Tomorrow, the UK goes to the polls. Throughout the election campaign, 11 political experts have accompanied Prospect in a special election group chat. Imagine a WhatsApp group of your most politically informed friends from across the ideological spectrum on-hand to discuss the biggest and smallest issues as the parties vie for our votes. Yesterday we asked them what unexpected things we could see on the night.
Today, we asked them about newspaper endorsements. The Sun, the Sunday Times, the Mirror, the Guardian, Daily Record, Independent and the Financial Times have all backed Labour, while the Telegraph, Sunday Express and Mail on Sunday are sticking with the Tories. But how much effect will those calls have?
Emily Lawford: Do newspaper endorsements matter?
Philip Collins: No. They never really did and they certainly don’t now in a time of decking circulation. Also, newspapers follow and please their readers as much as they lead them. Not many will endorse Labour but they have barely featured in the campaign. Watch out for an entirely feeble refusal by the Times to even say anything.
Frances Ryan: The Sunday Times came out for Labour this weekend, which I thought was very generous of them.
Peter Kellner: No. The 1992 headline “It’s The Sun Wot Won It” was wrong. There is no evidence that it change minds. Since then the circulation of printed newspapers has collapsed by around 80 per cent; online readers are far less likely to pay attention to splash headlines. However, the tabloids DO have an influence—on politicians and party functionaries who are too easily frightened by them. Perhaps when we of the paper-buying generations have gone to the great hustings in the sky, our successors will be wise enough to ignore the tabloids.
Tim Bale: The research tends toward no. Even though more and more voters are taking longer and longer to make up their minds which way to plump, newspaper endorsements probably come far too late in the day to make much difference. Circulations have dropped anyway. And then you have the age-old conundrum: inasmuch as people care at all, do people pick a paper to read because of their political views or are their views shaped by the paper they read—or maybe it’s both? The media, though, may have a drip-drip effect over time: as the old saw goes, the media doesn’t so much tell people what to think as what to think about—immigration being the most oft-mentioned example of the media’s ability to influence “issue salience”. Broadcast is more likely to have that impact, of course; but UK broadcasters’ agendas are still heavily swayed by print media. That might be why politicians continue to pay so much attention to the papers, even if the headspace they devote to them is in many ways totally pathological—and, in the case of the Conservative party, damagingly so. Indeed, you can't understand the Tories without understanding that the so-called “Tory supporting press” (and now GB News) is not external to the party but an integral part of it—and one that's just as important to determining its deeds and words as the Tory grassroots and most Tory MPs: hence me always referring to it as “the party in the media”.
Matthew d’Ancona: No. They used to contribute to the general mood and trajectory of an election—but those days are long gone. Political sentiment owes more to YouTube and social media today than it does to newspaper editorials—I used to write those articles for a living. But then there was a time when people operated spinning jennies for a living. Things change.
Philip Collins: I used to do the same and even 10 years ago I was aware that I was operating somewhere between comedy and farce in telling people how to vote.
Marie Le Conte: I do think they matter slightly, in the sense that they'll inform the general vibe of Westminster, eg the Daily Record coming out for Labour last week after years of not backing a party felt significant in Scotland to people working in and around politics, and that’s likely to influence the general mood music of the campaigns. That being said, I agree with the others that they no longer influence the way people actually vote (if they ever did)
Philip Collins: I must confess I stopped reading newspapers with any regularity about a decade ago.
Frances Ryan: I think newspapers, particularly tabloids, still hold some influence—just not at election time. It’s the rest of the year that the Mail, the Sun and co really work on their readers, feeding them as much misinformation and client journalism as they can. We’ve seen in recent years how toxic rhetoric around asylum seekers and disabled benefit claimants has helped keep a chunk of the public uninformed and fearful. What’s interesting about this election is that, even with the Mail still banging the Tory drum, it isn’t enough if the party has already imploded. But that doesn’t mean the ideas they’re spreading aren’t resonating, of course. They might just be helping Reform’s vote count instead.
Peter Hitchens: Ask me on Friday whether they mattered this time. They cannot create swings, but they can amplify swings which already exist. If this election wasn’t as settled as everyone thought, then quite possibly.
Nadine Batchelor-Hunt: I think generally newspapers follow the crowd/public opinion as opposed to heavily impacting the election (with the exception of tribal papers like Telegraph, Mirror, Daily Mail etc, which always have a specific editorial approach on elections). Obviously favourable newspaper coverage can help, but generally I don’t think endorsements make or break an election—especially not one that seems like such a forgone conclusion as this one.
This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tomorrow evening, after the exit poll, our panel will be back to answer their final question.
