please empty your brain below
Does the green bit mean Sun readers voted for the Green party? Surely not ...|
I'm surprised that more Indy readers voted Lib Dem than Labour. Fascinating!|
very colourful, dg.|
i like big red blobs.
what *was* the daily telegraph's editorial staff thinking? 65\\% for the con servatives?
i think not.
i'm keeping my fingers crossed for a labour victory, an increase in seats for the lib dems and decimation for the tories.
now, what about voting in NI then? who will get the votes in the sunny six-county paradise that is ulster? only time will tell...
It's pretty .. and doesn't it show that it's the LibDems that are eating in to the Con vote? I hope you can do another after the election. I expect to see more of the blue and a bit of the red eaten away by the amber .....|
A very interesting graph. Of course it doesn't say anything about the outcome of the election (it would need to be weighted by circulation to even attempt that) but it tells a lot about the readership of the various papers.|
e.g. The Indie is more LibDem than the Grauniad.
e.g. a suprising number of Mail & Express readers would vote Labour and LibDem.
e,g. Sun and Star readers vote how the paper tells them to vote.
e.g. The Torygraph and Mirror are entirely predictable and probably cancel each other out.
I find the following things interesting:|
1) That 35\\% of Telegraph readers would NOT vote Conservative.
2) That over half of FT readers would NOT vote Conservative.
3) That a higher proportion of Mirror readers would vote Labour than the proportion of Telegraph readers would vote Conservative. (OK - only just higher - but this one I find the most fascinating of all)
The green end of your graph is disappearing under your sidebar so I'm having to add the other three figures together and subtract from 100.|
dg writes: Ah, that seems to be an Internet Explorer thing. I'll see if I can fix it...
More interesting than the Telegraph numbers are the Mail numbers. I know a lot of people who read the Telegraph just because it has the best sports pages, so that would skew their numbers. But why on earth a Labour or Liberal supporter would ever read the Fascist Gazette is beyond me.
Of course the whole thing is kind of a vicious circle. I'm a lifelong Lib-Dem and have been a loyal Independent reader since it was first published. We choose our newspaper because we want to read opinions that mesh with our own. And conversely, the papers skew their opinions towards the general views of their readership in order to keep their loyalty.
I am fascinated that such a high proportion of Sun readers are Labour voters. Considering my opinion on that hideous rag. Not quite sure whether that says something about the readers or New Labour.|
I've seriously re-tweaked the graph so that it's (hopefully) readable in Internet Explorer as well as other more compatible browsers.|
One of the Financial Accounting lecturers when I was doing that walked into class and said "How many of you read the Financial Times?" The response was a total zero and he gently, but firmly, chided us. Two years later I encountered him as an extremely active member of a neighbouring constituency Labour Party - his then boyfriend, who sadly died of cancer a year or so later - was standing in a council by election.|
I worked with someone who said she read the Telegraph to ensure that her views and prejudices were being constantly challenged, and thus, strengthened. I read an article in the New Statesman requesting a 'Telegraph for Lefties' because of the high standard of reportage.
Apaprently, relatively few people choose the Express or Mail for their political slant but because they regard them as more cerebral than the redtops yet less time consuming than the Broadsheets. Some choose them for sections such as Femail; others because they tend to be 'news'papers rather more than celeb-obsessed scandal sheets. One can debate the finer points of that but I think there's more than an element of truth in it.
That certainly is interesting. I'm staggered by the Lab percentage in Mirror readers. I had no idea.|
I also strongly suspect the Lab\\% in the Guardian will drop below 50 this time round.
If it's alright with you, I'd like to link this entry from my blog.
Fascinated that the Sun and the Guardian should have had the same percentage of Labour voters. They won't make that mistake again, either of them! And also fascinated that the Sun and the Times, one being an identical version of the other but with bigger words, should have opposite clientele.|
Any bar or colour for 'Don't Give a F*&!', they're all rubbish? It'd be a big one...
But, surely, the one crucial statistic missed is what percentage of readers of each paper actually voted?|
Katherine, bear in mind that The Sun has supported Labour now for three consecutive elections, so it's not too surprising that a (small) majority of its readers do too.|
My Dad has read the Daily Mail for at least 30 years, and he would never vote Tory, being a bit of a wooly liberal, so it's interesting to see there are so many more like him. The Daily Mail's horse racing coverage is excellent, and that's why he buys it, then he scoffs at their ridiculous political coverage.
dg, just a comment on your labelling. The orange colour labelled 'Lib' says to me 'Liberal Party'. The ones who never did merge with the SDP are still going strong, fighting elections and representing people on councils, especially in North West England. Maybe it would be better if your labels said 'LD' or 'LibDem'? Just a thought.
dg writes: There's not enough space to write LibDem, alas. 'LD' maybe, but that doesn't have quite the same level of instant understanding.
i didn't know that the graph was about how each paper's readers voted... i thought it was all about the outcomes the papers were predicting...
makes my previous posting seem a little bit daft, doesn't it?
now you know why i don't read the telegraph...