The decision of The Sun to switch its political allegiance from Labour to the Tories generated a fair few headlines last week, and a vigorous discussion here on LDV. It prompted me to undertake a quick calculation to find out approximately how many Sun readers are Lib Dem voters. And thanks to today’s Media Guardian, which publishes the voting intentions of newspapers’ readers at each of the last four general elections, I’m returning to the fray to give you two tables.
The first, below, shows the voting intentions of readers of the main national dailies, sorted in descending order of likelihood to vote Lib Dem at the 2005 general election. No real surprises here: the Indy and Grauniad top the table, the Sun and Star (despite Lembit’s best efforts) prop it up.
2005 voting intentions (%) by newspaper readership
| Lib Dem | Con | Labour | |
| Independent | 43% | 11% | 38% |
| Guardian | 34% | 7% | 48% |
| The Times | 24% | 44% | 27% |
| Daily Express | 20% | 44% | 29% |
| Daily Telegraph | 18% | 64% | 14% |
| Daily Mirror | 15% | 13% | 66% |
| Daily Mail | 14% | 57% | 24% |
| Daily Star | 13% | 17% | 53% |
| Sun | 10% | 35% | 44% |
What’s more interesting is if we apply the latest readership figures for these newspapers to the 2005 voting intention figures, and assume that 61% (the 2005 turnout) will actually vote – this gives us an estimate of the number of actual Lib Dem, Labour and Tory voters reading each of the main national dailies:
2005 voting intentions (est. numbers @61% turnout) by readership
| Readers | Lib Dem | Con | Labour | |
| Sun | 7.73m | 471,530 | 1,650,355 | 2,074,610 |
| Daily Mail | 4.95m | 422,730 | 1,721,115 | 724,680 |
| Daily Mirror/Record | 4.56m | 417,240 | 361,608 | 1,835,856 |
| The Times | 1.77m | 259,128 | 474,580 | 291,519 |
| Guardian | 1.21m | 250,954 | 51,667 | 354,288 |
| Daily Telegraph | 1.89m | 207,522 | 737,490 | 161,406 |
| Daily Express | 1.56m | 190,320 | 418,704 | 275,964 |
| Independent | 0.65m | 170,495 | 43,615 | 150,670 |
| Daily Star | 1.45m | 114,985 | 150,365 | 468,785 |
The figures are, I’d be the first to admit, flawed. First, because they refer to 2005: a lot has changed in the last four years. And, secondly, because, rather than assume that 100% of a newspaper’s readers will actually vote, I’ve applied the 2005 general election turnout of 61%. However, it’s unlikely that exactly the same proportion of Daily Star readers will actually vote in a general election compared with readers of The Guardian. Still, it does at least give us a scale to work with.
And what the table shows – unsurprisingly – is that, though, the Independent has the highest proportion of Lib Dem voters, it has the second lowest actual number of Lib Dem voters. Meanwhile, The Sun and Mail, with among the lowest proportions of Lib Dem voters, have the highest actual number of Lib Dem voters reading their papers.
We know all this. Of course we do. But seeing the figures close up every now and then is no bad thing. It’s a stark reminder that, while LDV readers are probably most likely to read the ‘broadsheet’ press, most of our voters are browsing the tabloids.
It also prompts the broader question: what should be the Lib Dem media strategy when it comes to newspapers? Does the party focus on those papers most likely to support the party (Independent, Guardian) even though they have fewer readers; or does it strain every sinew to gain the party better coverage in those papers which are most hostile to us (Sun, Mail) because they have the most readers?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
7 Comments
There was an interesting CentreForum piece on this at Harrogate spring conference. They had some more recent research that showed that most LibDems either read no paper at all or read the Mail… Maybe now that the Sun’s supporting the Tories, more of their readers (particularly around Liverpool?) will want to vote for us?
Given that its labour votes that are up for grabs at the moment we out to be doing more to reach out to mirror readers, Vince’s writing for the mail and both he and Nick write for the indipendant and guardian from time to time but we really need someone to be writing for the mirror along with trying hardest to get them to cover us of coarse.
Also given that its not votes that count but the distribution of votes, is there any way of knowing (or at least getting a vague idea) the distribution of newspaper readerships in relatiion to the marginal seats we’re trying to win.
This is exactly why I have always said that people shouldnt be so quick to critice Lembit’s tactics for getting in the tabloid media. Simply reminding people that we exist is often the most important thing, even if the coverage isnt that positive.
There’s a particularly good contribution by Matthew Huntbach in the earlier LDV discussion about The Sun’s endorsement of the Conservatives.
Matthew notes The Sun’s potential to influence attitudes towards instant pleasures; towards antipathy about liberal elites, politicians and the EU; and towards portrayal of the LibDems as fringe.
He argues that shallow personality-based chatter leaves a thirst for decent political discussion, and this thirst provides an opportunity for the LibDems.
I think I agree, although I’m not so confident (yet) that…
Perhaps what political discouse needs is the equivalent of a Jon Stewart to help people begin to question the tabloids’ obsessions?
The Sun supported Thatcher and Blair and now Cameron. As everyone knows, Offcom proposed that Sky hand over some of its premier league football to other broadcasters. Cameron said he would abolish Offcom. Murdoch, owner of Sky and the Sun supports Cameron.
We have had 30 years of Thatcherite social (no such thing as Society) and economic (loadsamoney) policies and look where that has got us. If Murdoch is supporting Cameron, he will ensure that there will be no ‘real change’, only ‘false change’ . Only the Liberal Democrats will bring ‘real change’. How perceptive of Nick Clegg to notice this first.
I’d be interested to see the figures for the FT, which has supported us on our economic programme before at least two general elections in the last generation.
@Frank H Little: Me too! I remember the FT gave us some very good coverage not that long ago on being the first to face up to the fiscal crisis properly.
@rbsn: I am one of those who reads “no paper” regularly (in daily paper terms – I read the Economist every week). I do occasionally read the Guardian, though not the Indy anymore, as it’s become very erratic. Young people are especially unlikely to be regular newspaper readers, and yet they are an important group of Lib Dem supporters (actual or potential). Facebook has proved an interesting venue for making our presence known (supporters such as myself posting occasional Lib Dem links and so on), but is hardly a forum for debate and ideas in the way good newspapers can be.
Big thumbs up to Mr Tall for reminding us of the importance of absolute numbers as opposed to percentages! It is fairly obvious after a moment’s thought that most Lib Dem voters who take newspapers will read the Sun or the Mail, but it’s far too easy to forget and mentally ignore those papers on the grounds that their readers are mainly Tory.