Now they want MORE planners

“The Irish Planning Institute has said more planners are needed in order for the Government’s National Planning Framework to be achieved…The I.P.I President Joe Corr said that the number of planners at local authority level reduced during the recession and have never really recovered.”

Samantha Liberi writing on the RTE web site 15/4/’18

 

More Brexit links.

Since the first murmurings about the Schuman Plan reached London in the early fifties Europe has been a bitterly contentious issue in British politics. Even then Ted Heath took one view  and Enoch Powell another. And it still makes the sparks fly in all sorts of places – right across British society. Over Christmas my nephew announced that he had “obviously” voted Remain. I replied smartly that there was nothing obvious about it. All this may be divisive- although I seem to remember a convivial lunch following our exchange. But division and argument are, of course, the very stuff from which democracy is made. Indeed one could say that without such divisions that democracy is pointless.

And certainly Europe and now Brexit raises a whole mass of issues- and not just for Britain. It raises questions about how to preserve peace in Europe.  It raises issues about immigration. It raises issues about free trade, and about the regulation of business. It raises issues about whether parliamentary sovereignty is more important than influence exerted through the political process in Brussels. It also raises questions about Britain’s responsibilities in Europe and elsewhere and, of course, about the border between Northern Ireland and The Republic.

Another illiterate conservative!

How are we to get a handle on all this? In my experience the best way of understanding a controversial issue is not to immerse oneself in a text book which gives a allegedly impartial account of the question. This is essentially an exercise in self- anaesthetism. It is far better, and much more fun,  to seek out conflicting views the more vigorously expressed the better. In this way the debate comes alive, and the confusing issues have a way of clarifying themselves.

This, at least is the thought which lies behind our Brexit links- to which we are adding adding the following links: Lindsay Jenkins, an anti- EU writer http://www.lindsayjenkins.com The Centre for European Reformhttp://www.cer.eu which is pro Europe but not uncritical, infacts http://www.infacts.org a pro Remain site. and Briefings for Brexithttp://www.briefingsforbrexit.com which is run pro Leave Academics. They are all also to be found among our Brexit links.

NOTE: We have also attempted to include the Best for Britain site which is, apparently, paid for by George Soros and run by the Pro- Remain activist Gina Miller ( no relation ). However the site seems to be beset by serious security problems. We will keep trying to establish the link, but we will only do so when it seems safe. 

Readers who are…

….interested in exploring the case against the current intervention in Syria should have  a look at The America Conservative http://www.theamericanconservative.com and Anti- war.com web sites http://www.antiwar.com This last reprints material from a wide variety of other sources- both right and left wing.

One the other side of the coin two sites that can usually be expected to support American interventions are: The National Review http://www.nationalreview.com and The American Enterprise Institute.http://www.aei.org

“Green politics can be deeply Tory…”

…is the short title of an unusually fine article by Daniel Pitt on The Conservative Home web site ( which is, of course, among our British links )  It should compulsory reading. Among many other good things Pitt quotes Burke as saying: “Those who do not offer due piety to those of the past will never find any real concern for their children and grandchildren.” Perfect…and ( perhaps ) relevant to the the current discussion  about the 8th Amendment to our constitution.

 

Now Wexford has a plan!

By Richard Miller.

“I hope that nothing I have said will be taken as personal criticisms of individuals- it is certainly not intended as such. I look upon the present supreme human agents of planning…as [ the ] victims, in common with all of us, of a system, all innocently introduced, which threatens to become our master- an evil genie released from a bottle.” John Jewkes, “Ordeal by Planning” ( London, 1948 ) p.ix

 

County Wexford is the dark green area.

Those of us fortunate enough to live in County Wexford received an added benefit some weeks ago, when a publication entitled “Wexford County Council Economic & Community Investment Programme 2018-2022” unexpectedly tumbled through our letter boxes. This handsome full colour publication of some twenty one pages, complete with a large map of the county, refers to a series of proposals for spending the taxpayer’s money all over the county. It also has a page devoted to small, flattering photographs of all the current county councilors. There are two prefaces written by Chairman of the County Council ( John Hegarty ) and by its newly appointed chief executive officer ( Tom Enright ), which explain the project, and the thinking which underlies it.

The more important and longer of these prefaces is provided by the County Manager. Mr. Enright provides important insight into the etiology of the publication and the plans it describes when he reminds us in his concluding lines that Wexford County Council has recently increased both local property taxes and rates on businesses in order to pay for “this ambitious investment programme” which he is “confident” will create a better future for everybody in Wexford.

The questions that immediately present themselves to the inquisitive reader of course, revolve around the criteria which Mr. Enright, and Mr.Hegarty ( and the other councillors who we are assured have worked with them ) have used to decide which proposals to underwrite, which to reject, and how much to spend on those that they do support. Given the ambitious nature of the plans and the large sums required to pay for them, it seems worthwhile asking whether we can share Mr. Hegarty’s confidence that the money will be well spent.

About this Mr. Hegarty is reassuring. He tells us that the “ Wexford County Council has carried out detailed research on the social and economic profile of the county.” And certainly the council has been busy in this respect. A little browsing on the Wexford County Council web site reveals that experts at Maynooth were commissioned by the council to examine the census data for the county, and to come up with indications of what the Council should be doing. This they did: and their fascinating report runs to more than four hundred pages packed with bar graphs, maps, and statistics, culled from a wide variety of sources most notably census data. The basis of the report is the idea that the council should be worried about developments in parts of Wexford which are atypical of the county, and features in Wexford which are atypical of Ireland as a whole. The thrust of the report is thus managerial and controlling in that it sees difference from the statistical norm as being potentially problematic.

Nevertheless there is much good sense in the proposals which the council has come up in their responses to the concerns raised in the Maynooth report. But how could there not be? Eric Voegelin once observed that the American Supreme Court was such an interesting institution that, however bad the book about it was, it was certain to contain something of value. The same is to some extent true of Co. Wexford. It is impossible to scatter government ( i.e. our )  money across it without doing some good to somebody. But can such “targeted” spending really qualify as investment? For example the Maynooth study points out that Bunclody- a small town in North Wexford on the boundary with Carlow- contains a large number of travellers ( Ireland’s unsettled community ). But how will the three-quarter of a million Euros that the Council proposes to spend in Bunclody improve matters? Put more broadly the plan makes lots of well-intentioned proposals, but leaves a host of hanging questions. Will the proposed “investments” provide an economic return? And if not how will their success or failure be evaluated?

The reader will perhaps think that this is harsh- that I have gone too far. Well, as I say, and would want to stress –that some of the proposals will almost certainly prove successful. It isn’t so much the individual proposals that I have doubts about. I am however troubled by the thought, or rather the lack of it, that underlies the whole exercise. Above all, as I have hinted above, targeting is only sensible when we have some criteria for aiming at one point rather than another. Or in this instance, deciding to do one thing rather than another. It is precisely in making this sort of choice that politicians and officials have a poor record in Ireland and elsewhere.

This bad record has not come about by accident. Partly the failure of government comes about because unlike entrepreneurs, politicians ( like Mr.Hegarty ) and their officials ( like Mr. Enright ) are insulated from the risk of failure. It is not their money which is at risk. More importantly it is because they don’t, and can’t really know, what they are doing- because the criteria they employ for making such “investments” not being economic  are always to some extent subjective and may well be irrational. What criteria are there for deciding whether to spend the taxpayers money in Coolgraney- in the far North of the county, or Campile- in the South? In practice the decision boils down to political pull or personal preference- neither are good guides for rational behaviour.

As an example, let’s explore in more detail one of the concerns which was identified by the Maynooth report and which trouble Mr. Hegarty and Mr. Enright. They both say that the county should not be exporting its young people. Neither are referring to Emigration from Ireland to say England or Australia- but to commuting within Ireland. Their publication views the fact 18.4% of the people in Wexford work outside the county as a challenge which needs to overcome. But why on earth is this seen as a problem that needs to be addressed by the county council when the Maynooth report tells that Co. Wexford has fewer long distance commuters than all but five of Ireland’s twenty seven counties?

The authors seem unnecessarily troubled by the fact that North Wexford ( the area in which I live ) is now in fairly easy commuting distance of Dublin- thanks to the new Motorway- and numerous people now do so as is evidenced by the demographic data in the Maynooth report,  and by the rush of cars past my gate early in the morning. These, however are not the only commuters in Co. Wexford. Messrs Hegarty and Enright also seem to be committed to the proposition that someone living New Ross and working in Waterford has somehow been “exported” from Co. Wexford, and must in some way be recovered by Wexford County Council as if they had fallen off a pier. I find this view largely delusional. But, whether I am right about this or not, it certainly isn’t so serious a problem that government money needs be used to be address it. And yet this is what our two champions imply.

The trouble really is that like all economic planners our authors both overestimate their capacity for making economic judgements, and underestimate the ability that other people have for organising their own lives- not just for themselves but for their communities also. ( We should not assume that social responsibility is limited to government actors. ) The danger is that the Council will be led on from its conviction for the need for balanced development into an attempt to guide the economy of the county as a whole in particular directions- thus substituting their own attitudes for the subtle, ever changing, and far more accurate signals, sent by the market. To put it bluntly, why do politicians and bureaucrats like Messrs Hegarty and Enright think that they have greater insight into where people should live than the individuals in the property market themselves? Why shouldn’t somebody sell a house in Dublin, buy one in North Wexford where the quality of life is  higher, pocket the difference, and then start putting up with inconvenience of a longer journey to work- if that is what makes sense to him or her? These are exactly the sort of decisions that responsible individuals are best placed to make for their families. ( See, the Disclosure below )

More troublingly yet, by seeking to identify solutions to problems that barely exist, our planners have failed to focus sufficiently on the things that local government alone can do. Instead worrying about the evils of “long” distance commuting, our public representatives and their officials should increase the level of local policing, both in the towns and countryside- as there is too much yobbery in the one, and too much robbery in the other-if only because the high cost of security and insurance are an unofficial tax on entrepreneurial activity. The Council should also do much more to improve and maintain local roads in the county. While Co. Wexford has a flourishing micro- business sector, the council needs to start exploring the anecdotal evidence that barriers to entry are much too high. Street trading should be encouraged.  Radical solutions such as enterprise zones need to be examined. Above all the Council needs to look into the manner in which excessive regulation prevents small businesses from growing in the way that they should. In such ways as these the Council could materially contribute to the prosperity of the “model county”. Worrying the supposed dangers of commuting , and distributing expensive leaflets, isn’t going to do it for Wexford for Ireland!

DISCLOSURE.

As a resident of a rural part of North Wexford I would of course benefit from better roads and more policing in the area. The value of my house is also increased by the fact that it is in reasonable commuting distance of Dublin.

REFERENCES AND SUBSIDIARY STUFF.

John Jewkes ( 1902-1988 ) was a professor of economics at the University of Manchester. “Ordeal by Planning” was his most famous book. He was also an expert on innovation.

The full title of the document I have called “The Maynooth Report” is the “Wexford Socio-Economic Base Line Report.” As indicated above it is available on the Wexford Count Council web site.

My recollection is that the passage from Eric Voegelin I refer to is in “The New Science of Politics ” ( Chicago, 1952 ).

The record of economic planners is poor. But, of course, government money is not always wasted. In under developed economies some of the needs are so obvious, i.e. those for roads, telephones, and other basic pieces of infrastructure that it is relatively easy for the government to identify them. However as the economy gets more complicated  this becomes increasingly impossible. For more on planning see Jewkes, and Op cit, F.A. Hayek, “The Road to Serfdom” ( London, 1944 ) and, of course, almost everything by Von Mises. For Hayek elaborate government communication strategies were a troubling part of planning. For Mises and his followers planning is inherently chaotic because for them there can be no economic rationality without a price system.

The changes that have recently taken place in North Wexford are not freakish developments. As long ago as the late nineteen seventies it was obvious that all that prevented the area North of Gorey from being part of the Dublin commuter belt  was the appalling state of the old Wexford road as it was then called, and the poor train service. Now that the road has become a motorway ( the N.11 ), and commuter trains introduced, there is nothing to stop people commuting to Dublin from Co. Wexford, and many do. I see nothing surprising or alarming in this. The same phenomena is to be seen all over the world- for example the way in which in The United States Inter state 95 South from Washington D.C. has created a commuter corridor which extends as far as Fredericksburg fifty odd miles into Virginia.

The economics behind all this are not difficult. As the division of labour becomes more pronounced certain areas become the focus of certain economic activities, because of the specialized supply chains that they need, and the fact that expertise is a localised phenomena. “Birds of a feather flock together” which is the reason that we talk about Cheddar Cheese and Champagne. ( See, Ludwig Von Mises, “Human Action” ( Auburn, 1988 ) p.157. ) Like all advanced economies the Irish is become increasingly dominated by service industries. For a variety of cultural and economic reasons these tend to be conducted in urban areas, and consequently areas at the fringes of such cities become sought after places in which to live. Is it really very surprising that someone developing a piece of software in Dublin might want to unwind on the beach at Courtown? ( Perhaps another way of making this point is to say that the more specialised the skills a person has the more likely they are to find work only in a city.)

Hayek is interesting about the appeal of the city in “The Constitution of Liberty” ( Chicago, 1960 ) p.340  where he points out that “when we speak of “urbanity” “civility” or “politeness” we refer to the manner of life in cities.” I love the Irish countryside. But is it any great wonder then that many people want to work where there is more urbanity civility, and politeness? There is also the point that innovation seem to come about more naturally in an urban rather than a rural setting, perhaps because the greater the number of people the greater the number of human interactions. Both urban and rural life have their appeal. But getting the “right” balance between the them is surely something that should be left to the individual. For some people long distance commuting can be an attractive solution.

The BBC on conservatives in Brazil

A couple of weeks before Christmas The Edmund Burke Institute held a session for undergraduates in Dublin. It went well; and we plan to hold more of them, although probably not before the start of the next academic year. As everybody introduced themselves I was struck by the fact that two of the ten or so people who attended came from Latin America, and I wondered whether this might be part of a larger story. And this indeed seems to be the case- if the BBC is to be believed. This morning the Beeb’s web site contained a story about young Conservatives and Libertarians in Brazil- as if this was a very exotic development.

I must confess to knowing very little about Brazil. Consequently I do not know whether the story was accurate or fair. But  what was certainly evident was the utter amazement of the piece’s author that anyone in the third world could ever espouse any ideas other than those of the centre left. Indeed the tone of the report brought to mind an occasion some years ago when a young researcher at RTE telephoned me about some story he was working on. We fell into a quite convivial conversation about this web site. He flatteringly said that he found it “thoughtful” ( which is indeed the intention! ) however as he spoke it became clear to me that before visiting our site he had absolutely no exposure to the ideas of the intelligent right at all. The names of Burke, Hayek, Mises Kirk, Scruton and the rest, were quite unknown to him. His store of knowledge about the history of ideas was lamentably small; and entirely restricted to figures such as Marx, Lenin- whose tract on imperialism has been unaccountably influential- Keynes, Galbraith, and Rawls. It isn’t then just libertarianism in Brazil which is exotic and “unlikely” to many of our contemporaries, but the whole notion that serious discussion is possible about a wide range of issues. Debate has in effect been made impossible by selective ignorance.

The point here is not just a matter of left versus right. The reality is that our education system has failed. The popularly held view of our past is utterly attenuated. The multi- faceted richness of the western intellectual tradition seems to be as unknown as the far side of the moon to much of our media class. Is it any wonder then that they are baffled by the presence of those in Brazil who believe that a wise mixture of tradition and freedom is the best way of achieving the order and progress which is so proudly inscribed on their nations flag? Our new conservative friends in South America will find that they have their work cut out. So have we.

The jury in rape trials

We have not mentioned the highly publicized rape trial that has been going recently in Belfast. However it was predictable when all four defendants in it were acquitted by the unanimous decision of the jury that our feminist friends should have claimed that an injustice was been done. The notion being of course that the whole male dominated system was rigged against the woman who asserted that she had been raped. In this instance there was probably no truth to this suggestion. Three of the jurors were women, as was the judge, and there was an important female witness whose testimony told in favour of the defendants. Much of the Ibelieveher rhetoric has been exaggerated. The protesters in Dublin seem to have been the usual rentamob. Nevertheless, perhaps the feminists have a point. The system DOES look rather male, and it clearly does not enjoy the confidence of many women. In order then to ensure not just that justice be done, but that it also be seen to be done, might there not be an argument for insisting that half the jurors should be women in trials such as this?

When Britain had plan- about Thermos flasks!

FROM HANSARD 11/11/1947

Mr. Lambert ( Torrington, National Liberal- in practice Conservative )- asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that one thousand farmers and farm workers in Devonshire require [ i.e lack ] Thermos flasks; and that what steps he has taken to remedy the shortage, and when such flasks in sufficient quantities will be available.

Mr. T . Williams, ( Labour, Don Valley, Minister of Agriculture 1945-1951 ) The distribution of permits to buy Thermos flasks is undertaken by farmers’ and farm workers’ organisations, which consider the needs of each county, but as my Department’s allocation is only 14,000 permits a month for the whole of England  and Wales, applicants have to wait their turn for flasks as for other scarce goods. I understand that it is not likely that the total allocation [of Thermos flasks] can be increased  immediately, but I would point out that farmers and farm workers receive nearly fifty percent of the production under the present scheme.

QUESTIONS:

1] In the absence of a free market in Thermos flasks how was the correct number of flasks to be produced in each month arrived at?

2] Further, what rational basis was there for assuming that half this number should be allocated the farmers and farm workers? Was this proportion too high, or too few, or just right?

3] How were “needs”  each county for Thermos flasks to be assessed? What criteria were to be used?

4] In the event of a county being allocated fewer flasks than the number that were requested, who was to be given the right to buy a Thermos and who denied it? And on what basis were such decisions to be made?

5] And so on, and so on…

  ADDITIONAL NOTE: This was not an exceptional situation in Mr. Attlee’s utopia. And nor did such episodes only arise in respect of trivial goods. There was a similar exchange between the same two men about tractor tyres just over a month later.