Thursday, 30 April 2015

Newspaper readership and voting patterns

It may have been the "Sun wot won it" in 1992, but in the most recent election it seems the Independent was most in tune with the electorate. Yesterday's Indy contains a guide to the influence which newspapers have had (or not had) on UK general elections since the Great War. According to a study by Deacon and Wring of Loughborough University, the voting behaviour of national newspaper readers in May 2010 was:

Independent: 29 per cent Lab; 36 per cent Con; 23 per cent  Lib Dem.
Times: 22 per cent Lab; 49 per cent Con; 24 per cent Lib Dem.
Telegraph: 7 per cent Lab;  70 per cent Con; 18 per cent  Lib Dem.
Daily Express: 19 per cent Lab; 53 per cent Con; 18 per cent Lib Dem.
Daily Mail: 16 per cent Lab; 59 per cent Con; 16 per cent Lib Dem.
The Sun: 28 per cent Lab; 43 per cent Con; 18 per cent Lib Dem.
Daily Mirror: 59 per cent Lab; 16 per cent Con; 17 per cent  Lib Dem.
Guardian: 46 per cent Lab; 9 per cent Con; 37 per cent Lib Dem.

This compares with the actual voting of: Conservative 36.06% , Labour  29.00%, Lib. Dem. 23.03% (courtesy of UKElect).





8 comments:

Anonymous said...


Speaking of newspapers. Your comments, please.
http://nationalleft.blogspot.com/2015/04/more-evidence-of-lib-dem-duplicity-and.html

Frank H Little said...

It's a traditional campaigning tactic. LibDems aren't the only party to use it.

Anonymous said...


Just look at the paper. It is exactly the same except for the names of the opposing parties. Far more disturbing is that the Lib Dems have got two sets of two voters and have them uttering the exact same words. This is bordering on fraud. Not on Frank.
As I posted before, I voted LD last time and was minded to do so again, but Peter Black's behavior regarding Mike Parker and now this insult to the intelligence of the electorate really has me thinking.

Anonymous said...


Not sure that's true Frank. The Lib Dems have a lot of form here with using actors etc. Also using exactly the same story, word for word, for two very different constituencies is insulting to the voters. Using different people saying exactly the same things is really bad.

Anonymous said...


Any response Frank?

Frank H Little said...

I refer to my previous responses about my policy on publishing comments. It may lead to delays, but better to be safe than sorry.

If you look through Guido Fawkes' blog, you will find many instances of party workers posing as ordinary members of the public on election literature, and often not from the constituencies where the literature went out. All parties have resorted to this, but I would judge that we are not the worst offenders this time round.

Any objection you have to LibDem tactics in central Wales pales into insignificance compared with the Daily Mirror's stroke in the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election, which to the astonishment of many was ruled not to be a contribution to Labour's election expenses.

Frank H Little said...

I refer to my previous responses about my policy on publishing comments. It may lead to delays, but better to be safe than sorry.

If you look through Guido Fawkes' blog, you will find many instances of party workers posing as ordinary members of the public on election literature, and often not from the constituencies where the literature went out. All parties have resorted to this, but I would judge that we are not the worst offenders this time round.

Any objection you have to LibDem tactics in central Wales pales into insignificance compared with the Daily Mirror's stroke in the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election, which to the astonishment of many was ruled not to be a contribution to Labour's election expenses.

Anonymous said...


So because other parties act absolutely appallingly it is ok for the LDs to do so. The example of using the same quotes etc is really, really bad.