The two paintings hang side by side on your left. One, The Liffey Swim, is probably one of the most famous modern Irish works. The other, Islandbridge Regatta, its dream-twin.

The Liffey Swim teems with humanity- painted in 1923 this is hopeful vision of a city united after the Civil War.

The familiar shape of Capel Street bridge is a gentle hint of the context for this shared experience. Directly behind us, present but not shown, the shell of the bombed out Four Courts building- it’s broken dome like a cracked egg- still marks the unhealed wounds of a new state. Time and place layer meaning over the images.

Yeat’s composition has us in the action, a bystander craning over the other viewer’s heads. It is as direct a statement as an artist can make- We’re in this together.

And then there is the smaller, more emotionally intense, Islandbridge Regatta. Painted two years later- another sporting event on the Liffey, another view from the bank.

The similarities in composition only make the changes more startling. This is a dream, or perhaps an Aisling, of Dublin undone. The city vanished, omnibus’ become trees. Crowds become a handful of indistinct figures- suggestions of archaic dresses and faces turned away. A woman’s pale neck, her hair yellow, holds our eye.

If the Liffey Swim is the public space of Dublin- a shared experience created from the teeming mass of humanity- then Islandbridge Regatta is all it is not. A still, personal moment in a landscape where people are the exception.

Irish poetic tradition has always had space for the Aishling- dream visions of Irelands lost or that never were. In Islandbridge Regatta Yeats steps back from the Liffey Swim’s recording of the public world. He is starting the journey inwards to the paintings of the imagination- to creating new mysteries and myths to feed the dreams of his new, old country.

Request
An Smaoineamh Mór Limited is a company having its registered office at Arthur Cox Building, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2 (Company Record Number 478844). It was registered on the 16th December 2009 with the CRO. As of February 2010 it had received donations within 2010 with a declared value of approximately €2 million euro. [1]

An Smaoineamh Mór Limited is a ‘Third Party’, as defined by Section 49 Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001.

As of April 2010, An Smaoineamh Mór Limited had not complied with its duty to register as a Third Party with the Standards In Public Office Commission. It is not known to the complainant, but is within the knowledge of the Commission, whether the company has since so registered.

All donations have been given for political purposes, as defined by Section 22(2)(aa) of the 1997 Electoral Act, as inserted by Section 49 of the the Electoral (Amendment) 2001 Act. The donors made their payments in the knowledge that An Smaoineamh Mór Limited intended to use the money to a promote or lobby for a change in the fiscal or legal or regulatory circumstances of Ireland via a competition and lobbying campaign under the style and title of Your Country, Your Call. [2] An Smaoineamh Mór Limited undertakes no activity outside this project.

Donations to Third Parties for political purposes may not exceed €6,348.39 in a single year from a single party. (per Section 23A of the 1997 Act as inserted by Section 49 (d) of the 2001 Act). An Smaoineamh Mór Limited has stated in the media that the total approximate €2 million donations received were made by only 13 donors[3]. In addition to these private donors, the state may have donated €300,000. [4]

The maximum aggregate amount which could be donated by 13 donors to a Third Party for political purposes in one year is €82,529.07. By their own statements, An Smaoineamh Mór Limited have therefore received approximately €1,617,457.93 in excess of the maximum sum of donations permitted under statute.

I wish to formally request the Standards in Public Office Commission investigate this apparent discrepancy between actual funding and that permitted by the Electoral Acts of a Third Party by private companies and/or individuals and the failure of An Smaoineamh Mór Limited to register as a Third Party.

Footnotes:

[1]“Dr [Laurence] Crowley said some €2 million had already been donated to the competition.”
- Your Country, Your Call What it is and how it works,
Irish Times February 18th 2010
http://bit.ly/9IwAyr

[2]“Prof Von Prondzynski: The nature of the winning proposal… won’t itself be a business but rather a process or for example a change in the fiscal or legal or regulatory backdrop which will allow others then, we hope lots of other people to put forward or to start business propositions.
Simon McGarr: Is it your intention to find a policy to lobby the government to change their proposal or policies on the back of?
Prof Von Prondzynski: Yes that would be a quite likely scenario.”
-
Extract from Audio Interview,
Newstalk 106, Monday 26th April 2010

[3]“McKeon said a cash fund of just under €2 million had been accumulated through donations from 13 companies and individuals. “-
McAleese Scheme down to 20 finalists,
Sunday Business Post, June 20th 2010
http://bit.ly/9wkKoT

[4]“My Department is currently examining a proposal to provide funding of up to €300,000 to the “Your Country Your Call” initiative from within existing resources. No funding has yet been paid by my Department in respect of the initiative.”
Minister Mary Coughlan,
Written Parliamentary Question 23rd March 2010
http://bit.ly/d7z5BU

Today was flying ant day in Artane and the Docklands. The rest of the country presumably keeps to its own time.

This post is not that article. Instead I’m reacting to the announcement of the GoogleTV service. I was prompted to respond by what feels like Google’s profound misunderstanding of how and why people watch television. To start with, I’d like to point out that mostly, people do not watch the television so they can see a particular programme.

Image cc of Aieoux

If you work in Google this may seem like patent foolishness. If people want to find something on the Internet, they search for it. Why not bring the same sort of pinpoint accuracy to the television? Then we can all do a search for our favourite programme, thereby increasing Television Watching Productivity!

I make the reference to TV Productivity only half in jest. The unspoken presumption is that we have been watching these television channels in a frustrated state all our lives, chafing at the wasted seconds of our lives that every programme which was not exactly the one we want represented.

Sorry, but that’s not Telly Watching as I know it. And, though I understand you’ll have to take this on trust, I have watched a great deal of television.

Television, the jargon has it, is a ‘Lean Back’ activity as opposed to computers- which are ‘Lean Forward’ machines. Google even announced they’re calling their YouTube for TV service YouTube Leanback.

But this isn’t the reality of watching television. When watched in a solitary situation, it isn’t any kind of activity at all. It is the practically the definition of a lack of activity. Never mind whether you’re leaning forward, backward or slumped on the floor in a nest of cushions. With only two exceptional circumstances, watching television as an adult is a ‘Brain Off’ moment.

Of course, it is in the exceptions that all the most interesting stuff lives. For adults, I think those exceptions are when participating in what you’re watching or when what you’re watching is of such exceptional quality that it engages you fully in the same way a novel can.

Or, if you prefer, we only think about a programme when it becomes either a social or artistic event.

I don’t really have much to say about the latter category. It has always been what the best of television drama and documentary has aspired to. It has existed as the traditional goal of any television creator with an ounce of self respect since the creation of the medium.

What I do have something to say about is television as a social event. At the moment, the phrase “event television” is used to refer to a particular style of mass-audience blockbuster programme. X-Factor is the leader of this fleet of pumped-up gong show retreads. A drama can become a social event too- Doctor Who, when in good health, has always provoked discussions in offices and playgrounds alike.

But there is no reason that event television should apply only to programmes with mass appeal. Indeed niche programmes are more likely to call forth deeper levels of engagement the more niche they become. As the barrier to entry rises, so does the remaining fans commitment. Look at the fervour of any of the campaigns for the reinstatement of Joss Whedon’s cancelled series’ for an example.

Put bluntly, a bad programme with a good social element- where it is the jumping off point for shared references, jokes and ongoing stories- is simply more fun than a mediocre programme which stands on its own.

How much more bearable can a terrible programme be made? Why, here’s a lively discussion of the raw streamed feed from a Dublin City Council meeting. That’s how much extra enjoyment can be squeezed out of the least promising of material when people can join a peanut gallery.

GoogleTV as currently imagined wants to help us watch more TV. What it needs to do is abandon its internet-bred idea that the content is what is valuable about television. What is valuable about television is precisely that it is a mass medium. The internet is vast, but it isn’t broadcast.

Google needs to stop thinking about linking viewers with programmes and start focusing how to gently help viewers to link to each other.

Some questions have been answered. Some have been met with a blunt refusal to answer. But the most interesting thing to have emerged from those responses is how they lead to much larger questions in their turn. Let’s take a stroll around some of those issues.

Who has given what?
Thanks to Prof. Von Prondzynski we now know that everyone who has given money to YCYC is now named amongst their list of contributors on their website. Here’s the list:

Accenture, AIB, Alchemy Event Management Ltd., An Focal, Bank of Ireland, Bord Gáis, Business & Finance,Business Plus, Cawley Nea/ TBWA, Cisco, Clear Channel, College View DCU,Computers in Business, Computer Scope, Cork IT, CRH, Thomas Crosbie Holdings, Communicorp, Corporate PR Photography, Arthur Cox & Co, DCC, J C Decaux, Diageo Ireland, Digital Ireland, Digital Times, Drury, Dublin City University, Ernst & Young, ESB,Explicit Cork IT, Facebook, Glen Dimplex, , Google, Hotpress, HP, Independent Newspapers, Irish Computer,Irish Daily Mail, Irish Daily Star,Irish Examiner, Irish Mail on Sunday, Irish Mirror, Irish Sun, Irish Times Newspapers, Irish Voice, Kerry Group, Kinetic, Knowledge Ireland, KPMG, Loosehorse,Marketing Age, Mutiny, JP McManus, Ray Mac Mánais, National Gallery of Ireland, Neworld Associates, News of the World,Newstalk, Omnicom Media Group, Owner Manager, PC Live,Print and Display, PwC, Regional Newspapers of Ireland, RTÉTelevision, RTÉ Radio, Screen Scene, Silicon Republic, Sky Television, Smart Company, Smurfit Kappa, Sunday Business Post, Sunday Independent, Sunday Mirror, Sunday Times, Sunday Tribune, The Ireland Funds, Times Online, Today FM, Trinity News, TV3, John Walsh Tunes, University Observer, Wall Street Journal Online, Windmill Lane.

Leaving aside the question of whose parents thought the name Owner Manger a suitable one for a child, we are still left to guess who amongst this roll-call of the great and the good have actually put their hands into their pockets- and how much they’ve paid. For reasons they haven’t even tried to explain, An Smaoineamh Mor’s representatives have flatly refused to answer the question. UPDATE 28th June 2010 ValueIreland points out in the comments below that the Sunday Business Post report that only 13 of the above companies have given money. But An Smaoineamh Mor still aren’t telling which 13.

The closest we’ve got to solid numbers was An Smaoineamh Mor Ltd Director, and former Governor of the Bank of Ireland, Dr. Laurence Crowley saying at the launch of the competition in Feburary that €2 million had been donated. “We need a little more than that, but not a lot more”, he told the Irish Times. By the end of the competition this had become a development fund of €1 million and two prizes of €100,000. An Smaoineamh Mor Ltd’s refusal to discuss their finances openly means we can’t know how that difference of €.8 million arose, or whether its dispersal represents good value for money.

Did Minister Coughlan mislead the Dail in March of this year?
In contrast, this one has now been clearly answered.

When on Newstalk on Monday 26th April, Prof. VonProndzynski and I had the following exchange;

“Von Prondzynski: My understanding is that money was authorised by the government and I can’t really say more than that because I’m not knowledgeable about anything in further detail about that. But the government indicated to the promoters of the competition that €300,000 would be available. And that’s really the state of play as I’m aware of it.

Simon: And that was prior to the Minister saying that wasn’t decided?

Von Prondzynski: Yes, that was prior to that.”

Which is fair enough. There ought to be more questions arising from that, but they should be directed to the Minister.

Is Your Country Your Call legally sound?
Strangely, given how long the competition has been running, this one seems to have only unravelled over the last month. We’ve gone from a rather vague call for blue sky ideas- fresh, unpredictable and original- to something a lot more solid. The significance of the decision of An Smaoineamh Mor Ltd to accept donations combined with their intentions for the competition-winning ideas can now be more clearly seen.

From the Newstalk interview again;

“Von Prondzynski: We are not trying to set up a particular commercial enterprise or a particular commercialised prodect or process. what we’re trying to do here is to ensure that there are proposals that will create a backdrop in which others will then profit.

The nature of the winning proposal… won’t itself be a business but rather a process or for example a change in the fiscal or legal or regulatory backdrop which will allow others then, we hope lots of other people to put forward or to start business propositions.

Simon: Is it your intention to find a policy to lobby the government to change their proposal or policies on the back of?

Von Prondzynski: Yes that would be a quite likely scenario.”

Never mind that there is an entire judging panel which hadn’t even started its work when Prof. Von Prondzynski described in such detail what the winning submission will look like. Of greater significance is the meaning of this model for the legality of the competition as currently constituted.

An Smaoineamh Mor Ltd intends to become a pressure group. By its own admission it wants to lobby for a change in government policy. It has collected donations to pay for its actions to this end. The fact that it hasn’t yet decided what policy it will lobby for is irrelevant. Nor is the fact that the government has indicated that it is likely to be successful in its lobbying efforts. It has fallen squarely within the definition of a ‘third party’ under Section 49 Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001

‘third party’ means any person, other than a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties under Part III of the Electoral Act, 1992 , or a candidate at an election, who accepts, in a particular year, a donation the value of which exceeds £100.”,

The problem is that, given the above clarification of the Your Country Your Call competition, its fundraising behaviour also appears to fall squarely within the definition of receiving money for ‘Political Purposes’ found in Section 22(2)(aa) of the 1997 Electoral Act, as inserted by Section 49 of the the Electoral (Amendment) 2001 Act.

The permitted upper limit of money which may be accepted for those purposes is not the €150,000 which An Smaoineamh Mor Ltd have self-imposed but rather €6,348.39. (per Section 23A of the 1997 Act as inserted by Section 49 (d) of the 2001 Act).

Helpfully, Section 23A (5) sets out what to do with any monies received above that limit. Within 14 days of the receipt of the excess money they must pay the balance back to the donor or to the Standards in Public Office Commission. When I rang them, SIPO confirmed that, as yet, An Smaoineamh Mor Ltd haven’t even registered as a third party with them.

All of which makes the idea that Minister Coughlan would have agreed to supply €300,000 of public money (in a time of financial crises) for the purposes of lobbying her own government to introduce an as-yet-unknown policy change even more peculiar- and questionable- than it was a month ago.

In the unlikely event that I wanted to run a national competition offering a cash prize of mysterious origin in exchange for total ownership of an idea of such staggering- almost mystical- potency that it could restore a nation of modern-day serfs to spectacular success, I think I’d have to go into it without a preconception of what that idea would look like.

After all, I’m looking for a ‘game changer‘ to alter society . How could I know what that is? Almost by definition, I don’t have a precedent. Perhaps the steam engine? Calculus? Gunpowder? The mathematical concept of Zero? Monotheism? The Novel?

Who can know what shape such a wonderous notion might take?

Apparently, the Your Country Your Call people know with surprising detail:

Ferdinand von Prondzynski

“we are assuming that a winning entry will generally be such that it would not involve serious IP issue” – on eire.com

Padraig McKeon

YCYC is not looking to find and reward an invention or a specific business idea… YCYC is looking to identify an area of identifiable potential to either create something that hasn’t previously existed or to turn something that exists but is not being exploited into something that could create prosperity and jobs at an entirely different level from what currently exists… it is less likely in our view that there will be much IP in such a broad concept – On tuppenceworth.ie

To be absolutely clear, this competition is not about identifying specific business proposals which might result in the development of one product, or growing only one company’s work force. It is looking for something that is still at the concept stage and needs to be worked up. Winning proposals will describe a significant preparatory process which could require legislative, administrative or procedural change before implementation can be effected.- On obriend.info

YCYC is “not [looking for] a business… [but] an industry” – On obriend.info

Take it that we have no desire to limit the possibilities and neither are we in any way seeking to cod anyone.- On tuppenceworth.ie

So there you have it. All you need to do is come up with an entire new industry- which is not a business or business idea, doesn’t create jobs for any particular company, isn’t an invention- as that would involve a lot of Intellectual Property (IP)- is entirely new or is old but not being used an will require laws, custom and/or practice to be changed if it is to work. Oh, and it then has to save Ireland.

It’s almost as if they were trying to describe something they already had in mind…

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

Question 155: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if her Department has given, or undertaken to give, public money to An Smaoineamh Mór Limited, a registered company currently advertising a competition under the style and title Your Country Your Call; if so the amount of money from what budget or programme it was taken and under what statutory power it was transferred; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12702/10]

And the answer from the Minister;

Mary Coughlan (Tánaiste; Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

Although it is not a Government-led initiative, the objectives of “Your Country Your Call” are to identify proposals which will have a significant positive economic impact on Ireland and which will help to secure sustainable employment. I view the initiative as being complementary to the work being carried out by my Department and its agencies. In this context, my Department is currently examining a proposal to provide funding of up to €300,000 to the “Your Country Your Call” initiative from within existing resources. No funding has yet been paid by my Department in respect of the initiative. However, if funding is made available, a key objective for my officials will be to ensure that the necessary financial procedures are followed and that mechanisms are put in place to ensure appropriate management and accountability of public funds.

Which is odd. Because it shows (a) the Minister hasn’t made a decision to give An Smaoineamh Mór Limited any money and (b) that the amount of money she is considering paying is any figure ‘up to’ €300,000. It also raises questions as to what conditions may be placed on any funding.

What is most odd about those facts is that Padraig McKeon- MD of Drury Communications and member of the Your Country Your Call ‘Steering Committee’- seems not to know that An Smaoineamh Mór Ltd remains an unapproved applicant.

Here he is on the 6th of March on ValueIreland.com outlining some of the strangely opaque funding sources for An Smaoineamh Mór Ltd, which is the company running the Your Country, Your Call competition.

A cash fund of just under €2m has been accumulated via donations from 13 parties (companies and individuals) which has been lodged in the accounts of the company, An Smaoineamh Mor, which is a registered charity…

You ask about Government or political involvement. There is no government or political involvement in either setting up or operating the competition. However YCYC is not merely ’suggesting’ it has Government support. The project explicitly has that support. Specifically, the promoters formally presented the project to government late last summer and asked for support in three ways – a contribution to the fund referred above, a request that the competition would have access if it needed it to the services of the state enterprise agencies in the evalauation process (if such help were required) and a commitment that government would engage with the process of developing the two winning proposals, particularly with reference to any legislative issues that might need to be addressed. It agreed to all three requests – it will be contributing 15% of the fund; there has been no requirement to this point for the involvemnent of the state agencies and clearly there is no need for development support at this point.-(Emphasis added)

So, has An Smaoineamh Mór got €300,000 of public money in a bank account today?

Or not?

Newspapers are doomed.

You’ve read it on the Internet. You’ve heard it on the TV. You can even read it in the papers (for the moment).

If you weren’t listening carefully, you might even say you’d heard it from me.

But the thing is, I don’t think that’s true. I think newspapers are spectacularly well designed to do what they do- to give you information, entertainment and a sense of commonality with other readers.

I just don’t think that existing newspaper publishers have come up with a way to keep paying for their big buildings full of people with the money collected from selling them.

But, as I hope I’ve mentioned at least once before, I still want to read a newspaper. An exciting, unpredictable current newspaper. A pungent burst of now in my hands. It’s going to have you in it. You’re going to write something for me that I’ve never even thought of. I can’t wait!

Gerald Cunningham wants to deliver it to me. I can feel it. He’s straining to get a lovely, lively miracle of newsprint into my hands. I want him to.

More than that, I think I need him to. Possibly, we will all need somebody to come up with something when (or if) gravity starts to tug the giant graceful zepplins above us.

And even if they stay up there, with their plush lounges and slowly whirring propellers, the rest of us can still enjoy our own lovely balloons on a string.

Go, tell him what you want. Write it on your own blog, or comment on his post. Twitter it. He still needs to know what you think. That’s what makes it better.

One of the most common suggestions has been that the unemployed be made to work, in various ways, for the benefit of the nation. The top two suggestions, last I checked, were variations on this theme. The idea is very much in the air these days, being regularly aired on current affairs and discussion programs as a way of killing two birds with one stone – getting people back to work, and putting all hands to the pump in the cause of saving the nation’s economy. It is so current, that I think it needs to be pointed out that it cannot bear scrutiny for more than a number of seconds without its hopelessly impractical and socially and economically damaging nature becoming apparent.

The notion of forcing people to work for their social welfare payments is not new, and is known as “workfare”. It has been tried in some countries, with limited success. But whereas the old call was for this work to be of a socially useful nature, it is more often suggested now that this be for the good of “the economy”, in other words, that private, for-profit businesses receive the benefit of forced labour, paid for by the state. It was probably inevitable that after years of taking credit for apparently selflessly “creating jobs”, the private sector would come to regard itself as primarily charitable in nature. The proposition is simple: Companies are having a hard time meeting costs, and people are having a hard time finding jobs. Make people work for free and both problems are solved.

The primary obstacle to this is that it is, in all likelihood, illegal under EU law. It is State Aid, the subsidisation by the state of private industry, and contrary to competition laws in that it gives Irish business an unfair advantage over businesses in other member states. But even if it were not illegal, such a scheme would be profoundly damaging to the economy. It cannot, even in the short term, be economically wise to prop up unprofitable companies on such a scale. With “wages” so low, demand for the products and services provided by these business will also be low, at exactly the same time as they go into overproduction due to their extra new staff. The glut of products on the market will drive prices down, furthering the cycle of deflation. Further, prices and wages will stay low, because the entire economy will have been artificially stabilised.

Further again, how long is such a scheme proposed to last? Even if it did succeed in bringing companies back into profitability, at what time is it proposed that the social welfare recipients thus employed will take the step up to full employment? Why, and when, would a company who are getting staff for free suddenly decide to start paying one of them? And if they did, which of their previously unpaid workers would get the real job?

So much for the private sector. Public or community-based work, though not blocked by the same European Law problems as private sector work, is not without it’s drawbacks. Firstly, it is of no direct benefit to the economy. It might be nice, socially and aesthetically, to have litter-free streets, or well pruned hedgerows, but sending the unemployed to do such work has no bearing on the economy. Indeed, in the case of any serious work, it denies the private sector a possible contract, thus putting pressure on companies previously reliant on such work, perhaps ultimately putting them out of business.

As with the private sector version, there arises the question of demand. How much of the work to which people will be put is actually necessary? There’s only so much litter to pick up, so many hedges to trim. In any case, all but the most basic of tasks will require equipment and supervision. Even with free labour, this scheme would constitute a massive increase in public sector spending, at a time when the common view is that a reduction in same is required.

Demand, in fact, is the key here. The economy is not in trouble because labour cost too much. If demand is sufficiently high, it will be worthwhile for businesses to pay whatever the market demands that labour should cost. An artificial reduction (or in fact abolition) of wages does not solve the demand problem, indeed it worsens it. But that is not the real motivation of the scheme. The real motivation is the same as that which was behind the Victorian Poor Law. It is the furious certainty that somewhere out there, people are getting something for nothing. Being on Social Welfare must then be made so unpleasant that recipients finally decide they’d rather work. This, of course, assumes that there are jobs to be had.

There will always be people who are eaten up by the idea that money is being given away for nothing. These are the people who propose stringent and thorough means tests for all state benefits. Tell them that means testing often costs so much to perform that it makes the programs more expensive, and they will reply that a principle is at stake. They would rather cost the state more than give anything to people they consider layabouts.

This is the primary philosophical objection to workfare: it assumes everyone is abusing the system. If the primary purpose of unemployment benefit is to keep people going while they search for work, then workfare is of no use. It deprives people of the time needed to search for employment, and where necessary to retrain.

A few years ago, Ireland was as close to full employment as it is possible to get. At one point, in Dublin, less than 1% were in receipt of Unemployment Benefit. Indeed, we had a labour shortage (demand, you see) that we filled with migrant workers. Now, unemployment is, according to the latest figures, at 12.6%. Perhaps the extra unemployed, previously in gainful employement, all decided to become lazy leeches off state largesse. But it seems like a remarkable coincidence that they did so at exactly the same time as the economy contracted. Maybe, just maybe, they’re not working because the jobs aren’t there.

Finally, (and I leave this point to last, because, though I believe it wholeheartedly, it is the sort of thing that sounds hopelessly quaint these days), there is such a thing as the dignity of work. Many of those unemployed worked in areas in which there is simply no work now. Having them out tending flower beds outside the local parish church, for payment that barely covers the essentials, is detrimental to the morale, the spirit we are repeatedly told is needed to overcome our current economic problems. Camus wrote that “there is dignity in work only if it is work freely accepted”. If it came to it, many would rather tend a bar in Australia by choice than be forced to work against their will in Ireland. If they left, they might think themselves betrayed by their country. They would be right.

Just in case someone would like to run against the grain (and aren’t turned down by their editors when they suggest blaspheming against ‘optimism’) here are some questions;

Who is funding the competition?
Padraig McKeon (Managing Director of Drury Communications and their “go-to’ guy for crisis and issue management”) tweeted

Am on YCYC Steering. It is as @darraghdoyle says; one of 13 contributors, in kind and €, all less than 10% fund #ycyc

Darragh Doyle had filled us in on AIB like so:

they’re one of the contributors, afaik, with Diageo, BOI, Cisco and other big names. Approx 130K each I *THINK*

Really? Is it possible that the two main banks- the main causes of our social and economic woes- are funding this competition (with money paid over from the state to keep them in business) with the stated aim to “help change the way we do things, allow businesses to grow, employment to be created and prosperity to flourish.” Can there be that much cynicism in the world?

Painfully, there is a bit of evidence that AIB, at least, are in the centre of the Your Country Your Call family.

Registrant:

Allied Irish Banks plc
Bankcentre, Ballsbridge
Ballsbridge
Dublin Co. Dublin
4
IE

Domain name: yourcountryyourcall.com

Created on: 2009-09-28
Expires on: 2011-09-28

Administrative contact:
eBusiness
Bankcentre, Ballsbridge
Ballsbridge
Dublin Co. Dublin
4
IE
+353 16600311
+353 16089675
******@AIB.IE

Who owns the Your Country, Your Call ideas?
The Competition’s Terms and Conditions have a section headed Intellectual Property. It is self-contradictory and unclear. Where it isn’t, it would give me pause before pressing the ‘Submit’ button as to what I’m giving away. The Chairman of Arthur Cox Solicitors (who, coincidentally, are advising the government on NAMA) is one of the Directors of Your Country Your Call. I can’t believe that this crucial section has been drafted with anything unintended left in.

Section 7.1
As a Participant, in consideration of entry into the Competition you grant to the Promoter, its representative and agents a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, unemcumbered, royalty-free, fully paid up, non-exclusive license under all of Participant’s Intellectual Property Rights in the Proposal (as defined below) to:
…
(c) revise, alter, modify, improve or otherwise make derivative works of the Proposal; and

(d) sublicense and authorize the granting of sublicenses by the Promoter of all of the license rights granted to the Promoter in this Section 7.1.

The above licence shall remain in effect for the duration of your participation and involvement in the Competition and shall automatically terminate at the end of your involvement in the Competition.. Notwithstanding the foregoing licence (and other than with respect to the transfer of all Intellectual Property Rights in the winning Proposals by the winning Participants to the Promoter, on the terms described in Clause 7.2 below), you retain ownership of all of your Intellectual Property Rights in your Proposal.

Look, why would you look for a ‘perpetual, irrevocable’ licence and then say it terminated in 63 days?

Section 7.2 is about what happens to the winner. I’ll come back to that in a minute. First, let’s look at Section 7.4, which applies to everyone.

You waive all claims to and shall receive no royalties of any kind, whether now or in the future, from the Promoter, its affiliates, licensees, successors and assignees for use of your Proposal, including, without limitation, intellectual property, public performance, digital sound recording, mechanical, synchronization or master use royalties.

So which is it? You own all your IP? Or you waive all claims to it? Even the steering committee don’t seem to know.

Here’s Padraig McKeown, our ‘go-to guy’ from earlier again via twitter;

Must be read with Sec 7,1 “Retain..all..your..IP” YCYC a charity, not a biz. Can use it for PR etc for no fee; U still own it #ycyc

There’s no sign in the T&Cs that one clause is subordinate to another. So we just have contradictory claims.

And if you win? Then you get the pleasure of Section 7.2

At Promoter’s option, in consideration of entry into the Competition the winning Participants (including, where relevant, all Team members of such Participants) shall irrevocably transfer, convey and assign to the Promoter (or such party that the Promoter may direct) all right, title and interest in and to the winning Proposal and all Intellectual Property Rights therein (excluding moral rights). The winning Participants (including, where relevant, all Team members of such Participants) further agree to waive all moral rights relating thereto and agree to execute all documents and perform all acts deemed necessary by the Promoter to apply for, register, perfect and record such transfer and assignment and/or waivers.

Or, take your €100,000 and drop dead. The About page makes this perfectly clear:

Please note that the prize is for the winning proposers – this is similar to architectural competitions where the winning architect may or may not be involved in the subsequent construction.

So, got an idea for some “truly transformational proposals so big that, when implemented, could secure prosperity and jobs for Ireland. Proposals that could help change the way we do things, allow businesses to grow, employment to be created and prosperity to flourish”?

This is your chance to give them away for €100,000.

Or, if you’re a member of the media, do you think there might be just the slightest issue worth asking questions about here?

That is the current President of Ireland on the front page.

Didn’t we already go though exactly this already? The Ideas Campaign was an almost identical effort run by PR firm AMAS’s Managing Director Aileen O’Toole in March of 2009. (AMAS counts the Department of Finance as one of its clients, along with 28 other public bodies)

That earlier effort to radically change the nation was launched in a blaze of publicity. Editors, journalists and producers, hungry for anything positive to report after months of misery uncritically gave the Idea Campaign space to promote its primary message- If only we could harness [insert noun of your choice] Ireland could rise again- without having to actually confront what had happened to the country. They described it as wanting to “focus on solutions, not problems”.

Radical ideas, it seemed, were required to avoid the pain of change.

Well, as you’ll all have noticed, despite boldly proclaiming on their front page “Ideas Campaign fulfils its goals” Ireland has continued on much as before.

The list of 17 ideas the Government declared it was going to implement are a mix of things already done (“Facilitate career breaks and shorter working week in public sector”) and things so vague as to be meaningless (“Make changes to job seekers’ allowance to incentivise placement of graduates”). This is not because the country has no ideas for improving. It is that there are no ideas that this government could implement, without self destructing.

Fergal has written better than I can on the paroxysm of Magical Thinking which has gripped Ireland for the last year. I hope he might even revisit the subject again.

Only vested interests, boosters and snake-oil salesmen demand we look to the future and not try to revisit (or identify) the mistakes of the past. For the rest of us, ‘Let’s do something to fix Ireland’ is an impossible position to take without defining what is wrong.

Aware of this, the government has enthusiastically embraced the catch-all responsibility avoiding phrase “we are where we are”. The Ideas Campaign and now Your Country, Your Call are a manifestation of the same empty demand. Other magical thinking projects come to nothing because there is no there there. These ‘official’ projects go further.

Nothing will come of them because nothing is meant to come of them. Nothing is exactly the aim.