MORI does not mean better: why the Times has decided to stop using the polling organisation
STEPHEN GLOVER
Ater many years the Times is parting company with the polling organisation MORI. The divorce has not yet been made public, but a MORI poll last week could be the last the company does for the newspaper. According to insiders, some senior journalists at the Times have been grumbling about MORI for some time. Leading the charge has been a leader writer called Tim Hames, a former political don who fancies himself as a bit of a psephologist. Counsel for the defence has been the paper's political columnist Peter Riddell. MORI's accusers appear now to have won the day, though the Times's official line is that it is ending the relationship for financial reasons, which are undoubtedly a factor. There were quibbles during the election when MORI changed its methodology after its polls had indicated vast and seemingly implausible leads for New Labour over the Tories. Actually the leads remained almost as vast with the new methodology, but confidence in the polling organisation was shaken in the minds of some senior Times executives.
They are right, though MORI is very far from being the only pollster at fault. The failure of the opinion polls at the last election is a well-kept secret. There was a great hullabaloo when many of them fouled up in 1992 because they had gone so far as to predict a Labour victory. But when they fouled up again in 2001 no one seemed to mind very much because, if New Labour had won by a much smaller margin than was universally predicted, it had nevertheless still won handsomely. The actual Labour lead over the Tories was just over 9 per cent (42 per cent to 32.7 per cent). but none of the pollsters came close. Many of them had predicted a Tory wipe-out. The average Labour lead over the election period was: MORI 20 points; NOP 18 points; Gallup 16 points; ICM 15 points; Rasmussen 12 points. The pollsters were a little less off-beam in their final, eve-of-the-election polls: NOP and Gallup were at 17 points; MORI at 15; and ICM at 11. Their explanation is that the Tories made a strong late run. Even if this is true, all the pollsters still underestimated the Tories' actual showing.
And it must be said that MORI was among the least impressive performers. A few weeks before election day, its chairman, Bob Worcester, was quoted as saying, 'No matter how you do your sums, we are looking at a meltdown.' Well. I suppose it all
depends how you define a meltdown, but this suggests to me that Mr Worcester expected the Tories to do even worse than they had in 1997 whereas, in fact, they gained a couple of points. Despite changing its methodology for the Times, MORI continued to give New Labour seemingly fantastic leads. Four days before election day, its poll in the Sunday Telegraph put Labour on 50 per cent and the Tories on 27 per cent. That certainly would have been a meltdown by any definition. Are we really to believe that there was such an enormous swing to the Tories during the following four days? Or is it not more likely that, with the best will in the world, MORI simply got it wrong?
Believe it or not, after the election result the Association of Professional Opinion Polling Organisations issued a preposterous statement claiming to have confounded its critics. Most journalists, with only a very few exceptions, were happy to go along with this verdict. It didn't matter that New Labour had won by a smaller margin than expected because it had still trounced the Tories. The trouble is that this ignores what looks like a systematic tendency of polls to give New Labour an exaggerated advantage over the Tories, which is obviously not in the best interests of the democratic process. When I read similar indications in recent polls — last week MORI gave Labour 51 per cent to the Tories 27 per cent — I inevitably disbelieve them. What is the true position? I simply don't know. But I am sure that the Times is right to dispense with MORI's services. It would also be wise not to take on a new pollster until receiving assurances that the old mistakes will not be repeated.
So Mark Bolland has resigned as Prince Charles's spin doctor. It would be nice to think that my colleague Simon Heifer did the trick with his recent broadside in this magazine. Mr Heffer suggested that Mr Bolland had been rubbishing all kinds of minor royals, and causing them needless distress, while in the singleminded pursuit of his master's interests. In fact, it is clear that Mr Bolland has been thinking of moving on for some months. The terms of his departure, the encomium by Prince Charles, and his remaining on hand to offer advice — all this suggests that he has
not been pushed but has most nimbly alighted from a moving train.
Was Mr Bolland a good thing? Many people I respect do not like the cut of his jib. They deplore his close association with tabloid editors such as Rebekah Wade of the News of the World. They do not approve of his methods. All these reservations are understandable. The fact remains that during Mr BoIland's watch the reputation of Prince Charles has improved immeasurably. No doubt others can claim some of the credit, but surely Mr BoHand's handling of the tabloid press, in particular the red tops, has been adroit. The Daily Telegraph complains that Mr Bolland takes holidays with Ms Wade, but if this is the price to pay for ensuring good coverage, is this such a bad thing? The Murdoch red tops may turn on Prince Charles in the end, but Mr Bolland has kept these destructive monsters at bay, and for that he should be thanked. The proof of his success will come once he is gone — if he really does stand aside. A buttoned-up, straight-as-a-die civil servant prepared to cut no deals with the tabloids might be a disaster.
Jonathan Hunt, accuser of Mohamed Fayed and the Guardian, has re-emerged. In a surprising ruling a couple of weeks ago, Mr Justice Burton said that Mr Hunt has an 'arguable case' that Granada Television had failed to show 'due impartiality' in its coverage of the Neil Hamilton 'cash for questions' affair. Mr Hunt had argued that Granada had carried out a 'sustained news blackout' of his investigation which claimed that Mr Hamilton had been fitted up by Mr Fayed. He had taken exception to the Independent Television Commission brushing off his complaint, and has now been given leave to argue his case in the High Court. He has no legal representation, and no money.
Mr Hunt's little victory may well lead nowhere. But it was interesting that, apart from Press Gazette, the journalists' trade magazine, no one bothered to report it. There is a general view that Mr Hunt is — shall we say — eccentric, and there is also a reluctance to return to the complexities of the by now rather boring Neil Hamilton affair. But if the case should come to the High Court, the press will not be able to ignore it — unless it wishes to open itself to the very charges Mr Hunt has brought against Granada and the Independent Television Commission.
Previous page
