JUST consider the distance travelled by the British Labour Party. In March, 1986 the then party leader Neil Kinnock was photographed at a union rally protesting over the move to Wapping of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers. In the photograph Kinnock is surrounded by the newspaper trade union leaders. "Murdoch is bad news" announce the banners. "Don't buy the Sun," it exhorts.

Kinnock's successor, Tony Blair, on the other hand, has visited Murdoch in Australia, a visit described by one commentator as his interview for Prime Minister. Last August Blair went on the Jimmy Young Show on BBC Radio and announced that the Sun was a more reliable guide to Labour party thinking than the Guardian. Two months later he had lunch with Sir David English, of Associated Newspapers, the largest newspaper group in Britain supporting the Tories. Afterwards, they discussed how the unions had nearly killed the British newspaper industry, and Sir David said that his group might consider supporting Labour at the next election. Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's press secretary, told the Media Guardian last month that the two most influential newspapers in Britain were the Sun and the Mail. Last week the Sun announced it was backing Tony Blair. Other Tory newspapers will follow suit.

The media was always going to be a major factor in the British election. What is new is that the media so often now seems to become the story itself. The Sun deciding to back Blair, and the possibility of a television debate are two of the biggest stories of this campaign so far. The debate issue has further led to stories about which channel will get the event, if it happens, and which of the two Dimbleby brothers will preside over any head to head TV contest.

Increasingly British politics is being fought out in the media, rather than the House of Commons. This has led, in turn, to a huge interest in the spin doctors, those dark and shadowy figures who set the ground rules for the new political battlefield.

ALISTAIR Campbell is hi myself now a man of, myth. A former political journalist, he has become known for carpeting delinquent, reporters and for faxing the BBC saying it should have led with Blair's conference speech rather than the O.J. Simpson verdict. Peter Mandelson, MP, the man credited with Labour's media strategy, has been called "the prince of darkness" by the Sunday Telegraph, which also suggested that he may soon be the "second most powerful man in the country."

The Tories, on the other hand, hardly deserve to be in government, if we are to use media competence as the yardstick. The media editor of the London Independent, Rob Brown, wrote of the Conservative's Charles Lewington: "The man supposed to be their maestro of spin, is no genius." The consensus among political journalists is that he is Just not in the same league as Alistair Campbell.

However, though the Tories might not have a spin doctor of the genius of Mr Campbell, they were able to unveil the Saatchi brothers, Maurice and Charles, who will be working on their advertising campaign together for the first time in almost a decade.

The media obsession continues. Who will present the television debate? The Sun held a readers' poll, which gave Jeremy Paxman a high rating, as it also did to Mrs Merton of the chat show.

THE debate is the final proof, if it was needed, that British politics has become totally presidential. Our own system went that route in the early 1980s with three television debates between Dr Garret FitzGerald and Mr Charles Haughey. Such debates have not been held since.

When the Sun declared it was backing Blair it was, according to itself, an "historic" announcement. Much of the British media seemed to agree. The story made the two main television news bullet ins, was reported on Newsnight and Radio 4's Today programme - and also on the front pages of the Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times. The Mirror also supports Blair, of course, but is now calling itself the paper for "Labour's True Supporters."

Once the story broke it led to further stories about senior journalists on the Sun who opposed Rubert Murdoch's support for Blair.

But does the media make any difference? Was it really the "Sun wot won it" as it declared after the last British election? (During the last election the paper showed Neil Kinnock's head inside a light bulb and asked, should he win, if the last person to leave Britain would "switch off the lights.") But, this time round, the Sun was never going to be as anti Labour as it was in the past and, anyway, it is not clear how influential a newspaper endorsement really is, especially just before an election takes place. After all, half of the Sun's readers voted either Labour or Liberal Democrat in 1992.

The political debate, if it comes about, will attract record breaking audiences. Journalists will announce the winner straight away, and the debate itself will become a major political issue, without ever raising major issues.

Dr FitzGerald tells a story about one of his debates. He could not find his notes regarding the economy so, as he quietly panicked, he repeated one question over and over again. After the debate, he assumed he had lost. Everyone else, however, announced he had won and praised his tactics.

THE debate will be about minimising gaffs. It will be also rehearsed that it is ever going to be about an exchange of ideas. Ideas might mean controversy and controversy might lead to one or other of the contestants stumbling or engaging in real debate. This cannot be allowed to happen. The debate will be a show and will do what television does best - it will entertain.

Both candidates have too much to lose by being other than bland. Journalists will find some reason to suggest one candidate has won. But the tactics which will be used mean that the voter will not be convinced by either side. It will be a contest run by spin doctors.

Old Labour, we are told, was unelectable. We know this because new Labour's spin doctors tell us. New Labour is elect able because it has a better media operation, better spin doctors and now the backing of Britain's tabloid press. All this is probably true. After all, as Simon Jenkins said in the Times, the support of the press is "certainly better than a poke in the eye.

However, one question remains. Will any of this make any difference to how the voters vote, or has the outcome been decided over the past months and years and not by the decisions of editors and newspaper proprietors on the eve of elections?