RTE rejects TV3 collaboration offer on diaspora channel.

So, being reported by The Irish Times, and coming to my attention via the Media Boy Blog, is a report that TV3 has offered to collaborate with RTE on a best of Irish TV channel for the Irish diaspora.

Irish World then reported, and again brought to my attention by the Media Boy blog that RTE rejected the idea calling it speculative and premature.

Premature?  Remember, this is the company that part owned Tara TV between 1998 and 2002.

There hasn't been a TV channel aimed at the Irish abroad since then.  There hasn't been a true best of Ireland TV channel since then.

RTE has not only RTE 1 & RTE 2, but also RTE News Now and RTE Jr.  TV3 has of course TV3 and 3e, and UTV Ireland when that deal gets completed, and what ever that becomes.  Some have suggested it will get closed down, others think it will become 3u, and what a horrible name that is, but whatever happens there, the idea of RTE and TV3 teaming up for a channel is a great combination.

Think about this.  TV3 already have Ireland's only local breakfast TV show in Ireland AM, so they could start the ball rolling at 7am.  Have live news from TV3 at 12.30, 5.30 and 8.00, with live RTE News at 1.00, 6.01 and 9.00.  That already gives a collaborative channel a great structure of live news to work from.  Adding in Xpose, The Seven O'Clock Show, Midday and Tonight with Vincent Brown from TV3, and Today and The Late Late Show from  RTE, and you have the basics of a great channel that would showcase the best of Irish TV.

RTE should rethink the whole rejection of TV3's idea as it is a good one.  What's more, they should be looking to get RTE News Now onto Sky in the UK, Freest in the UK and Virgin Media in the UK as quickly as possible.  

Live radio. It's not just the past, it's the future.

So, James Cridland, a self-described radio-futurologist (is that even really a word?), recently released an audio column on You Tube.  Now I have a lot of time for James as he talk a lot of sense.  In particular, his commentary on treating audiences with respect was pretty good.



But this column on whether radio needs to be live, is one where I think he came to the wrong conclusion, for the wrong reason.



Okay, so the motivation here was a response to someone else's blog post about the idea that if radio isn't live, it isn't really radio.  Well, I'm sorry but that's patently nonsense, and I agree with James on that.  Some of the best radio material ever broadcast was pre-recorded in advance.  But equally, some of the best radio material isn't pre-recorded at all, but went out live and untouched by any razor blade or piece of audio editing software.

But when he says that the people who say that live radio is the essence of great radio are wrong, I start to get concerned about this.  His first argument is the technical one, the one that says that FM is a slight delay behind the actual broadcast, DAB is a little bit further behind and radio over an Internet Protocol, can be a lot slower.  Sometimes the delay is only 10-15 seconds, sometimes it can be as much as a few minutes.

But actually, as I've found with various different listen again services, the delay between the actual broadcast, and the reception of it, isn't actually relevant.  Whether something was actually happening as you were listening, or had in fact happened up to 30 days previously, didn't matter.  What I was listening to had been transmitted live, and I was experiencing it, as though it was live, even if it had happened 4 weeks earlier.

And that I think is the key to this 'myth' that keeps cropping up, that radio doesn't need to be live or isn't better live.  The evidence that keeps coming up for this idea, is that podcasts like Serial are some of the best produced and most talked about and you can listen to it when you want and not on someone else's schedule.

Yet, that is the very reason, and the overriding one at that, that supports the idea that radio stations will stay live or mostly live, if they want to survive.

Live radio has a few benefits that pre-produced radio doesn't.  Yes, pre-produced radio does have it's own benefits too, but in my view, these are outweighed by the disadvantages and the advantages of live radio.

Here's what I mean.

Here's what I think are the advantages of live radio.

1.  Live radio is raw.  What that means is that live radio is not that it's untrained, or cruel or brutal, but that it is a natural state, like unrefined sugar, and like uncooked food like carrots or lettuce.  That rawness gives live radio a distinct advantage.  Yes, there might be mistakes or problems, but on the other hand, that's part of the fun.  We're human beings, we're not perfect, however much we like to think we are.

2.  Live radio is responsive.  There's a programme on US public radio that I really enjoy listening to.  It's called The World, and it's presented by Marco Warman from Boston.  They do some wonderful reporting and have some very interesting, but it's not live, and it's marketed as a news programme.  The only actual live elements in the programme, are the news bulletins, for 5 minutes at 1 minute past the hour, and 2 minutes at half past the hour.  Everything else is pre-recorded, no more than about 90 minutes in advance of first broadcast at 3pm EST, but it's mostly pre-recorded.  Which means that major news stories breaking during the programme, often don't get covered until the next day, if then.

With live radio though, you have the ability to cover that major breaking news, even if it's only a quick 10 to 30 second update in a music radio format.  That 30 seconds or less will be more appreciated by your listeners, than if you hadn't done it.

3.  Live radio is unpredictable.  You can format and prepare as much as possible, but just occasionally, something will happen that will be unplanned for.  Now, in my view, a true professional is not the person who sounds slick and polished.  It's the person who can handle the unplanned as though they'd planned it.  If something goes wrong, they have the ability to recover the situation quickly, and with a minimum of disruption.

4.  Live radio is a unique art form.  This one might seem pretentious but hear me out here.  In all forms of media and culture, live radio is a unique form.  It can have elements of theatre about it, it can elements within it that are polished and produced beautifully, but it also has an energy to it that cannot be captured in a pre-recorded format, such as cinema or pre-recorded TV and radio.  Live broadcasting is a unique art form, and with radio's ability to be heard whilst doing something else, that gives live radio a distinct advantage over pre-produced material.

So what are the disadvantages.

1.  Live radio is raw.  Yes, I know I said that it was an advantage, but it is also a disadvantage.  It's unrefined, not polished, not made the best that it can possibly be.  Sometimes that rawness can let people say things that they might not either truly mean or haven't really thought about.  Or, it can lead to serious mistakes in judgment, like when Rush Limbaugh called a woman who had testified to the US Congress a "slut".  That rawness isn't always a good thing, but more often than not, it is.

2.  Live radio can be misinforming.  It can happen from time to time, especially during breaking news scenarios.  At times information can come in, and be contradicted within hours, sometimes minutes, and it can be very difficult sorting out the actual facts from the well-intentioned and unintentional fiction.  Very few broadcasters have that ability to sort out fact from fantasy on the fly, so often they will just avoid breaking news situations entirely.

3.  Pre-recorded radio is often better produced.  There's no doubt that US public radio is filled with great shows that have a lot of great content on them.  However, a lot of these programmes are not heard live by every listener.  Because of the way public radio works in the USA, a lot of material is often produced and recorded in advance of actual transmission.

NPR's shows like Morning Edition and All Things Considered, actually air internally for a lot longer than you hear on public radio stations, but most of those hours are actually repeats of the live broadcast hours.  Morning Edition for example is often only live between 5am and 7am EST, with material sometimes being updated through the morning until the show finishes at 12noon EST, that's 9am PST.  Similarly. All Things Considered is only actually live between 4pm EST and 6pm EST.  Again, material can get updated, but it's mostly each hour individually repeated until 10pm EST, 7pm PST.  Most local public radio stations only air a few hours at most of their own live programmes every day.  WNYC has live local programmes between 10am and 2pm, as well as adding local content to Morning Edition between 6am and 9am, and adding local content to All Things Considered between 4pm and 6pm.  KCRW has local content from 9am to 1pm, plus they have local DJs doing programmes between 8pm and 3am.  They too, like WNYC and most other public radio stations add local content to Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

WGBH produces a lot of content for NPR and PRI, their own local content is contained within the programme Boston Public Radio, which airs between 11am and 2pm on weekdays, as well as selected late night slots on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.  They also air local content during Morning Edition and All Things Considered.  KQED's local programming is even more limited, with only the KQED Forum between 9am and 11am.  Most local KQED programming like Perspectives and The California Report, air during Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

So much content in shows like The California Report, and many other public radio shows is produced in advance and it shows in just how well the material is produced.  Live radio is rarely as well produced as these pre-recorded items and shows are.

There is a growing delineation between on-demand content, both on radio and TV, and live content.  Anything that is produced in advance is going to become primarily on-demand content in the near future.  They may get released on a certain day, at a certain time, but they are going to be heard and seen at a time of the listener's choosing.  You already see this with podcasts, whether hourly, daily or weekly.  Weekly shows like WNYC's On The Media, and KCRW's Left, Right & Center, tend to be produced on a Thursday, released on a Friday as a download, and you'll often hear these shows and others like them air on radio stations over the course of a weekend, at various times dependent on the station.  And these shows can be heard on your schedule, after you download it.

But live broadcasting at the weekend is often more about sports or a late breakfast, providing news, weather and travel info.  Music radio at the weekend, outside of breakfast, is often voice tracked, usually on the Friday before.  But with the likes of Spotify and Pandora, and your own MP3 players and iPods growing in popularity, these are slowly replacing music radio as the preferred means of listening to music.  Commercial radio is going to have to adapt to that reality, and it will have to do it at some point, sooner or later.  Content is going to become the most important thing and it'll be all the better for commercial radio if they can get used to the idea of having sponsored content, not like teleshopping, but like sponsored sports coverage, and programming like Radio Plymouth's Sunday Supplement, which includes long form news features (for commercial radio, anything over a minute is long form, and some of these news packages are up to 5 minutes in length), interview segments and  showbiz packages.  Other ideas such as local music hours and even some forms of talk programming, are probably going to be better at attracting listeners to a live radio station, either broadcast or streaming, than more hours of music, interrupted by ads and news.

On balance, here's how I would answer the basic premise of the question.  Does radio need to be live?  Not always, but being live, doesn't mean you can't benefit from the best of pre-recorded radio, where as being pre-recorded the whole time, does preclude you from utilising the benefits of live radio.

BBC Local Radio: Does it have a future?

So, I'm doing my regular skimming around the various forums, looking for interesting posts, and I spot something on Digital Spy that actually got me thinking.

I know, something on Digital Spy actually got me thinking, that's a first!

The poster posed a question about BBC Local Radio as a whole.  Has it, as an idea, had its day?  Indeed, some of the commenters there raised very valid and accurate points about the state of BBC Local Radio.

BBC Local Radio as a whole has over 8.5 million listeners every week.  That's not a shabby performance, especially when you consider the nearest thing to a comparable commercial network, Heart, gets over 9.1 million listeners per week, and other than Heart, the only stations that score higher, are BBC Radios 1, 2 & 4.  By those standards of measurement, surely BBC Local Radio's future as a whole is secure.

But start digging just below the surface of those numbers, and the picture looks a lot different.

Just in the last year, BBC Local Radio as a whole, has lost over 400,000 listeners.  That's not so good.  The overall share of listening is also down slightly.

And when you start looking at individual stations, it doesn't get much better.

Let's start with BBC Guernsey.  In a market where you have two main local stations, one BBC and one commercial (Island FM), you'd think that given the way the BBC is always portrayed by commercial radio companies as being dominant that the BBC Local station would be the runaway leader here, and you'd be wrong.

In a market that has only 53,000 available listeners, BBC Guernsey scores 20,000 whilst Island FM scores 32,000.  In the last year, BBC Guernsey has lost 4,000 weekly listeners, whilst Island FM has also lost listeners, just 1,000 of them though.  Obviously national radio in Guernsey has gained listeners compared to the local stations.

But even with losing 1,000 listeners, Island FM has still seen its share of listening go up from 45.7% to 46.1% in the past year.  Not too shabby.  By comparison BBC Guernsey's share of listening has dropped, from 20.9% to 20.5%.  So how does Island FM do so much better than BBC Guernsey?

Some could put it down to the fact that Island FM is a more music service, but that's too simple an explanation.  If that was all it was, commercial radio as a whole would be outperforming the BBC and that simply isn't the case.  BBC Radio 4 outperforms every other station and network, except for BBC Radio 2, so the amount of music clearly isn't the deciding factor here.

When you listen to the output of Island FM, one thing stands out immediately.  It has a very community-based feel to it.  They talk a lot about local events and promote local causes.  Live local programming hours are greater than on most mainland local commercial stations, from 6am to 10pm on weekdays, 7am to 6pm on Saturdays, and 8am to Midday on Sundays, their Sunday afternoon show is voice tracked, according to their public file, although when listening in myself, I couldn't tell that it wasn't live.  It's also one of the few remaining local commercial stations to feature a sports show on a Saturday afternoon.

If anything, it's a mixture of having a good mix of music, familiar enough, yet with enough variation that allows you to discover tracks you might not have heard before, combined with the community feel, and a professional imaging that doesn't make the station sound small and you have what I consider to be the perfect balance of elements to make great commercial radio.

The news on the hour doesn't feel too long, at 3 minutes, and you feel briefed, rather than feeling like you've not been told enough.  Radio news itself is another whole separate issue that I could talk about in another long article, but I'll save that for another time.  Suffice to say, Island FM's news feels about right.

Okay, so I can hear the next question forming in your minds.  "That's in a one BBC versus one local commercial situation, but in my area, there are 2 or more local commercial stations up against one BBC local radio station.  Does BBC Local Radio do any better there?"

Well, let's use BBC Radio Cornwall as an example.  BBC Radio Cornwall has traditionally been one of BBC Local Radio's better performers, so if that is leading, then maybe the picture isn't quite so bad.

Well, BBC Radio Cornwall does score a decent 141,000 listeners in a market of 463,000.  That's a 30% reach, that's pretty good... but that's down 12,000 listeners in the past year.  It's scoring decently on share as well, a none too shabby 16.1% share of listening... down from 18.3% a year ago.  Oh dear, this picture ain't looking too great to be fair.  But, if it's ahead of its commercial competition, then we can still call it more successful.

Let's start with the biggest national name in local radio, Heart.  Heart do report their Cornwall service separately, so we do have a direct comparison.  And they score... 117,000.  24,000 less than BBC Radio Cornwall, so BBC Radio Cornwall is still more popular.  However, that score is up 20,000 on the same time last year.  That doesn't sound so good for BBC Radio Cornwall, who have lost 12,000 listeners in the same time.

How does share of listening compare.  Well, Heart are much further back on that count, scoring only 8.5% share, but that is up on the 6.6% of a year ago.  However, it's still nowhere near BBC Radio Cornwall's 16.1%.

But although they may be the biggest name in local commercial radio nationally, Heart are comparative newcomers to Cornwall, as Pirate FM were Cornwall's first local commercial radio service, launching in 1992.  How do they compare to BBC Radio Cornwall?

Well, on the reach side, Pirate FM scores... 165,000.  24,000 more than BBC Radio Cornwall, and that's up 5,000 in the last year.  That's not so good for BBC Local Radio.  However, on the share side, Pirate FM comes in at 11.7%, quite a way back from Radio Cornwall's 16.1%, and itself, down from 12.5% a year ago.

And those figures don't show how that compares to recent entrant NJoy Radio, who broadcast on DAB, and are not currently registered with RAJAR for ratings, nor does it show how it compares to the various community stations that broadcast on FM across Cornwall, Penwith Radio, Source FM, CHBN, The Hub and RSAB.  And even then, because of broadcast area, we don't know how many listeners in the Cornwall area listen to other stations that are available in the area, but are not predominantly targeted at Cornwall, such as Radio Plymouth, BBC Radio Devon and Smooth Plymouth.  Also, we don't have figures for two other DAB stations that Pirate FM produce.  Pirate Oldies or Escape To Cornwall.

It's not clear cut by any means, but it is fair to say that BBC Radio Cornwall is amongst the best performers in the BBC Local Radio stable.  Their next door neighbour, BBC Radio Devon, has had in recent times one of the worst collapses of audience I've ever seen.  In just one year, they've dropped from 212,000 weekly listeners, to just 169,000.  That's a massive 43,000 listeners deserting BBC Radio Devon.  The figures for share of listening are no better.  One year ago, 11.4% share.  Today, just 7.6% share.  That's a drop of a third overall.  A 33.3% fall in share of listening, just let that sink in for a second.  There's a third less listening overall to BBC Radio Devon in the past year.  That's a big problem.  A problem that is somewhat disguised by the fact that there isn't really a direct comparison available with Heart in Devon, or with Radio Plymouth, Radio Exe and The Breeze (formerly Palm FM).  Also, there are no figures for any of the community radio stations in Devon, Soundart Radio, Phonic FM, The Voice or Bay FM.  So it's difficult to know exactly where the listeners are going, and how BBC Radio Devon should respond.

But even if they did know, they are hamstrung by the dictats from London which limit what BBC local radio can actually do.  The BBC Local Radio formula which was devised back in the early 1990s might have seemed like a good idea then, but the audience profile has changed so significantly, that BBC Local Radio these days sounds ridiculously old fashioned and out of date, a museum piece that needs to be brought up to date.

Whilst it's admirable to commit to local journalism, nothing that BBC local radio does in journalism terms even comes close to being worthy local journalism.  This is a similar problem that has been facing local NPR stations across America, and they've come up with many different applications but the basic guiding principle has been the same.  Don't go for the easy stories, the ones that are important, but basically dull.  Also, don't go for the standard commercial fare, high on the interest scale, but lacking any importance at all.  Find stories that are both interesting and important, and find new, more interesting, more compelling ways to tell them.

Indeed, I found one such story that I brought onto my own show, which had so many angles that I needed to give the whole story a lot more time.  The basic story was the local food bank was having a public fundraising appeal to help pay for the bigger premises that they had to move into, because of increased demand for the food bank's help.  But the food bank wasn't the only community service that was in the new location, there were other services that were sharing that building, so it made sense to me to cover the basic story, but also to talk about each of the services that were at that location.

The story also played into the two higher tiers in the Public Radio News Director's Guide.  There are four tiers of news, according to the guide.

Tier One: Commercial
Tier Two: Staged
Tier Three: Local Impact/National
Tier Four: Local Meaning.

The story was a local impact of a national trend, the growing use of food banks since 2010, so it fitted in tier three.  But it also fitted in tier four.  It was about something that was truly making a difference in the local community.  It made perfect sense to do that story, and to give it more airtime than BBC or commercial radio would ever give it.

Unfortunately, most BBC local reporting still fits into Tier one or two on the scale.  Very little comes under tier three or tier four.  Also, a lot of the reporting can be summed up as worthy, but dull, and that does nothing for the appeal of BBC local radio.

Whilst it's understandable that commercial radio would stick pretty close to tier one and tier two, and indeed mostly does, there are occasions when even commercial radio will touch on tier three or tier four, and those are the times commercial radio genuinely surprises.  BBC local radio on the other hand, rarely does surprise.

So, what does BBC local radio need to do?

Well, its local journalism needs to be more interesting, better presented and produced, and it needs to be less commercial, and more tier three and tier four, more relevant to the local area, more local impact and local meaning.

The music needs to be generally broader, and at times, there does need to be more music than talk.  Not every hour should be more music, or more talk, or even all talk.   What it needs to be is right for the time of day.  Breakfast should always aim to be more informed, but that doesn't necessarily mean music has to be completely excluded.  By enforcing a strict 70:30 ratio of talk to music during daytime and evening, it means that far too often, BBC local radio is just talking about stuff to fill airtime, stuff that really shouldn't be taking up that airtime, and stories that deserve more time, just aren't getting it.

Let the balance of music and talk work itself out for each station.  Also, BBC local radio's reliance on phone ins to help fill the airtime doesn't help matters as often, the contributions go on way too long, and leave you begging for a producer to pull the plug on a phone call because somebody's spoken for far too long and said very little if anything of any use to the station or the listener.

What BBC local radio needs is a complete overhaul, but unfortunately, I don't see any such overhaul coming.

Utah decides to make pornography a public health issue...

This is perhaps the most baffling, the most unbelievable, the most stupid reason I've ever heard for banning pornography, and the reality is, it won't change a thing.

And yes, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to ban porn, under the guise of declaring it a "public health crisis".

But it should come as no surprise.  Back in 2009, a study showed that Utah had the highest rate of online adult site subscriptions in the US.  And ever since then, the political nuts have been trying to take out the industry, no matter what.

But, no matter what those who favour censorship and restriction may try and do, they can never silence the people.

By trying to ban it, all they do, is make it more attractive.  By trying to restrict it, they encourage people to watch it.  By claiming it's about 'public health', they are really trying to avoid the reality that this is about the same old "we know what's best for you" attitude that conservatives have tried to force on people for years.

Internet firewalls put up by governments are regularly breached by individuals, the anti-censorship movement is as strong as ever, and the rights of people to watch anything legal in their homes, must be upheld, no matter what the pro-censorship brigade might think.

Torygraph thinks BBC should forget about the internet. Quell Surprise!

As Adam Savage used to say on Mythbusters when something easily predictable happened, "What... a... shocker."

This may have been the easiest column to predict.  Neil Midgley wrote that the BBC should forget about the internet, and focus on finding the next Archers, or the next Countryfile.  Those two programmes have really gotten a lot of attention lately.  The Archers garnered the attention recently for a powerful spousal abuse storyline, and rightly so, spousal abuse is an issue that rarely gets talked about in the media in any kind of meaningful way.  Countryfile has recently had some its best viewing figures in its 28 year history.  Not too shabby by any stretch, but not that important either.

However, in trying to criticise the BBC for closing the linear version of BBC Three, Midgley made one crucial mistake in his attempt at analysis.

"When Lord Hall predicts that everything will one day go on-demand – and when, in fulfilling that credo, he starts to scythe bloodily and irretrievably through the creative flesh of the BBC – he is taking one trend and mistaking it for another. Yes, more people are subscribing to on-demand services such as Netflix. Yes, they are binge-watching shows such as Game of Thrones as “box sets”. Yes, teenagers now have iPads and smartphones on which they can watch TV shows. But where Hall makes his mistake is in believing that this new ability to watch on-demand, and on different devices, is a mortal threat to traditional channels."

Sadly, Neil Midgley underestimates the impact of on-demand programming.  He's not the first, and he sure won't be the last.  Even those in the broadcasting industry, like Ginny Hubbard of iHeartMedia, who only discovered podcasts when Serial launched in 2014 are late to the on-demand party.  Podcasts have been around since 2003.

We're already seeing that on-demand watching and listening is having a massive effect in terms of garnering attention from the public.  Programmes that have traditionally been watched as part of a linear stream, now no longer need to be.  The future of shows like Doctor Who, Eastenders, and The Archers, is on-demand.  Because these programmes are produced weeks, even months in advance, watching them at a pre-determined time is no longer a requirement.  iPlayer allows people to watch it when they want to, not at a time of somebody else's choosing.

But if Neil Midgley thinks that Lord Hall thinks that on-demand is going to end linear TV, he's wrong.  There just won't be as much linear TV to go around.

In the old days, significant chunks of programming, would be aired live, as there was no other way to do it cost-effectively.  Nowadays, outside of news and sports, it's only magazine programmes and topical debate shows that are aired live.  The likes of This Morning, Loose Women & The Wright Stuff are the kind of shows that go live to air.  But as the likes of Doctor Who and Eastenders become more widely watched on demand, and will eventually leave linear TV, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 years, other programming will have to replace it, and most of this will be live.  Live sports is one of the few things on the air right now that is attracting significant viewership on a regular, consistent basis.  Why is this?  Because live programming can't be spoiled by over-excitable PR people accidentally giving away key moments and points whilst trying to tempt you in to watch it.  How effective would the reveal of Darth Vader being Luke Skywalker's father have been in 1980, if the PR guys had included that moment in any of the trailers?  It would have had all the impact of a damp squib.

The future is already starting to happen, and the result of that means that there won't be nearly as many linear channels in the future as there is now.  Whether channels like Sky 1, Sky Living, Sky Atlantic or Sky Arts will still be around 20 years + down the line, is hard to predict, but given the trends we are already seeing, I am guessing that at least two of those brands will not survive into the era when On-Demand will be the primary way to watch television programmes.  How many of the myriad of channels out there will survive into the new era?  Maybe no more than 60-100, maybe not even that many.

But the ultra-conservative Torygraph, is frankly nuts if it thinks that the BBC should completely forget about the growth market that is On-Demand, in favour of old style linear TV.  No business worth it's place in the world would deliberately ignore a growing market, in favour of a market that really peaked back in the early 2000s.  Without turning linear channels into channels that favour and produce almost exclusively, live programming, On-Demand would kill of linear TV.  Maybe not for a long time, maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years, maybe even more than that, but eventually it would, if it could.

We have lots of history on our side regarding this.  People were afraid that motion pictures were going to spell the end of live theatre.  It didn't.  People were afraid that television was going to spell doom for the motion picture industry.  Serials and newsreels disappeared, but over 60 years on, the motion picture industry is as strong and vibrant as it ever was.  Why did these things not fall by the wayside?  They adapted to the situation and found a way to thrive, and linear TV will do the same, by becoming a predominantly live medium.

Irish General Election 2016: Political uncertainty on the menu

Well, this is one of those situations where a story is going to run and run and run, and who knows what the outcome will be at the end of it. 

We still have 13 seats unfilled at this point, and no partty has got even 50 seats.  Here's the state of play.

Fine Gael - 46 - Still the largest party, but with a lot less seats this time.
Fianna Fail - 42 - Much improved performance.
Sinn Fein - 22 - Best performance ever.
Independents - 15 - The big unknown factor in this equation.
Labour - 6 - They need one more seat to hold onto their speaking privileges.
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 5 - Could be one of the keys to government for FF and FG.
Independent Alliance - 4 - Another unknown here, but definitely not to be ignored.
Social Democrats - 3 - These guys made a good start, but now they have to work as TDs
Green Party - 2 - Back in the Dail, and we'll see how that goes.

Renua Ireland was the higest profile party not to get a seat. 

The Labour Party in Ireland, could be going through their own Liberal Democrat moment.  Joan Burton could become like Nick Clegg.  They've suffered a big loss at the polls, and Joan Burton's future as leader is hanging by the proverbial thread. 

But even Fine Gael might not be in the clear yet.  Dependent on how things go in coalition negotiations, the future of Enda Kenny's leadership may also be in question.

All in all, this story still has a long way to run, and expect Dublin's ISEQ to be significantly down on Monday, as markets hate uncertainty.

Irish General Election 2016: Into Day 3

Day 1 was the day the votes were cast.  Day 2 was when the counting began.  Now we're into Day 3 of this, and we do have the first preference counts from all 40 consituencies, so now we know what the official share of the first preference vote is, and it goes like this...

Fine Gael - 25.5% - 10.6% lower than in 2011
Fianna Fail - 24.3% - 6.9% higher than in 2011
Sinn Fein - 13.8% - 3.9 higher than in 2011
Independents - 13.0% - 0.4% higher than in 2011
Labour - 6.6% - 12.8% lower than in 2011
Independent Alliance - 4.2% - New party in this election.
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 3.9% - Wasn't in this current form in 2011.
Social Democrats - 3.0% - New party in this election.
Green Party - 2.7% - 0.9% higher than in 2011
Renua Ireland - 2.2% - New party in this election.
Others - 0.7% - 2.0% lower than in 2011

So what do these figures tell us?  Well, first of all, it tells us the governing parties of Fine Gael and Labour took a spanking at these elections, both losing significant share of the first preference vote.  Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein do look to be the big winners, both making significant gains on their 2011 position.  But ultimately Fianna Fail must be disappointed.  They must have felt they had a chance to overtake Fine Gael, as the tide seemed to slowly turn against the governing parties.  But they didn't quite capitalise on it.

However it must be said, they did far better than the opinion polls suggested.  In fact, in the run up, the opinion polls were way off.

Date	Source/Link	Polling Agency	FG	Lab	FF	SF	AAA -PBP	RI	SD	GP	Others
26 February 2016	General election	N/A	25.5	6.6	24.3	13.8	3.9	2.2	3.0	2.7	17.9
26 February 2016	RTÉ[p 1]	Behaviour & Attitudes	24.8	7.1	21.1	16.0	4.7	2.4	3.7	3.6	16.6
26 February 2016	The Irish Times[p 2]	Ipsos MRBI	26.1	7.8	22.9	14.9	3.6	2.3	2.8	3.5	16.1
25 February 2016	TheJournal[p 3]	DIT	32	8	20	15	2	2	4	2	14
23 February 2016	Paddy Power[p 4][p 5]	Red C	30	7	20	15	3	2	4	3	16[nb 2]
22 February 2016	The Irish Times[p 6]	Ipsos MRBI	28	6	23	15	3	2	3	2	18[nb 3]
21 February 2016	Sunday Independent[p 7][p 8]	Millward Brown	27	6	23	19	5	2	4	2	14[nb 4]
21 February 2016	The Sunday Business Post[p 9][p 10]	Red C	30	8	18	16	3	2	4	4	15[nb 5]
21 February 2016	The Sunday Times[p 11][p 12]	Behaviour & Attitudes	30	4	22	15	5	3	3	3	15[nb 6]

This table came from Wikipedia, where I found all the polling data over the last 5 years, but I focused on the last week of the campaign.  Fine Gael's support was overestimated, quite significantly.  Sinn Fein's support was often over-estimated too.  Fianna Fail was underestimated, as were the others in this list, the Independents and the parties not listed in the polling data, including the Independent Alliance.

You can understand how disappointed Fine Gael feel, especially if they trusted this data to be accurate.  In some cases, the +/- 3.0% margin of error still left a gross over-estimation of support.

So, what does that mean in terms of seats?  Well seats are not filled by first preference votes alone in this election, but a number of Fianna Fail candidates did win on First preference votes alone, getting over the quota line without supplementaries.  Right now as I write this, 95 of the 158 have been filled, and the state of play is this.

Fine Gael - 28
Fianna Fail - 28
Sinn Fein - 13
Independents - 10
Labour - 4
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 4
Independent Alliance - 4
Social Democrats - 3
Green Party - 1
Renua Ireland - 0
Others - 0

Doing some quick percentage maths, that means that currently, both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are on course to win 47 seats each.  Not even 50 seats.  I actually expect them to make the 50 seat level but just barely.  I think a few more seats could go to the minor parties, Sinn Fein and Labour, and maybe a couple more Independents, but it's difficult to know exactly how many will go to which party. 

What we do know is that it's squeaky bum time.  Every seat declaration today will be watched with great interest as both Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin will be trying to work out who they can do deals with to secure a majority, and ultimately, whether they could work out a deal with each other to keep Sinn Fein out of power.

Irish General Election 2016: On the Nightbeat.

At this point in proceedings we're still missing 2 first counts out of the 40 constituencies, but a clearer picture is starting to emerge.  As I write this, these are the numbers of TD's elected per party.

Fianna Fail - 18
Fine Gael - 12
Sinn Fein - 6
Social Democrats - 3
Independents - 3
Anti-Austerity Alliance - 2
Independent Alliance - 2
Labour - 1
Green Party - 1
Renua Ireland - 0
Others - 0

That's with 48 of the 158 seats filled in Dail Eireann.

By contrast, Dublin Central is on its 10th round of counting, in order to try to fill the remaining 2 available seats.

The strange thing is, that at the start of this election, there were a lot of concerns about the new party Renua.  How were they going to shake things up?  Turns out, they really haven't, with a mere 2.2% of first preference votes. 

The big developments came from Sinn Fein, and on a more modest scale, the Social Democrats, the Anti-Austerity Alliance, and the Independent Alliance.  All have made significant progress.  The Green Party have returned to the Dail, though whether they will pick up any more seats at this election is at this point dubious, but not impossible.

If there is to be a coalition, it's likely to be a grand coalition of at least 3 different parties and maybe more.  Both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have said they won't work with Sinn Fein, so it will depend on just how close Fianna Fail and Fine Gael get to 80 seats, the number required for a majority, but the strongest likelihood seems to be a Fianna Fail/Fine Gael coalition, if neither party is anywhere near close enough to the 80 seat mark.

Once we know the exact shape or close enough to it, to actually have a good sense of the numbers, I'll write more about this. 

Meanwhile, one small point on this.  The polls closed at 10pm last night.  They didn't start counting, until 9am this morning.  That's 11 hours that was lost.  This whole process could be almost over by this point, if they had started counting last night straight after the polls close, as we do. Instead right now, we're heading into a late night, and the possibility of results not being known until Sunday evening.  And even then, when the markets open Monday morning in Dublin, the ISEQ will probably go downwards as there will be little idea what kind of political future will await the Irish Republic.  I do think we're in for a few days, maybe weeks of political uncertainty, at a time when Ireland's relationship with both the UK and the EU, will be under a lot of scrutiny on both sides of the Irish Sea.

Irish General Election 2016: Saturday Evening Roundup

Okay, as I write this, this is the state of the parties right now.

Fine Gael: 3
Labour : 0
Fianna Fail: 12
Sinn Fein: 2
Social Democrats: 3
Independent Alliance: 2
Independents: 1

Turnout for this election was a paltry 65%, which to my view is pathetic.  7 out of every 20 people in Ireland didn't even do their duty by voting in this election.

We've had 28 first ballot counts in out of the 40 constituencies, but only Laois constituency has completed counting and elected all their required representatives, in their case, 3.

Sean Fleming - Fianna Fail
Brian Stanley - Sinn Fein
Charlie Flanagan - Fine Gael

The share of the first preference vote for the various parties at this time looks like this:

Fine Gael: 26.1%
Fianna Fail: 25.1%
Sinn Fein: 12.6%
Independents: 10.7%
Labour: 6.9%
Anti-Austerity Alliance: 4.5%
Independent Alliance: 4.4%
Social Democrats: 3.9%
Green Party: 2.9%
Renua Ireland: 2.1%
Others: 0.8%

We've still got a long way to go before we get even a clear indication of what is happening here, but so far, it looks like Fine Gael may have held a little more ground than we initially though, but Fianna Fail is definitely gaining ground.

At this point, the former Taniaste Joan Burton of Labour, stands a fair chance of holding her seat, she is currently third after the 3rd count, with only one seat out of the four currently filled.  It depends on how the supplementary votes for the winning candidate will be dividied up in the next count.

Another update later.

Irish General Election: Saturday Afternoon Roundup

Well, we've only had one seat filled, which has gone to Fine Gael's Sean Barrett.  But all indications from the tallies that we've been getting via twitter and live blogs, seem to suggest that there are some significant changes on the way in Irish Politics.

Most of the first counts are expected between about  4pm and 7pm, with either eliminated candidates, or those who pass the 'quota', that is to say the minimum number of votes required to win a seat in the constituency, which is different depending on constituency size and turnout, their 'supplementary votes', votes of the other preferences below first preference, will then be counted to help determine who else is elected from that constituency. 

It is a complex and slightly esoteric system of electing a parliament, but it's that kind of quirkiness that gives it its appeal, in my eyes.  The Single Transferable Vote system allows for a less predictable election result, especially in situations like this where you have multiple parties, and multiple candidates sometimes from the same party, battling over a limited number of seats.

The Single Transferable Vote would be quite workable here in the UK too, as it could be made to work in single seat constituencies.  The quota just becomes a straight 50% +1 vote of the total number of votes cast, and candidates would be eliminated from the bottom upwards, until we got a candidate over that threshold.

So, the declarations will shortly actually begin, and we'll get official word on who has actually been elected.  More on this later.

Irish General Election 2016: The Exit Poll.

Well, it's not long now until the counting actually begins in the election.  Counts begin at 9am, but at 7am, on a special Saturday edition of Morning Ireland on RTE Radio 1 and RTE News Now, RTE released the result of their exit poll.

A small reminder that these are first preference votes that are asked about, as the system of voting is Single Transferable Vote, which ranks candidates by preference.

Fine Gael, who were the largest party in 2011 with 36.1, have lost almost a third of their previous vote, to now be at 24.8%.  This still makes them the largest party, but with a much reduced vote.  Second place goes to Fianna Fail, which has increased their vote from 17.4% in 2011, to 21.1% in this exit poll. 

Sinn Fein have made a huge gain in this election, from 9.9% in 2011, to 16% in this exit poll. 

Independents make up the 4th largest group this time around with 11%.  Labour, who were coalition partners in 2011 with a huge 19.4% of the vote, have dropped down to 5th place this time with just 7.1% in this exit poll.

This means we could be looking at a Fine Gail/Fianna Fail coalition, which would have been unthinkable in any prior government before, with Sinn Fein being the leaders of the opposition.  The equivalent in the UK, would be a Labour/Conservative coalition. 

I do think there might be some resistance to the idea of a Fine Gael/Fianna Fail coalition, the idea of old enenmies working together might be too much to bear for some, but it does mean that we are in a new era for Irish politics.

And remember this poll was for first preference votes only.  How this translates down the line into seats is anyone's guess, due to the fact that the preferences below first preference are what will ultimately decide who gets elected, and who does not.

We'll keep an eye on the counting, which is starting shortly, and will post updates here on the blog during the day, and probably tomorrow as well, as we finally work out just how the Irish public have voted to fill the 157 seats in 40 constituencies that will make up the new Dail Eireann.