A question that often pops up in the comments here – and in wider political commentary – is whether Labour “should be doing better”. This actually covers two different questions. One is “Should X be doing better…in order to win the election?“, the second is “Should X be doing better…given the current circumstances?“. The answers to the two questions are not necessarily the same – for example, a party with very favourable circumstances could be ahead in the polls and in an election winning position… but really could be doing even better than that (and vice-versa, in a really unfavourable political environment not being hammered too badly could the best position a party could realistically hope for!)

Let’s deal with the first question first – are Labour doing well enough to win the next election?

When people ask this question they obviously don’t mean “if there was an election tomorrow would their level of support give them a majority”. That’s a simple swing calculation, and while neck-and-neck isn’t enough for Labour, they’ve often had the necessary small leads to win an overall majority on current boundaries. No, the question means are they far enough ahead assuming they drop back to some degree as the election approaches?

I should say from the outset that I’m really not a fan of arguments about oppositions needing to be x points ahead midterm to win the next election; it implies a certain inevitability of polling movements in the run up to the election that simply doesn’t exist. That said, there is a an obvious pattern in historical movements of polls: when oppositions open up large leads in the mid term they normally fall back by the time of the next election. Oppositions that have gone on to win the next election have normally enjoyed mid-term leads of 20 points or more, oppositions with lower leads mid-terms have generally ended up losing.

What this does not mean, however, is that an opposition that doesn’t have a big lead currently might not get one in the future. While successful oppositions have had large leads, it doesn’t follow they’ve had large leads all the time. For example, the Conservative opposition in 1974-1979 did enjoy 20+ point leads, but only briefly after the IMF bailout and the winter of discontent. For most of the 1974-79 Parliament the Conservatives had far more modest leads. In the 1959-1964 Parliament the ultimately victorious Labour opposition was still behind in the polls in 1960 and early 1961, very large Labour leads didn’t emerge until 1963.

So being neck-and-neck now doesn’t mean Labour can’t do better later in the Parliament. That said, the fact they haven’t got a big lead now, isn’t particularly positive. Under normal circumstances they would have to up their game significantly to be in a position comparable to those historical oppositions who have gone on to win. However, these are not normal circumstances.

The normal pattern of public opinion during a Parliament is that governments get unpopular things done early and do popular things closer to the election. We expect to see people disappointed by the government drift away and register a protest by telling pollsters they would vote for the opposition (and doing so in mid-term local, European and by-elections). When the election itself comes close some of those people compare the alternative governments, decide the incumbent isn’t so bad compared to the alternative and government support recovers.

However, the narrowing of the polls so far in this Parliament seems to have very little to do with the usual mechanism. Conservative support has held up and Labour’s increase is almost all due to former Lib Dem supporters opposed to the coalition switching en masse to Labour. This could be more of a political realignment than mid-term blues and while it is possible that these supporters will drift back towards the Lib Dems as the election approaches, it equally possible that they will stick with Labour.

Under normal circumstances Labour’s paltry lead at the moment wouldn’t be enough to suggest they’ll go on to win the next election and the wise money would be on a Conservative victory next time round. Under present circumstances though… who knows?

The second version of the question is whether Labour are doing well or badly given the circumstances. I hate this question too, given it is impossible to measure and answers to it inevitably end up being entirely determined by the person answering’s views of Labour and their current policies or leader.

For what it’s worth though, the “doing badly” argument is that the coalition have announced drastic and unpopular cuts, are carrying out reforms to public services that polls suggest are unpopular and the economy is in a parlous state, with no immediate sign of improvement. Under these circumstances people would argue that the opposition should be doing very well, and that being neck-and-neck in the polls is a poor show or indicates some other problem with how voters see the opposition.

In contrast, the “doing well” argument is that Labour have just suffered one of their worst ever defeats. People have not forgiven them and it will take time for people to really give them a hearing. Under those circumstances, to be regularly polling 6-10 points above your general election score and neck-and-neck with the other main party isn’t that bad. Certainly it’s more than the Conservatives in 1997 could dream of.

Those would be the calculations under normal circumstances, but again, these are not normal circumstances. Labour’s increase of 6-10 points is almost wholly from the windfall gain of between a third and a half of those who voted Liberal Democrat at the last election. This happened pretty much without any input from Labour itself and they have gained minimal support beyond this.

Under normal circumstances it would be arguable that Labour were doing quite well given the situation, but probably not enough to win an election. Under the present circumstances one could well argue that Labour are not doing well at all, but if the realignment of Lib Dem support is stickier than normal mid term gains it’s possible it could be enough.

Full tables for the YouGov/Sunday Times poll are now up here, covering Miliband’s leadership, Scottish independence, abortion, alcohol and shoplifting.

Last night I pondered whether the reason the polls were still close between Labour and the Conservatives was a lasting effect of the veto, or a reflection of Labour’s current troubles. The regular trackers in the YouGov poll would suggest the latter – government approval and David Cameron’s approval ratings are both falling back towards their pre-veto levels, government approval is back down to minus 26, David Cameron’s approval rating is back down to minus 10. In contrast, Ed Miliband’s figures get ever worse, dropping to minus 49 (from minus 46 a week ago). Amongst Labour’s own supporters only 46% think he is doing well, compared to 49% who think he is doing badly.

Asked if Miliband had the right policies to be Prime Minister and whether he looked or sounded like a Prime Minister, only 7% thought he both had the policies and the look/sound to be PM. 43% thought he had neither (including, as one would expect, most Tories). The interesting bit is the rest, only 4% thought he looked like a PM but didn’t have the right policies, 27% thought he had the right policies, but didn’t look or sound like a PM. Amongst Labour’s own supporters only 16% thought Miliband had the right policies and the right look/sound, 5% of Labour supporters thought he had the right look/sound but the wrong policies, 59% of Labour supporters thought he had the right policies but didn’t look or sound like a possible Prime Minister.

For all the discussion of Labour’s policy stance on the economy (though in the longer term, that will be extremely important too), this appears to be the ultimate problem with Ed Miliband – people don’t think he looks the part of Prime Minister. It is not, as John Humphrey’s suggested, anything as crude as Ed Miliband being “too ugly” to be Prime Minister (YouGov asked and only 10% agreed), but a general image. It backs up earllier findings like that in December when, despite Labour having been ahead in the polls for a year, only 17% of people and only 37% of Labour’s own supporters thought it likely that Ed Miliband would ever be Prime Minister. This is a real problem for Miliband – policies can be changed, it is extremely difficult to change the public’s perception of a leader once it has settled. Miliband’s ratings did get a good hike after hackgate last year, but it was purely temporary, Labour need to get something like that which sticks.

The rest of the poll covered Scottish independence (which I’ll do a seperate post on later),
attitudes towards alcohol pricing, lobbying, shoplifting and abortion.

On Alcohol pricing, people are pretty evenly split over cut-price promotions on alcohol – 47% think they are a good thing, 42% a bad thing. 53% oppose a minimum price on alcohol, 47% support it, although largely at at quite low levels. 30% would support a minimum pricing at the suggested 45p a unit or less (the equivalent of about £1 for a pint of beer), 17% would support a higher minimum price.

On shoplifting, 16% of people admitted that they had shoplifted at some point in their lives. 50% of people saw it as a less serious type of theft than burgulary or mugging, compared to 45% who thought it was about the same. Asked what the appropriate punishment should be for a first time shoplifter, 23% thought they should be given a caution, 30% a fine, 30% community service, 11% a jail sentence.

Finally YouGov asked about the time limit for abortion. 5% of people supported a higher limit, 34% supported the status quo of a 24 week limit, 37% supported reducing the time limit and 6% supported a total ban on abortions. As you often find on abortion questions, women were more likely than men to support a reduction in the time limit for abortion (49% of women supported a tighter limit, compared to 24% of men.)

When I wrote about public perceptions on the issue of Europe a month ago I warned about the danger to the Conservative party of once again looking like a divided party. Following the revolt, YouGov asked whether people saw the Conservative and Labour parties as united or divided, repeating a question that YouGov had asked semi-regularly since 2003. Below are the results for the Tory party over time:

64% of people now see the Conservative party as divided, compared to just 18% who see them as united. This is the most divided the Conservative party has been seen since YouGov started asking the question, down from a peak in 2008 when 56% saw the party as united (though given we have only been asking the question since 2003, they may very well have been seen more negatively during the infighting over Maastricht in the 1990s).

Of course, we can’t conclude this is necessarily down to the European rebellion, or even the issue of Europe – the Conservative party have been arguing with themselves over plenty of things. It does, however, suggest a growing perception of them as being divided, especially when compared to the perceptions of unity they recorded under David Cameron in opposition.

While we are here, here are the same figures for Labour. As you can see, while the Conservative ratings are negative, Labour’s in government were even worse – at their lowest point in 2008 only 3% of people thought that Labour was united, compared to 88% who thought it was divided (though of course, this was after 11 years in power). While perceptions of whether Labour are united or divided have improved since going into opposition, they are still negative – only 25% of people see Labour as united, compared to 45% who see the party as divided.