Will it be the Sun wot lost it?
Updated on 30 September 2009
The UK's best-selling newspaper The Sun today officially threw its weight behind the Conservative Party, declaring on its front page: "Labour’s lost it".
The Rupert Murdoch-backed tabloid has supported Labour since 1997, and many see the switch as a fundamental blow to Gordon Brown's prospects.
Channel 4 News online asked three experts whether The Sun can really make or break a party's election hopes.
Martin Linton, former Guardian journalist and current Labour MP, wrote Was it the Sun wot won it? An account of The Sun's anti-Labour campaign ahead of the 1992 election.
He said: "I did the research by taking all the opinion polls that looked at voting intention and newspaper readership at the time. I found an eight per cent swing in Sun readers to the Conservatives, which translated to about 25-35 seats; which in that climate was a significant amount.
"So it's certainly possible The Sun's switch will have an impact again. Newspaper editorials telling people which way to vote don't seem to influence people, but attacks on parties, personalities and policies do seem to have an effect – which's what the Sun did in 1992.
"It depends on the level of attacks too, how hostile they are. Judging by The Sun today, which was timed to do maximum damage, it could be very hostile again. This is what happened in 1992.
"Politicians don't like to be in the position of blaming the media, and newspapers don't like to claim the credit publically because that takes them into territory they don't really want to be in. But there's no doubt it [influencing voting] can happen, not all the time, but if a newspaper sets its mind to it by attacking politicians they can have a significant effect – there is no doubt about that.
"It's common sense, newspapers have influence, that's why firms advertise in them…"
Paul Whiteley, a professor of politics at Essex University, has researched the link between newspaper campaigns and voting patterns as part of his work on the British Election Survey.
He said: "The Sun was pretty fiercely anti-Labour in 1992 and then switched to Tony Blair in 1997.
"We looked at how Sun readers changed their vote over that time – the five years between the elections - and compared it with Daily Mirror readers, who have a similar profile. Did it make a difference? Yes it did.
"We found The Sun's change in stance made its Conservative readers less inclined to vote, it wasn't really that it encouraged readers to switch sides to Labour after The Sun did, it just demoralised them. It depressed voters.
"Politicians tend to exaggerate the impact of newspapers, you have to remember that an awful lot of people get their information from the broadcast media, which has to be a lot more impartial.
"And many Sun readers won't even read the political sections of the paper – sport is more popular for example. It is not a game-changing thing but it can have an influence."
Peter Kellner is a political commentator and president of the YouGov opinion polling organisation.
He said: "I don't really think The Sun's switch had an effect in 1992, all the academic evidence was that it was not really the Sun 'wot' won it…
"The Sun should be regarded as a weather vein, it tells you which way the wind is blowing. It does not dictate the direction of the wind.
"The Sun is sensitive to its readers, and just as its readers got hacked off with John Major in the 90s, it readers are now disillusioned with Labour.
"With regards to the 'it was The Sun wot won it' headline, if you speak to Trevor Kavanagh [then Sun political editor] he would accept it was hyperbole rather than serious analysis.
"As a general rule newspapers reinforce views readers already hold, it is very seldom that newspapers change people's minds.
"In 1992 the campaign waged against Neil Kinnock was virulent and but it still looks as if they didn't really inspire people to go against him."
