“More than 90% of those who voted in a British Medical Journal poll believed the planned health reforms should be scrapped. Of 2,947 votes cast on bmj.com over the last week, 2,706 said the reforms should be dropped while 241 said they should stay”

The story does, at least, not claim this is specifically representative of anything, but the very fact it is reported carries the implication that it is in some way meaningful or representative of BMJ readers or people involved in the medical profession (in that sense the Guardian’s report is less bad than the PA copy, which presented the figures as being representative of BMJ readers). This was not, however, a poll in any meaningful sense, but an open access click button question on their website.

As ever, such open access polls are not properly weighted or sampled and are very easily fixed by people distributing the link to others to encourage them to vote… such as, erm, Guardian star-columnist Polly Toynbee here.

If you are a journalist reading this I again implore you to read this guidance from the British Polling Council on how journalists should report polls, particularly Q.13 on how to tell whether a poll is worth taking seriously or not.

In this particular circumstance the finding isn’t grossly misleading as there is good evidence to suggest NHS employees do indeed oppose the reforms (see, for example, this YouGov poll of NHS employees for 38 Degrees), but in a way that makes it even worse – reporting worthless findings when there are properly conducted ones out there.

Usual caveats about any poll showing unusual movements apply – sure, it could be a sign that the narrowing of the polls has passed and we are headed back to the Labour leads of 5 points or so that we got used to last autumn… or it could be normal sample error, and we’ll be back to neck-and-neck tomorrow. Right now we can’t tell.

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.