Predictions are dangerous but that does not mean that journalists should be cowardly and refrain from making them. So here goes. It's highly unlikely that Ed Miliband will still be leader of the British Labour party one year from now, let alone in two or three years' time when the next election comes, LET ALONE – ever – prime minister.

His only possible salvation lies in the fact that the Labour Party, unlike the Conservative Party, is strangely loyal to its leaders. Its history is one of terrible infighting but, as has been noted and lamented so often before, there has always been a reluctance to wield the knife.

Doubtless, we should be feeling sorry for "Red Ed" who is coming under relentless attack from the tabloids for failing to make an impression. It's never nice when the tabloids sense blood and go for the jugular.

So, like I say, he ought to deserve our sympathy. Trouble is, why did he want to become leader in the first place when his older brother was so obviously better suited to the position? One of the unfathomable mysteries of human beings is our lust for power when the voice of nagging reason must surely inform us that wielding the power in question does not become us.

The public makes its mind up about leaders quickly. Neil Kinnock was a fair politician, at times a vaguely credible leader of the opposition but he had a tendency to miss wide open goals – especially in the house of commons – and the public found him out quickly. He would have been a good second lieutenant but not a commander. The Labour Party's failure to remove him after the 1987 defeat was, again, proof of its sentimental  attachment to its leaders. If the public rejected him in 1987, were they really going to change their mind in 1992? The answer was, of course, no.

Similarly, in Bulgarian politics, if voters have rejected Sergei Stanishev on one occasion, are they likely to change their minds come the next election? I think not.

Kinnock's predecessor, Michael Foot, was an intellectual giant and kindly soul but totally ill-suited to the cut and thrust of modern politics. Gordon Brown was simply not a "people person" – that alone rendered him unsuitable.

The conservatives are more ruthless at ousting leaders who have failed to make an impression. William Hague is another very able fellow but not a prime minister in the making. Ian Duncan smith simply lacked any definable characteristics of a great statesman. Michael Howard was never very popular anyway.

Some of the press attacks on Ed Miliband are probably over the top. Being leader of the Labour Party in opposition is a tough job as numerous  people will attest. Veer too much to the Left and you are criticised for "irresponsibility" and kow-towing to public sector clientele. Go too much to the Right and the people who voted him in will scream betrayal. But in essence Ed only has himself to blame. He set his stall to the Left of his brother and now seems lost as to what to do.