The Anglo Irish Economic War - Is History repeating itself and where are we at now ??

CDfm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Where did you get your figures for houses built in this period. Id love to compare the period (20 years) before independence with the same period after. In the same way it would be interesting to see the figures for the 1960's when Lemass gets credited with modernisation.

These things are always valid indicators and it is worth digging out what info there is even if it is approximate.

I have seen the figure 91,000 (edit) quoted for new houses built between 1922 to 1939 (65,000) after 1932.

I will have a look too as it could be an interesting footnote.

EDIT -@ johnniebgood check here page 254

http://irserver.ucd.ie/dspace/bitstream/10197/396/3/ogradac_article_pub_098.pdf

Conditions in Schools may also be an indicator

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/jspui/bitstream/2262/6939/1/jssisiVolX539_547.pdf

CDfm

And theres more pre 1922 figures

Tony Fahey, in “Social Housing in Ireland. A Study of Success, Failures, and Lessons Learned“, calls the provision of social housing acts a “consolation prize” for the labourers - the initiative came from land reform and the Parliamentary party, rather than from separate demands for social housing. Even with this caveat, significant legislation was, nonetheless, passed -

starting with the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883 (as amended in 1885), which enabled boards of guardians to provide cheap housing for rent to farm labourers, subsidised out of local rates and low-cost loans from central government… This initiative, together with the Labourers Act, 1886, which extended housing eligibility to part-time agricultural labourers, resulted in the completion by rural local authorities of 3,191 labourers’ cottages in 1890 alone. Output over the following decade averaged at 700 dwellings a year, but it rose dramatically after the introduction of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. This Act established a dedicated labourers cottage fund to provide low-interest loans for rural local authority house-building and, most significantly, sanctioned that 36 per cent of the loan repayments would be met by central government. (”Local Government in Ireland, Inside Out“, p.169)

By the time the Free State came into being, local authorities were firmly established as the main providers of social housing for rent and, eventually, purchase.
By 1922, rural local authorities had built 50,582 dwellings - 41,653 of which had been built under the terms of the various labourers acts, and which accounted for about 10 per cent of the total rural housing stock. (Local Government, p.170). At the same time, only 8,861 dwellings had been completed by urban councils. The Cumman na nGaedheal governments did little to change this imbalance, preferring to subsidise private, rather than public, housing.


http://dublinopinion.com/2007/06/25/irish-home-ownership-myths-and-reality/

There is a good explanation of how Local Government worked and especially housing here

http://deskeenan.org.uk/6pochapter6.htm#housing

There also was a plan in 1919 for the British to build 65,000 houses in Ireland on the back of an election promise and turning up here in Irish Legislation enacted in 1928

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1928/en/si/0070.html

So maybe it was an inherited policy .

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

So maybe it was an inherited policy .

The policy of building and improvement goes back to at least the end of the Land War - and the granting of the 'Three Fs' - and the so called 'Killing Home Rule with Kindness" policies that grew out of all that. So no surprise there.

But the question is how much of it all was actually implemented and how much was actually done. Seems by the time we get to the 1930s there was an imperative need to do something about housing both in Dublin and the rural areas. Lemass was quite vocal in making housing a priority. I see figures quoted from the Statistical Abstract by Lee for 12,000 new homes built a year from 1932 to 1942.

Alongside all this was a massive redistribution programme during the 1930s of shifting rural people into larger farms of 12 acres and above and away from the 5 acre holdings that had been typical. I know the family of a friend of mine were moved from a small 4 acre holding in Cavan to a larger 12 acres around 1935.

I also see as regards Dublin that the number of families living in one room was reduced in the 1930s by half.

CDfm

I knew I saw it somewhere

This allows an 8% return on capital with a repayment time of the borrowing over 60 years (Cork Weekly News 3 Jan. 1920). The Chief Secretary in 1919, Ian Macpherson promised to bridge the gap between the rent charged and the proper rent. The post-War Government took the issue seriously, and the Housing Act (1919) envisaged the construction of 350,000 new houses for the working classes, and 65,000 for Ireland. Compulsory purchase was allowed in England, but not in Ireland. The owners of condemned property would receive only the value of the cleared site (Weekly Irish Times 12 April; 17 May 1919).

http://deskeenan.org.uk/6pochapter6.htm#housing

Most people also lived in rented accomodation in 1922.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

I knew I saw it somewhere



http://deskeenan.org.uk/6pochapter6.htm#housing

Most people also lived in rented accomodation in 1922.

I take it that the plans for 'Ireland' would have been for the whole 32 counties.

CDfm

MarchDub wrote: »

I take it that the plans for 'Ireland' would have been for the whole 32 counties.

I don't know and if you look at it universal suffrage was on the table at that time so who knows. The 65,000 houses may have been a campaign issue of sorts.

Anyway, lets stay out of that territory but it sounds like a Lisbon promise to me.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

The 65,000 houses may have been a campaign issue of sorts.

Anyway, lets stay out of that territory but it sounds like a Lisbon promise to me.

Just what I was thinking....:)

MarchDub

But just to get even creepier I have a great quote from Lee - my copy was published in 1989. Referring to the great building programme established by FF in the 1930s he states:

"This housing programme soon proved grist to the pockets of the contractors. Fortunes were more easily made in this industry than manufacturing. The building industry came to be soon widely regarded as an extension of the Fianna Fail patronage system." :eek:

But at least the poor were getting housed!

CDfm

An aside, one of the reasons cited for the events that brought about the jealousey of Bridie Cleary and led to her killing was her getting one of the Local Authority Cottages.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055739655

And, no doubt houses were allocated to people by patronage too. Our political system has not changed that much.

grenache

MarchDub wrote: »

And don't forget - let's give DeValera a bashing while we're all at it. Always works.

I myself have no problem with Dev bashing. His economic policies were overly protective and utterly inward looking. Were it not for the foresight of Sean Lemass this country would still be a second world economic backwater. Lets not also forget that had Mr De Valera and his irregular friends won the civil war, there's a good chance we'd still be part of the UK now. The only thing of worth that Dev did for Ireland was to draft the 1937 Constitution, which to give credit where it is due, was fifty years ahead of its time.

MarchDub

grenache wrote: »

I myself have no problem with Dev bashing. His economic policies were overly protective and utterly inward looking. Were it not for the foresight of Sean Lemass this country would still be a second world economic backwater. Lets not also forget that had Mr De Valera and his irregular friends won the civil war, there's a good chance we'd still be part of the UK now. The only thing of worth that Dev did for Ireland was to draft the 1937 Constitution, which to give credit where it is due, was fifty years ahead of its time.

That's not history - it's just your opinion.

Historically DeValera's economic policies fitted right within the context of the time and as has been well recorded and discussed here and on other threads Keynesian economics at the time were considered the wise way to go. Many economic historians consider that they actually protected Ireland from what could have been a worse situation. Lemass was a vocal supporter of these polices in the 1930s.

Remember the situation world wide was so bad that unemployment in the US reached over 25% in the 1930s - and FDR implemented his own protectionism for the US which included stopping immigration as a protection measure there.

grenache

MarchDub wrote: »

That's not history - it's just your opinion.

Historically DeValera's economic policies fitted right within the context of the time and as has been well recorded and discussed here and on other threads Keynesian economics at the time were considered the wise way to go. Many economic historians consider that they actually protected Ireland from what could have been a worse situation. Lemass was a vocal supporter of these polices in the 1930s.

Remember the situation world wide was so bad that unemployment in the US reached over 25% in the 1930s - and FDR implemented his own protectionism for the US which included stopping immigration as a protection measure there.

I am referring more so to the post-war period, the 50s and early 60s in particular when his goverment continued with protectionism while the rest of Europe was starting to open up trade barriers.

CDfm

grenache wrote: »

I am referring more so to the post-war period, the 50s and early 60s in particular when his goverment continued with protectionism while the rest of Europe was starting to open up trade barriers.

It was not really a golden period and if you look at our trade analysis we were linked to Britain and were a small open economy.

When we dropped protectionism in the 70's on EU membership we had massive unemployment and our textile and manufacturing industries were wiped out. CAP protected farming and agribusiness.

Our highly unionised workforce was not able to adapt and our relative wage advantage was not translated into exports.

To compete we will always need some advantage , like protectionism or low corporation tax or low wages to jump the hoop of an ocean to get product to market.

We started at a very low industrial base and were coping with conditions going into the 50's & 60's that other countries had already dealt with. We were 10 or 20 years behind.

In other words, we were a developing economy in a developed economy world. So the challenges were different. Mass emigration & reliant on the UK for trade for 75% of our exports.

brianthebard

grenache wrote: »

I am referring more so to the post-war period, the 50s and early 60s in particular when his goverment continued with protectionism while the rest of Europe was starting to open up trade barriers.

Many postcolonial nations who were successful in building themselves up depended on protectionism and import substitution (Korea). The opening up of Ireland by the IDA and Lemass brought some wealth from outside but negated any attempts to build up national businesses and ultimately left us more open to the whims of foreign businesses and markets.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Many postcolonial nations who were successful in building themselves up depended on protectionism and import substitution (Korea). The opening up of Ireland by the IDA and Lemass brought some wealth from outside but negated any attempts to build up national businesses and ultimately left us more open to the whims of foreign businesses and markets.

I always find gaps in the rhetoric- especially to do with money and wealth as I cannot see where it would come from. As a country Ireland had/has few natural resourses etc.

One thing that I can't see is domestic wealth invested in Ireland and a big question is did we did have wealth available for investment. Today you would not be able to borrow money to invest so back then was there money for investment in industry ?

You did have

- The Co-operative Movement
- Semi State Companies

Was there an outflow of capital with Independence etc or had it already gone ? .

The Marshall Plan - did it mean growth but what was the cost and benefits. How sucessful was it ?

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

I always find gaps in the rhetoric- especially to do with money and wealth as I cannot see where it would come from. As a country Ireland had/has few natural resourses etc.

What resources do you want that we don't have? Ireland built the biggest hydroelectric dam in Europe the twenties. Wind energy has always been a possibility. We should be a lot closer to producing the majority of our electricity by renewable energy than we are tbh.

One thing that I can't see is domestic wealth invested in Ireland and a big question is did we did have wealth available for investment. Today you would not be able to borrow money to invest so back then was there money for investment in industry ?

You did have

- The Co-operative Movement
- Semi State Companies

Was there an outflow of capital with Independence etc or had it already gone ? .

The Marshall Plan - did it mean growth but what was the cost and benefits. How sucessful was it ?

The marshall plan was definitely an opportunity. There was obviously a certain amount of trade, the government has various methods and opportunities for raising capital, there were many missed opportunities. I'm not saying that protectionism was a success, only that it had definite positives and could have been used to better effect.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

What resources do you want that we don't have?

Really, we didn't generate employment to stem emigration.

We didn't have coal and steel industries. So on the heavy industries we lost out.We had Ford in Cork from that era but it closed.

Ireland built the biggest hydroelectric dam in Europe the twenties. Wind energy has always been a possibility. We should be a lot closer to producing the majority of our electricity by renewable energy than we are tbh.

OK - but we had oil and coal Power Stations

The marshall plan was definitely an opportunity. There was obviously a certain amount of trade, the government has various methods and opportunities for raising capital, there were many missed opportunities. I'm not saying that protectionism was a success, only that it had definite positives and could have been used to better effect.

That is interesting - I just wonder where the skill set was missing.

I am amazed that today we have 6 teachers in the cabinet being advised by Civil Servants -technocrats ? - back in the day what was it like ?

The Civil Service was inherited from the British.

I am a bit confused as it does seem a bit like government by the blind leading the blind .

Listening to the politicians and union leaders today -they use the language and skills of back then. Is it fair to say they have not developed.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Really, we didn't generate employment to stem emigration.

We didn't have coal and steel industries. So on the heavy industries we lost out.We had Ford in Cork from that era but it closed.

Absolutely and I think its fair to say that was a failure of government, but I wouldn't ascribe it to protectionism. You mentioned the co-op movement earlier, that was fatally damaged by the creation of two Irelands, there's no one answer to why we didn't develop.

The Civil Service was inherited from the British.

Many in that civil service were quite dismissive of their new leaders, but again I don't know how mcuh that could have contributed overall.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Absolutely and I think its fair to say that was a failure of government, but I wouldn't ascribe it to protectionism. You mentioned the co-op movement earlier, that was fatally damaged by the creation of two Irelands, there's no one answer to why we didn't develop.

How so with the co-op movement - Sir Horace Plunkett is fairly revered as a visionary for his ideas and theories for Developing Economies.

Many in that civil service were quite dismissive of their new leaders, but again I don't know how mcuh that could have contributed overall.

An aside, the infamous Sam Maguire who had been Head of the Intelligence in UK for the IRB during the War of Independence got sacked from the Irish Civil Service in 1924.

He obtained a job in the newly created Irish Civil Service, but after the Civil War clashed with superiors over the British way of doing things being retained, rather than the Irish way, and was sacked. Due to failing health, he returned to his home near Dunmanway, where he died from tuberculosis on 6 February 1927, at the age of 48. His home town honoured him in 1974, when the Sam Maguire Park was opened by Dr Donal Keenan, then president of the GAA. http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/392/itemId/2041/Dunmanway-Sam-Maguire-and-Canon-Magner.aspx



"In 1924, he was sacked and deprived of his pension. They (the Irish Government) gave him £100 and that was it.
"In 1925, he came back to west Cork to live. He then developed TB and died in penury in 1927. They say that he died of a broken heart and penniless," she says.

http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/Irish-icons-Sam-Maguire-and-Liam-McCarthy-died-penniless-101255369.html

It probably is fair comment that Irelands Civil Service have not been very dynamic.

MarchDub

CDfm wrote: »

It probably is fair comment that Irelands Civil Service have not been very dynamic.

Hold on here, you're talking about some of my relatives

The Irish Civil Service did grow out of the original British model but many of the actual Irish who worked at the Castle under the British were given the option of jobs in London or in the Empire after 1922. They didn't just lose their British civil service jobs. Some actually stayed on at the Castle but others that I know of chose to go to London, India and Hong Kong.

Hiring practices changed somewhat. It became easier for Catholics to get jobs there and to get promotions when hired - now, I say easier because I had relatives who were Catholics who had jobs at the Castle but Protestants seemed to have an easier time of it prior to 1922. But the same was a fact about Jacobs biscuits and Guinness, which were privately owned companies.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

How so with the co-op movement - Sir Horace Plunkett is fairly revered as a visionary for his ideas and theories for Developing Economies.

The success of the co-op movement was strongly based/depended on trade within the whole island of Ireland, this fell off dramatically after the war of independence.

CDfm

Was something in it that the skill level was absent.

How did we handle external relationships.

Did independence affect foreign trade ?

What has been the international reputation of our people. P Flynn was looked at as a bufoon in Ireland but rated highly as an effective EU Commisioner. TK Whitakker economist and Secretary to the Dept of Finance was a policy maker and influenced Lemass - was he an exception.Could it be that we inherited a culture of non-policy makers with the exception of a few.

So were we effective self governors - take the Declaration of a Republic by John A Costello and leaving the Commonwealth -something done without thought.

Was there any benefit to being in the Commonwealth ???

mikemac

CDfm wrote: »

In school we were taught that the Economic War 1932 -1938 was almost a good thing

I don't know where you went to school
We were clearly told it was a disaster. And for the cattle industry in Ireland it was.

At my grandmothers funeral, the priest who was a similar age and grew up spoke at length at the hardship for cattle farmers in that time

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

Was something in it that the skill level was absent.

How did we handle external relationships.

Did independence affect foreign trade ?

What has been the international reputation of our people. P Flynn was looked at as a bufoon in Ireland but rated highly as an effective EU Commisioner. TK Whitakker economist and Secretary to the Dept of Finance was a policy maker and influenced Lemass - was he an exception.Could it be that we inherited a culture of non-policy makers with the exception of a few.

So were we effective self governors - take the Declaration of a Republic by John A Costello and leaving the Commonwealth -something done without thought.

Was there any benefit to being in the Commonwealth ???

These are interesting questions, and I don't have all the answers. I don't think that there was something substantial lacking in Ireland prior to 60/70s, other than money. The creation of ardnacrusha shows that the CnaG government had ambition for instance. If I had to point to one thing that held back the early Free State it would have to be the money that was being paid to Britain for reparations, land loans, etc. To spend the 20s paying off the damages, the 30s in the midst of the Great Depression and economic war, then the 40s were the emergency - to an extent its making excuses but I think the Irish state did ok under the circumstances in those three decades.


There is a movement afoot atm in Irish history and political life to paint Lemass and Whitaker as the apostles of progress in this country, simmering away under the thumb of reactionary DeValera until they finally got their chance and *boom* the country became open and progressive. I think that's a very simple attitude (not saying you have it here) that hides a multitude of issues.

International reputation is a whole other topic, it could be someone's thesis if you liked. The importance of Ireland to Anglo-US relations in the early 20th century can't be overstated I think, it was one of the main platforms for home rule. There was a fairly strong relationship between figures in India and Ireland such as Yeats and Tagore (Indian poet), Dan Breen's books were seen as guerilla warfare manuals in India, etc. But these relationships are flexible and I remember something about Canadian relations with Ireland being troubled over Ireland leaving the Commonwealth.

PatsytheNazi

MarchDub wrote: »

The figures are in a number of places. I got them in the JJ Lee book Ireland 1912-1985.

I am searching around to see figures prior to 1922 also.

I have seen on another thread alleging that JJ Lee reckoned Ireland was a wealthy country pre 1922 and went down the toilet 1922 - ?? Any truth to it in his book ?

( Mind you it was stated by a unionist poster on another thread saying Lee said the above ? )

PatsytheNazi

MarchDub wrote: »

Hold on here, you're talking about some of my relatives

The Irish Civil Service did grow out of the original British model but many of the actual Irish who worked at the Castle under the British were given the option of jobs in London or in the Empire after 1922. They didn't just lose their British civil service jobs. Some actually stayed on at the Castle but others that I know of chose to go to London, India and Hong Kong.

Hiring practices changed somewhat. It became easier for Catholics to get jobs there and to get promotions when hired - now, I say easier because I had relatives who were Catholics who had jobs at the Castle but Protestants seemed to have an easier time of it prior to 1922. But the same was a fact about Jacobs biscuits and Guinness, which were privately owned companies.

As part of the terms of the Treaty, we had to pay the ex British civil service pensions who served in Ireland if I remember rightly and that included the RIC ( not sure about those from the new Free State who were in the British army). Quite a draining wage bill for a new state I think you'd agree.

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

As part of the terms of the Treaty, we had to pay the ex British civil service pensions who served in Ireland if I remember rightly and that included the RIC ( not sure about those from the new Free State who were in the British army). Quite a draining wage bill for a new state I think you'd agree.

Yes, excellent point. Here are the sections of the Treaty that state:

5. The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing as the date hereof and towards the payment of War Pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claim on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire

10. The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof. Provided that this agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Force or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof. The British Government will assume responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to any of these excepted persons.


As you say Patsy - a huge liability for a new country to take on.

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

I have seen on another thread alleging that JJ Lee reckoned Ireland was a wealthy country pre 1922 and went down the toilet 1922 - ?? Any truth to it in his book ?

( Mind you it was stated by a unionist poster on another thread saying Lee said the above ? )

I don't know where the poster could have come up with that statement - Lee does make comments about the Ulster region being a better off place than the rest of the country in the nineteenth century but he then modifies this to only Belfast and to Protestant businesses. Lee says:

"Ulster flourished relative to the rest of the country during the nineteenth century. Unionists attributed this good fortune as axiomatically to the Act of Union whereas Nationalists attributed the relative decline of the southern economy to the same Act. Ulster was in fact far from an economic success story by Western European standards...[and] it was Belfast not Ulster that was the success story".

Lee pulls no punches in describing the Ulster Unionists as being 'racist' - his term - by saying "Whereas to most Ulster Protestants Catholics were not only different but inferior, to most Irish Catholics Ulster Protestants were merely different, not inferior".




Edit: My bold

CDfm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

I have seen on another thread alleging that JJ Lee reckoned Ireland was a wealthy country pre 1922 and went down the toilet 1922 - ?? Any truth to it in his book ?

( Mind you it was stated by a unionist poster on another thread saying Lee said the above ? )

A good point - but were we. ??

When the British Forces left so did their spending power. It was an industry in its own right.

What I am trying to quantify with this thread is whether or not we were wealthy etc and I chose 1932 really to keep the British/independence out of it.

The relative wealth of Ireland was from agriculture and service industries - I mean you cant invest a house you live in.

So what did we have in industrial terms - small industry or cottage industry or tweed ?

How can we quantify it.

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

As part of the terms of the Treaty, we had to pay the ex British civil service pensions who served in Ireland if I remember rightly and that included the RIC ( not sure about those from the new Free State who were in the British army). Quite a draining wage bill for a new state I think you'd agree.

It is allowable as a cost but it is arguable that civil servants and judges etc would have had pensions even if we were independent -so it is cost neutral.

MarchDub wrote: »

Edit: My bold

Yes MD - you are very bold

Brianthebard (above)

These are interesting questions, and I don't have all the answers. I don't think that there was something substantial lacking in Ireland prior to 60/70s, other than money. The creation of ardnacrusha shows that the CnaG government had ambition for instance. If I had to point to one thing that held back the early Free State it would have to be the money that was being paid to Britain for reparations, land loans, etc. To spend the 20s paying off the damages, the 30s in the midst of the Great Depression and economic war, then the 40s were the emergency - to an extent its making excuses but I think the Irish state did ok under the circumstances in those three decades.

Was there money in the country.How big were the repayments ? and as a percentage of tax take.

More impoertantly, from a Marxist persective and Marx was primarily an economist , you had had the redistribution of the land etc.

Where did we go from there.

What were our opportunities and cock-ups ?

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

It is allowable as a cost but it is arguable that civil servants and judges etc would have had pensions even if we were independent -so it is cost neutral.

For most of the 19th century Ireland gave Britain more wealth than it received back in investment, etc. However for a short period before independence with the arrival of oap and other things Ireland was actually receiving slightly more than it gave Britain I believe. So I don't think it would have been cost neutral tbh.

Yes MD - you are very bold

I lol'd :pac:

Was there money in the country.How big were the repayments ? and as a percentage of tax take.

More impoertantly, from a Marxist persective and Marx was primarily an economist , you had had the redistribution of the land etc.

Where did we go from there.

What were our opportunities and cock-ups ?

Haven't a clue what percentage they were, Marchdub might know, hopefully someone would inform us. The redistribution of land wasn't exactly a classic marxian move. The Wyndham act and the others allowed farmers who were renting to buy from the landlord. redistribution in itself didn't improve the economy although it did provide potential for control of the land by Irish people/farmers.