General election fever mounts inside the Guardian office

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/19/general-election-fever-guardian

Version 0 of 1.

There are few things that thrill the heart of a journalist more than a general election. Five weeks of polls, graphs, interviews, infographics, leaks, policies, photo opportunities, snubs, scoops, elation and despair. And that’s only the readers’ editor’s office.

Elections excite the readers too – sales of the Guardian in print have risen by between 10% and 15% since the start of the campaign, although the online effect is harder to gauge.

We’ve been pleased to see many Guardian-inspired issues being raised in the election, such as tax havens and non-doms

There have regularly been more than 40 items of election content published a day online on theguardian.com and around 10 in print. Paul Johnson, deputy editor, said: “Our coverage is very much about putting it all into context with analysis, explanation and comment … We’ve been pleased to see many Guardian-inspired issues being raised in the election, such as cracking down on tax havens, ending HMRC double standards and abolishing non-dom status.”

So will the Guardian endorse a political party – and if so which one? I understand that it will and the choice will be expressed in an editorial some time nearer to the election. The Guardian meeting that is held before each election, to give staff an opportunity to express their views on which party it should be, was held last week. These views are taken into consideration by the editor-in-chief.

The decision to back the Liberal Democrats last time was controversial and surprising for many readers, some of whom have not forgiven the decision. However, for those who have read an excellent blog by Richard Nelsson, head of the Guardian’s research and information department, which charts the history of the Guardian’s election editorials, it should not have come as too much of a surprise.

Following the ringing endorsement for the Labour party in 1997, the Guardian said in 2001: “We believe that a second full term for Labour, combined with a historic boost for the Liberal Democrats, represents the best possible outcome for Britain from tomorrow’s election.” In 2005, two years after the Iraq invasion, the Guardian’s leader spoke much more warmly of the Lib Dems, quoting CP Scott who “spent much of his life arguing for what he described as the ‘reunion’ of the ‘party of progress’”. It stated: “Voters should use their heads and hearts to re-elect Labour with an increased Liberal Democrat presence.” In the second election of 1974 the Guardian decided that a “strong Liberal vote is the best way”.

Perhaps the only real surprise came in 1951 when the editorial ran: “For the next few years a Churchill Government is, it seems to us, the lesser evil. It is not a pleasant choice, but there is no finality about it. It is a temporary expedient. There will, we hope, soon be another, and stronger, Government of the Left.”

None of the above is meant as a hint as to the Guardian’s intentions – I have no idea where the Guardian will encourage readers to place their cross.

However, we do have an idea as to the voting intentions of our readers. The Guardian’s consumer insight teams have been tracking readers’ “election sentiment” over the past seven months. The research is largely for internal purposes. It shows that 46% of Guardian readers now say they intend to vote Labour, an increase of two points from March and the highest figure since the tracker was launched. Support for the Green party among readers fell by seven points from March but is still a healthy 24%.

Ed Miliband was seen as the clear winner of the first “debate”, hosted by Jeremy Paxman on 26 March; 72% judged the Labour leader the winner while only 11% felt David Cameron emerged victorious. Thirty-nine per cent of readers watched the first debate and 59% the second, on 2 April, which featured seven party leaders. Of readers watching the second, 64% felt that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon gave the best performance, with Miliband her nearest challenger.

Health has been the top issue for Guardian readers throughout the seven months of the tracker and remains so: 86% of readers currently identify it as one of the most important issues in the election. The next most commonly selected issues are: poverty and inequality (77%); economic issues (75%); housing (54%); and education (54%).

• In the latest survey, 375 Guardian readers, from a panel made up of both online and print readers, were interviewed during the week beginning 6 April. Results have been weighted to reflect the demographic profile of all UK Guardian readers.