They’re talking about us? Ireland is the ‘ultimate nanny state?’ Say it’s not so…. March 3, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economics, Economy, Irish Politics.trackback
The Irish Independent today makes the fascinating, albeit unlikely, charge that Ireland is the ‘ultimate nanny state’. The evidence for this contention they suggest come from:
a study by the the Hebrew University of Jerusalem which tracked the growth of regulator agencies in 49 countries across 16 different areas, including health, environment and electricity.
In 1989 the US regulated 13 areas while Ireland regulated just two. In 2002 Ireland regulated all areas except for insurance, placing it ahead of all other countries surveyed.
The survey found there are 215 organisations with statutory powers to regulate, and 52 public bodies dedicated to regulation.
Apparently we have:
267 organisations with statutory powers which overlook every aspect of the economy and how we live our lives, with regulation in more areas than 48 other countries surveyed.
And one quarter of the 52 public bodies dedicated to regulation has been created in the past four years, despite a Government commitment to check if agencies could be merged.
This is all well and good, but the term ‘nanny state’ suggests at the very least some capability on the part of these organisations or public bodies to actually effect change. And here I think the thesis becomes remarkably thin. Because as also quoted in the article:
Professor of EU regulation and governance at UCD, Colin Scott, said that the 13 supervisory bodies include the Private Security Agency, the Taxi Regulator and the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), and that political pressure was the most common reason for their establishment.
“It’s a way of delivering a symbolic political commitment” he said. “Take the example of the HIQA. There’s a perception that the HSE is not performing as well as it could be and the minister is getting a bit of flak for it, so regulation is at the top of the solution list.”
The key word here is ’symbolic’. The agency’s exist but their power is often rhetorical and evidence of something being seen to be done rather than actually being done. Part of the reason for this is the generally – and pardon the term – chickenshit approach to issues of nationalisation and privatisation. Governments unwilling to divest themselves fully of responsibility, but unwilling to actually deal with what responsibility they actually had, and unwilling to go against the grain as regards the rightwards drift of the last two decades subcontracted those same responsibilities out so that they could keep them at arms length. Close, but not close enough.
And lest we descend into some sort of nonsense about regulatory issues in Ireland somehow having a profoundly detrimental impact on commerce or trade note by contrast the ranking that Ireland gets in the following survey by the right of right of centre Heritage Foundation (one of the ‘worlds most prominent conservative think tanks’) that Ireland is the ‘third most free’ country in the world (and cheers to the indefatigable Irish Liberty Forum for the link to the HF report and in particular Graham who is keeping the torch of right libertarianism burning bright here – and my apologies for not adding them to the blogroll before now). And how handy that was for a right project because the sort of ire expressed here in the Independent in and of itself undercut even the ‘regulatory’ role for the state that those uncomfortable with full blown economic liberalism sought refuge in. So, win win for those who wanted to roll said state right back, first by a frontal assault that delegitimised state activity in the economy and second by a secondary assault on the proxies that the state established.
Yet curiously, according to the Heritage Foundation “Index of Economic Freedom”:
Ireland has high levels of business freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, and freedom from corruption. Government regulation is light. Inflation is low, but Ireland’s monetary score suffers somewhat from distortionary EU agricultural subsidies. Foreign investment is restricted only in a few sectors. Financial markets are transparent and open to foreign competition. Property rights are well protected by an efficient, independent judiciary.
Ireland’s economy is significantly free, with only two categories slightly below the average world score. Fiscal freedom and government size both score 3 percentage points below average. Government spending as a proportion of GDP is just over one-third, and the top individual income tax rate is a high 42 percent.
Well I never.
One trope which actually contains more than a fair bit of truth is the idea that business and capital never stop complaining. Lower taxes and they’ll argue they’re not low enough. Cut regulation and they’ll scream about how they’re being stifled.
We’re the ultimate ‘nanny state’? Yeah, right. The Republic of Ireland, easily mistaken for Sweden West…
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
As an aside note the following also from the Heritage Foundation:
Corruption is perceived as minimal. Ireland ranks 18th out of 163 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006. It is illegal for public servants to accept bribes, and the police investigate allegations of corruption. Ireland has ratified the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and is a member of the OECD Working Group on Bribery and the Group of States Against Corruption.
More to do though, definitely more to do…
Thanks for the link and nice words, wbs. I’ve been writing up a response about political labels which I will publish when I get a chance to polish it up.
With regard to the content of your post here, what you write seems very plausible to me. To me Ireland, like most Western nations, has very strong elements of government interventionism combined with some elements of the free market. Are we more or less interventionist than most other places? Measuring that is complicated when neighbours in Europe and elsewhere follow such similar models. But Heritage seem to have made a good effort to me.
As for the regulatory agencies, I would agree that just counting them may not give us a complete picture in terms of measuring how much of a nanny state we are living in. However, this is another difficult measurement. Maybe the researchers also counted how many rules have been created by these agencies? That wouldn’t give us anything like a complete picture either but I think it would be a start.
I wouldn’t disagree with you at all Graham, although enforcement of rules is at least as important. After all I drive on the roads on a license which means I should have a full license holder beside me. Sometimes I don’t, as it happens. The rule is there, but it’s hardly observed at all. So it will require an analysis which considers how many of these are implemented/enforced.
Of all the many statutory bodies, regulatory agencies and quangos that have proliferated over the last few years, the most outrageous has to be the Expert Body on Fluorides & Health.
For a start, the title is a misnomer: None of the 24-odd members (www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/about_us/membership.html) is an expert on fluoride. And it’s not about health either. Contrary to its stated purpose, the Expert Body (EB) is there to keep fluoridation going at all costs, and to preserve the reputations of the coterie of dentists who run the show (because those reputations are utterly tied to fluoridation).
Who? They are the doyens of fluoridation: Clarkson, O’Mullane and O’Hickey, aided and abetted by the younger dentists Whelton, Mullen, McDermott and Shannon. It was no surprise to hear that the EB had engaged the services of Weber Shandwick, the giant PR company who specialize in “preserving reputation”. Paid for by the unfortunate taxpayer/consumer of fluoride, of course.
The other members of the EB are ciphers in all of this. I don’t normally think of Prof William Binchy as a cipher, but you have to wonder why he doesn’t attend any of the EB’s meetings (every two months). The meeting minutes give you some idea of what the EB is up to, if you comb painfully through the most appalling gobbledygook (as with every EB document). To complete the picture of cover-up, the minutes never appear on the website until many months after a meeting. For example, the latest we have right now is from June 2007.
There is (a bit of) an exception among EB documents: The latest info leaflet, Questions & Answers about Fluoridation, is not so much gobbledygook as a barefaced tissue of lies. No doubt it is being widely distributed now to all health boards, local authorities, doctors’ and dentists’ clinics, and so on — at taxpayers’ expense.
You might ask: Why all the gobbledygook, when the truth is very simple?
* Tooth decay is caused by sugar. There is no other cause.
* No one needs fluoride, ever.
* Fluoridation is contrary to fundamental medical principles.
* Fluoridation is an abuse of human rights.
All the EB’s secretarial duties are carried out by the Dental Health Foundation, a well-resourced quasi-charity, which is in reality little more than a fluoride-promotion outfit. Alarmingly, the DHF is 99% funded by Mary Harney’s Department of Health & Fluorides, I mean, Children.
Since fluoridation does not prevent tooth decay — it only delays it, through delayed tooth eruption and other side effects — we should tell the Minister to stop fluoridation and abolish forthwith the Expert Body and the Dental Health Foundation, and put those considerable funds to better use.
There is one overriding reason why Harney won’t do that: Washington would be very displeased if Irish fluoridation were stopped. If that is not clear to you, I recommend The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson.
red alert: anti-flouride nutters invade the cedar lounge. I await a post on the connection between flouride, Zionism and the Hong Kong Jockey Club
The fluorine debate started in Ireland in the early 1960s!
As it happens Scientific American had an article on fluoridation some months back which took a fairly neutral stance on the issue and certainly pointed up some potential health issues. soubresauts and myself have discussed this here in the past and although I wouldn’t buy into all the adverse aspects of it I think it’s worth being open minded about the issue.
Interesting that eamonnmcdonagh mentioned Hong Kong, though I guess that had more to do with what he was drinking last night (not just fluoridated water!) than with the nanny state discussion.
I would suggest that the three outstanding nanny states in the world are Ireland, Hong Kong and Singapore. Do the three have certain things in common? They do! For a start — fluoridation.
Hong Kong and Singapore are 100% fluoridated — every drop of public water. 73% of Ireland’s water is fluoridated, the omissions being the many small water schemes. Ireland is the world’s only democracy with mandatory water fluoridation.
The key person in the fluoridation of Hong Kong (which started in 1961) was Irish dentist Dr Walter C Allwright who, according to his son, created Hong Kong’s public dental health service, and founded (in 1950) the Hong Kong Dental Association.
(At this stage, WbS is guessing…) Yes, Walter is indeed the father of Tony Allwright who featured on a CLR page recently and is now, I hear, an Irish Times columnist. See:
http://tinyurl.com/2tssvy and http://tinyurl.com/2mmqhu
Family loyalty is of course admirable, but…
Another member of the Allwright clan is the hugely influential epidemiologist and professor of public health in TCD, Dr Shane Allwright. Now the last Irish medical doctor to defend fluoridation in a public forum just happened to be Shane Allwright. That was all of eleven years ago, on the Pat Kenny radio show. Allwright articulately insisted that fluoridation was needed for poor people, and Kenny just lapped it up.
Dr Shane Allwright has trained many of Ireland’s public health doctors. She is a member of the Board of Trinity College, and is also on the board of the nanny-state Office of Tobacco Control (Ireland). She has a professional interest in health inequalities. At the same time she purveys the myth that poor people need fluoride. (”Don’t give them expensive dental care; just fluoridate them,” is the implied refrain.) Despite 60 years of fluoridation, there is no evidence whatsoever that it reduces inequalities.
Believe me, it’s not about science, it’s about reputations.
By the way, you might notice that the people running the nanny state sit in plush offices drinking expensive bottled water at taxpayers’ expense. Meanwhile they act like they’ve never heard of the Precautionary Principle, nor of the principle of Consumer Choice.
Anyway, expect a lot more pro-fluoridation propaganda from the Irish Times. (Cf. http://tinyurl.com/3yugt8)
I was right
It´s a well-known fact that Hong Hong Zionists give fluoridated water to gentile jockeys before races. It reacts with the tiny chips planted in their teeth by dentists, and makes them lose the race.
Also, the only way to combat fluoridation is through vigorous and sustained masturbation.
Huh? You think we’re all nutters, do you, Eamonn & Conor?
Me, and Andrew Rynne (www.fluoridealert.org/news/2803.html), and… most of the world’s greatest experts on fluoride: http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement.html
• 220 PhD’s (includes DSc, Doctor of Science)
• 213 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 199 MD’s (includes MBBS)
• 186 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic)
• 172 Nurses (RN, BSN, ARNP, APRN)
• 90 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
• 40 Lawyers (JD and LLB)
• 30 RDHs (Registered Dental Hygienist and RDHAP)
• 26 Pharmacists (Pharm.D, B. Pharm, DPh, RPH)
• 23 Acupuncturists (LAc – Licensed Acupuncturist, and, MAc -Master Acupuncturist)
• 16 DO’s (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine)
————–
That’s it. I’m convinced. What exactly is the connection with the Twin Towers? Was there flouride in the steel?
Cad a tharla do
Only Our Rivers Run Free ?!
Well, I don’t buy the reputations thing either, but again soubresauts and I have been over this before. There are some potential health hazards and it seems sensible to be cautious about it. I don’t think it’s a huge issue, but… it’s not entirely minimal either.
“• 220 PhD’s (includes DSc, Doctor of Science)
• 213 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 199 MD’s (includes MBBS)
• 186 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic)
• 172 Nurses (RN, BSN, ARNP, APRN)
• 90 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
• 40 Lawyers (JD and LLB)
• 30 RDHs (Registered Dental Hygienist and RDHAP)
• 26 Pharmacists (Pharm.D, B. Pharm, DPh, RPH)
• 23 Acupuncturists (LAc – Licensed Acupuncturist, and, MAc -Master Acupuncturist)
• 16 DO’s (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine)”
Fabulous bit of ‘argument by authority’ there. Funnily enough, while criticising mainstream science for being an elitish clique that’s all about titles and careers, the alternative health folks are amazingly keen to dazzle the public with the important-sounding titles of their supporters. In general, people who tell you their titles before they tell you their arguments are shysters.
I’d also like to point out that the lawyers are an interesting addition. I’m of the opinion that much of the anti “allopathic” medicine is driven by class-action parasite lawyers in the US (c.f. wakefield and MMR).
Another point worth making is that the list includes 90 NDs, 186 DCs, 23 Acupuncturists and 16 DOs which sort of undermines it a lot. The distinguishing feature of all those ‘qualifications’ is that they are makey-uppey. The distinguishing feature of people who hold such qualifications is either a) dishonesty or b) poor reasoning ability. They instantly destroy the credibility of any argument with which they are publicly associated in the eyes of anybody who’s interested in evidence (because they don’t even understand the concept of evidence).
Finally, ironically, one of the demons of the anti-science brigade, Ben Goldacre, recently produced an article about flouridation which effectively argued the case against the practice on the grounds of the paucity of the evidence that it does any good.
Whoops, forgot link:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=611
KTHXBYE
chekov, exactly what I wanted to say but was too lazy to write :=)
I’m a huge fan of Goldacre. He’s a good guy and has a book coming out soon IIRC.
all joking aside, I am perfectly prepared to believe that there might be health issues connected with the use of flouride, just as there are with a whole range of things in contemporary developed-country life.
The thing that gets me is the spit flecked, fevered, conspiratorial tone and subliterate newage garabage nature of many of the arguments deployed
I’d put it a little more mildly than that, but, broadly that is a huge part of the problem. The claims made against fluoridation seem to be excessive, more than would be warranted in the scheme of things. That it may well be detrimental is not a huge issue with me. I’m not madly keen on mass medication, but I think that that is the root of much of this. It’s understandable, but it makes for a fairly heavy going dynamic of engagement with the issue.
NollaigO wrote: “Cad a tharla do”
You mean Andy Rynne? He’s still going strong, and is a great opponent of the nanny state. Yes, there is the musical connection: He was sort of responsible for Planxty starting up (the Prosperous album was recorded in his house), and he gave “The Cliffs Of Dooneen” to Christy…
I find some people’s attitude here quite extraordinary.
eamonnmcdonagh wrote:
I am perfectly prepared to believe that there might be health issues connected with the use of flouride, just as there are with a whole range of things in contemporary developed-country life.
And you have no objection to being fluoridated?
The thing that gets me is the spit flecked, fevered, conspiratorial tone and subliterate newage garabage nature of many of the arguments deployed
Examples? There are several very well-known anti-fluoridation websites, but you’re not referring to those, are you?
WorldbyStorm wrote:
That it [fluoridation] may well be detrimental is not a huge issue with me.
Why not? What would it take to make you say to your local TDs and to the Government: “I don’t want that stuff in the water!”?
Is there some virtue in taking it lying down? “Yeah, go right ahead. I’ll swallow it.”
By the way, the legal basis of Irish fluoridation is that it is absolutely safe. The 1963/64 judgements in the Ryan case were ridiculous (Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh really was a thundering disgrace then). But lawyers, doctors and politicians are afraid to criticize the judges.
And the prohibition on medication without consent is an absolute right. Ask any doctor.
About Ben Goldacre: There’s something very odd about the vehemence with which he attacks Wakefield (a pro-vaccination “allopathic” doctor), while he takes a lackadaisical attitude towards the forced fluoridation of 5 million English people based on bad science. There is no doubt that Wakefield has a huge number of supporters (such as http://www.cryshame.com) and we’ll be hearing a lot more about him.
as I was saying…
“About Ben Goldacre: There’s something very odd about the vehemence with which he attacks Wakefield (a pro-vaccination “allopathic” doctor), while he takes a lackadaisical attitude towards the forced fluoridation of 5 million English people based on bad science.”
It’s not odd at all actually. One situation is characterised by a high degree of uncertainty, the other is cut and dried. With flouride, there is weak evidence of health benefits against strong evidence of cosmetic harm and very little else in the way of evidence. Adopting an attitude short of zeal in such a situation is not being “lackadaisical” it is being sensible – there’s no point in expending a lot of energy in a situation where the evidence is so uncertain and where there’s no worthwhile evidence of any harm anyway.
In the other situation, it has been totally established, beyond any reasonable doubt that Wakefield was a) wrong b) dishonest and c) incompetent.
Whatever about the flouride argument, the only way you can stand up for this shyster is by totally ignoring the evidence. Such blind faith in people who have a message that you want to be true, for whatever reason, completely undermines your chances of being taken seriously by people who are interested in what is most likely to be true and who don’t have any desire to arrive at a particular conclusion. .
Chekov, that’s specious nonsense.
With flouride…, there is weak evidence of health benefits against strong evidence of cosmetic harm and very little else in the way of evidence. Adopting an attitude short of zeal in such a situation is not being “lackadaisical” it is being sensible…
“Very little else in the way of evidence”? You haven’t looked, have you? You just parrot what Goldacre says.
“… it is being sensible…”? Even a child can see that the sensible approach with fluoridation is to stick with the precautionary principle, rather than let the people be fluoridated. You don’t require zeal to say “stop force-fluoridating people”, just common sense. Goldacre seems to be afraid to state that.
A lot of people are ruled by fear. American dentist Bill Osmunson, who promoted fluoridation for 25 years before seeing the light, wrote recently to the BMJ (www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7622/699#178415):
“The biggest problem in the US scientific community is the fear Universities, Medical and Dental Associations and Journals have in permitting discussion, debate and scientific review of fluoridation.”
Your words about Wakefield are emotion and wishful thinking.
Thanks for the info on Andy Rynne, soubresauts. However my point was a different one. If the state assumes the right to inject the public water system with fluorine, then the state claims the right to administer, compulsory, a medicine, even of dubious use, to all its citizens.
So our rivers don’t run free!
This point was argued as far back as the 1960s when fluorine was first introduced into the public water supply system. Was there not a constitutional challenge to this in those days?
[...] thanks to Cedar Lounge Revolution also for kindly linking to [...]
This point was argued as far back as the 1960s when fluorine was first introduced into the public water supply system. Was there not a constitutional challenge to this in those days?
Nollaig, that was the Ryan case, 1963-64, when the Irish judges, led by Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, disgraced themselves. See:
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/this-loony-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-fluoridation-and-the-irish-greens/#comment-4299