be that older people still hanker back to the old days of traditional Britain – in which case the divide is around generation rather than age. More analysis is clearly needed before the full picture is revealed. It does seem, however, that if the inter-generational picture is complex – the intra-generation scenario is clear – individuals in low income areas voted to Leave – despite the fact that they live in areas most strongly benefitting from EU grants.
However, the factor that I see as most concerning is the ongoing lack of public understanding of scientific and other expert evidence – evidence seemingly ridiculed at every opportunity by some politicians.
This is perhaps the wider message for all. In the new world of social media and the expert public – where does professional expertise sit? In our new and growing globalised world, with freedom of access to information for all, how can we all gain access to evidence in a manner that is trusted and respected? Full and open access to knowledge for all is a huge benefit of a civilised advanced society; how to balance the role of expert knowledge – the wisdom of those who have spent decades studying an area and understand its processes and dynamics - with crowd sourced information in a fast moving internet space? When the Governor of the Bank of England gives his considered expert opinion on what the economic outcome of Brexit is likely to be – and is then ridiculed for being partisan – the question of the understanding of expert knowledge becomes stark.
As a research institute with the aim of producing high level evidence, we do not as a whole have a formal view on Remain or Leave. However these issues – migration, inter and intra-generational rights, responsibilities, and equity, and, most importantly, promoting the public understanding of evidence - do concern us all as academic scholars. To repeat: this is a man-made crisis which will distract the minds and energies of our politicians, civil servants and other leaders, away from the truly pressing global needs for some time to come. It is also, however, an inevitable outcome of our increasingly globalised and confused century.
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36619342
----
About the Authors
Sarah Harper is Professor of Gerontology at the University of Oxford, Director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing and Senior Research Fellow at Nuffield College.
Dr. George W. Leeson is Co-Director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford.
----
Comments Welcome:
We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
Opinions of the blogger is their own and not endorsed by the Institute
Comments Welcome: We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
