It's significant that the Sun has come out in favour of the Conservatives at
the next election.  Not because I believe the support of the Sun is
influential in swinging elections ("it's the Sun wot won it" in 1992 was
purely a piece of self-promotion), but because the newspaper has a very good
record of calling elections and backing the winner.  I don't think there's
been a single election since 1979 when the paper has backed the losing party
nationally (though the Scottish edition backed the SNP in 1992), but I don't
recall who they supported before then.

Has the Sun ever backed a loser?
--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry wrote:

> It's significant that the Sun has come out in favour of the Conservatives 
> at
> the next election.  Not because I believe the support of the Sun is
> influential in swinging elections ("it's the Sun wot won it" in 1992 was
> purely a piece of self-promotion), but because the newspaper has a very 
> good
> record of calling elections and backing the winner.

Personally I think the Sun is less influential than many think during the 
campaign itself (although having it support the other party can be a morale 
depresser for activists, no matter how much they say it doesn't decide 
results etc...) but in the months running up to the election it can chip 
away at a party with critical headlines and Page 3 girls giving their 
opinions on the matters of the day

> I don't think there's
> been a single election since 1979 when the paper has backed the losing 
> party
> nationally (though the Scottish edition backed the SNP in 1992), but I 
> don't
> recall who they supported before then.

> Has the Sun ever backed a loser?

It supported Labour in 1970 and was agnostic in both 1974 elections (well 
one of them did have an uncertain winner) but switched to Thatcher in 1979. 
I think the broadsheet era Sun supported Labour in 1964 & 1966, and of 
course its previous incarnation, the Daily Herald, was part owned by Labour.

"Tim Roll-Pickering"  wrote in message
news:7igdr9F31k3jsU1@mid.individual.net...

> Personally I think the Sun is less influential than many think during the
> campaign itself (although having it support the other party can be a
morale
> depresser for activists, no matter how much they say it doesn't decide
> results etc...) but in the months running up to the election it can chip
> away at a party with critical headlines and Page 3 girls giving their
> opinions on the matters of the day

In my view what the Sun is best at is making politicians *think* that their
influence matters, thus enabling Rupert Murdoch to get favours from whatever
government happens to be in power.  As far as I can see they have no
political principles whatever and will simply back whichever party happens
to be of most benefit to News International.

--
Guy Barry

In article <CKCwm.3$9l7.2@newsfe22.ams2>, guy.barry@blueyonder.co.uk (Guy 
Barry) wrote:

> *From:* "Guy Barry" 
> *Date:* Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:16:39 +0100
> 
> It's significant that the Sun has come out in favour of the 
> Conservatives at
> the next election.  

Sort of. What they actually say is: "Between now and the election 
Cameron's Conservatives must earn voters' trust by setting out their 
promising policies in detail."

well Quite.

They are clear they do not want Labour or Brown but not (yet) adamant 
about what comes instead.

As you say, they are rather good at reflecting the mood of the country, 
they do not lead it.

Matthew