It must be pretty bad. In an aside on The World at One, Martha Kearney said she had spent some time this morning digging out the Labour party's leadership election rules to see how easy it is to trigger a contest.
If Mike White is right, she was wasting her time. Mike knows that Gordon Brown isn't about to get the boot and so, I suspect, does Martha (because otherwise she might have got round to telling us what those election rules actually say).
That won't stop Labour MPs asking themselves: Are we totally stuffed? Or is it recoverable?
The most imaginative analogy came yesterday in the Sunday Times, which claimed that Brown's personal approval ratings had collapsed even more in the last year than Neville Chamberlain's did after Hitler's invasion of Norway in 1940. That was the year, remember, when the entire future of English-speaking civilisation seemed to be under threat. Even George Osborne doesn't think things have got that bad.
But, if you're a Labour MP, it does look pretty dire. How bad? What should they compare it to? Like a character in a new series of Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes, Labour MPs and ministers have been speculating in private about what year they're actually in. Here are the four main alternatives.
1. It's 1977. The prime minister, a former chancellor, has taken over (without winning a general election) from a proven election-winner. But he doesn't seem to have much of a grip and the Tories, under their new leader, are preparing for government.
The Labour prime minister, James Callaghan, during a speech at the TUC conference, 1977. Photograph: Don McPhee
If it really is 1977, Brown is doomed. But at one point the Tories had a 19.5% lead in the opinion polls in 1977, higher than anything Cameron has achieved. Callaghan would have sawn off his arm for the economic conditions that Brown enjoys today and he ended up running a minority administration kept afloat by the Liberals and other minority parties. Brown certainly isn't here (yet).
2. It's 1986. The government has been in office for a while and it's starting to look stale. It's been hit by crises and government unity is frayed. Worryingly, the opposition is under the control of a smarmy PR man and it's ahead in the polls.
The Conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, driving a tank in 1986. Photograph: Rex Features
If it really is 1986, Brown is in the clear. Labour was ahead of the Tories 22 years ago, but never by more than about seven points. But Cameron's leads are getting bigger than that, and, unlike Kinnock, he does not seem to be burdened by unpopular electoral baggage. Kinnock's Labour party hadn't embraced the bits of Thatcherism that the electorate seemed to like. By contrast, Cameron appears more Blairite than Brown.
3. It's 1991. Again, we've got a new prime minister. He's not very flashy, but he's clearly decent and well-intentioned. The economy is in turmoil and the opposition are ahead in the polls (sometimes by as much as 10 points). Oh, and we've just fought a war in Iraq.
The Conservative chancellor, Norman Lamont, and the prime minister, John Major, at the European Bank Conference in April 1991. Photographer: Graham Turner
The 1991 comparison is important because it shows that governments don't always lose in a recession. The Conservatives were unpopular, but Labour's economic team (which included one G Brown) failed to persuade voters that they could do any better. The most worrying figures for Brown now are those that show the Tories ahead on economic competence. And the 1991 Iraq war comparison isn't really relevant - because that war was a success.
4. It's 1995. The government's been in power for ages and they appear to have run out of ideas. The opposition have got a new, young leader who is charismatic and completely different from anyone they've had before. Voters are really hungry for change.
John Major in 1996. Photograph: Don McPhee
This is the nightmare scenario. But we're not even close. At one point in 1995 Labour had a 39.5% lead in the opinion polls, and at no point was their lead lower than 15 points. Even allowing for increasing voter apathy and rising support for third parties, which might make it harder for an opposition to clock up a similar lead today, Cameron is not enjoying anything like Blair's success.
So which is it?
My verdict: from Brown's point of view, it's better than 1977, far better than 1995, not as good as 1986, but perhaps worse than 1991.
