The controversy surrounding Reform UK and disputed foreign-funded polling has widened after two polling-industry bodies began examining the conduct of JL Partners, the research company that carried out the surveys at the centre of the row.
The British Polling Council has gone further than simply announcing an inquiry, saying that “it is clear there have been breaches” of its transparency rules in relation to polling apparently commissioned by Reform UK and conducted by JL Partners.
The Market Research Society has meanwhile referred the matter to the Market Research Standards Board, which will consider the wider professional and ethical issues raised by the case.
The development is separate from the question of whether Reform UK or any of its officials breached electoral law. Those allegations remain disputed and have not been established by the polling bodies.
British Polling Council identifies clear rule breaches
The British Polling Council's Rule 2.1 requires polling data and research findings entering the public domain to identify the client that commissioned the survey.
Following the Channel 4 News investigation broadcast on 3 September, the BPC said the polling apparently commissioned by Reform and conducted by JL Partners had breached that requirement.
The council said it was seeking further information from JL Partners and expected the company to provide additional information after considering the matter.
The BPC also said the Channel 4 programme raised the possibility that the non-disclosure may have been deliberate, although that aspect remains subject to further examination.
JL Partners acknowledges lapse of judgement
JL Partners has acknowledged problems with the way the polling was presented publicly.
The company said its normal practice was to tell media partners when polling had been commissioned by a particular client, but that it did not proactively provide that information in relation to polling paid for by IL Office LLC, the US company used by undercover reporters during the investigation.
JL Partners described that omission as a “lapse of judgement” and said it was not consistent with either its own approved procedures or Rule 2.1 of the British Polling Council guidelines.
The company said it contacted the BPC after concluding that it had breached the rule and is now working with the council on how to update the relevant client descriptions and take any remedial action required.
It has also launched an internal review of its procedures.
JL Partners has stressed that the controversy does not concern the accuracy of the polling itself.
Market Research Society refers case to standards board
The Market Research Society, which has a broader remit than the British Polling Council, has also become involved.
The MRS said it was aware of the Channel 4 reporting involving one of its company partners and confirmed that the matter had been referred to the Market Research Standards Board.
That referral means the controversy has now moved beyond a political dispute over Reform UK and into formal scrutiny of the professional standards governing how political polling is commissioned, funded and presented to the public.
Three polls at centre of undercover investigation
The row stems from an undercover investigation by Verbatim, subsequently broadcast and verified by Channel 4 News.
Reporters posed as representatives of a wealthy American donor and arranged for a US-based company to pay for three polls carried out by JL Partners. Channel 4 reported that the polling cost a combined £32,500.
The investigation alleged that senior Reform UK figures were involved in arranging polling that the party believed was being funded by an overseas source.
Some of the polling subsequently received prominent newspaper coverage without Reform UK's involvement being disclosed to readers.
That lack of transparency is the issue now being addressed by the polling-industry bodies.
Different issue from electoral-law allegations
It is important to distinguish the confirmed polling-rule issue from the much more serious allegations surrounding political donations.
The British Polling Council is an industry body. Its finding that Rule 2.1 was breached is a finding about polling transparency, not a determination that a criminal offence or breach of electoral law occurred.
Separately, the Electoral Commission has been reviewing information arising from the undercover investigation, while the Metropolitan Police has said it is assessing material concerning an alleged breach of political donation law.
Reform UK denies wrongdoing. Nigel Farage has described the undercover operation as entrapment and has insisted that the party did not accept illegal money.
Two senior Reform figures, James Orr and Dan Jukes, have stepped down from their roles while the party conducts its own investigation.
Why polling transparency matters
The identity of a poll's client can be important because commissioning organisations decide what questions are asked, when research is carried out and which findings are subsequently released.
Polling can therefore be statistically sound while readers still lack relevant context about why the research was commissioned and who paid for it.
That principle is at the heart of the BPC's transparency rules.
Labour MP Chris Curtis, himself a former pollster, referred JL Partners to both the British Polling Council and the Market Research Society following the Channel 4 broadcast.
The latest developments mean that at least one part of the wider controversy has now moved beyond allegation: JL Partners has acknowledged a failure to follow the BPC transparency rule and the British Polling Council has publicly stated that breaches occurred.
What remains unresolved is whether the arrangements surrounding the polling also crossed the much more consequential line into unlawful political funding. That question is for the relevant authorities, not the polling-industry bodies, to determine.