For deep background insight into why The Sun changed its political colours, this piece in the Independent on Sunday by Michael Wolff, Rupert Murdoch's biographer, is compelling and convincing. Apparently Rupert did it for his son, James. The old man doesn't much like Boy Dave, but James does and James is the apple of his Daddy's eye. 


 "Rupert's nearly 60 years of helping to shoehorn the leaders of three countries into office..."

Tim, did you not comment in conference on Wednesday that Murdoch's/The Sun's efforts in aiding political pendulums was somewhat redundant, that voters would pass judgement on informed decisions based on party policy rather than headlines?

I said that newspapers do not influence political opinion by the crude device of telling their readers who to vote for. They do it by highlighting issues and policies and framing debates. More, much more, about this over the next few years. I also said that The Sun was following public opinion, not leading it. I am sure that is true, but it is interesting to note that The Sun stayed for Labour throughout a period when the party was clearly unpopular. I think Mr Wolff's article helps to explain why it did that.   

Rupert's boy James and why The Sun changed sides