It’s not every day that I question whether I am residing in Russia or the United Kingdom. Yet I have recently been given cause to, since a small minority of people, disgruntled with the result of the General Election, have attributed Cameron’s shock majority to his control of the press.

Rather ironically, many of these conspiracy theorists are probably reciting the incoherent rabble of Russell Brand, who, cleaning his hands of his 72-hour support for Labour, gave his reaction to the result. Starting from the premise that a Conservative victory must necessarily have been rigged, Brand declared that “evidently the old media, the establishment, is a powerful thing”. According to him, the 36.9 per cent of the population who voted Tory had been brainwashed by Murdoch’s monopoly of the press.

Before writing a refutation of the messianic Brand, I thought I should first check whether I had personally succumbed to Murdoch’s supposedly omnipotent gaze. On a trip to the supermarket, I found myself confronted with nine different newspapers. Resisting the urge to buy the Murdoch-owned Times – or, worse still, The Daily Telegraph, owned by the Barclay brothers – proved much less stressful than withstanding my desire for discounted cookies. In the end, my basket was topped to the brim with snacks, but remained unpolluted by any right-leaning newspaper. The Guardian, however, adorned the top, concealing my rather unhealthy eating habits.

Indeed, despite being a Conservative voter in this election, the left-wing contents of my basket did not mark a departure from usual practice. In fact, I have even been known to purchase The New Statesman on occasion. Perhaps I am unique in being able to vote Conservative without being unduly influenced by Murdoch. But, I would suggest that the power of the press – right or left – actually had minimal impact on the result.

The claim that the “old media” (whatever that is) controls the thoughts of the population seems particularly inapposite in an era when newspaper circulation has plummeted. Statistics are dull but a few will suffice to make the point: from 2008 to 2014, the circulation of The Sun fell from 3.2 million to 2.02 million, The Times from 620,000 to 400,000, and The Guardian from 350,000 to 180,000, all according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

So it would appear that Murdoch may not be quite as able to determine the outcome of an election as Brand and his loyal troupe suggest. And all of this is assuming, of course, that he employs a three-party whip to ensure that his writers are producing articles favourable to the Tories.

But delve into the Times archive, and one will discover that such assumptions are unfounded. Yes, The Times came out in support of the Conservative Party, but, in the days leading up to the Election, two of its main columnists announced their support for other parties. Seasoned political commentator David Aaronovitch hoped that a “Lib Dem presence will temper the Tories on tax and cuts”, and urged his readers to vote yellow accordingly. For Jenni Russell, Labour deserved a punt at government, and she backed Ed Miliband (who, incidentally, is godfather to one of her children).

I am not remotely interested in involving myself in the inevitable post-Election backlash against the Conservatives. I accept that many will be deeply unhappy with the verdict of 36.9 per cent of the population. But, if you are going to suggest that the contest was somehow rigged by the media – and that, somewhat condescendingly, those who voted Conservative were under the influence of Murdoch – please provide some evidence.

Try to substantiate the drivel which Russell Brand seems to have an unceasing propensity to spew. Conspiracy theories may soften the blow for those ardently opposed to the Conservatives, but empiricism must carry the day, lest the left, failing to recognise the underlying reasons for their defeat in this election, consign themselves to oblivion.