Why Ed Miliband is going to be the next Prime Minister I have never understood why, after being rejected pretty severely three years ago, Labour should now be 15 points or more ahead. That belief seems to be based on the view that large parts of the electorate are essentially pretty stupid, and will change their voting intention on a whim or in an instant. Yes, in the past opposition parties heading for a majority have been further ahead at this stage. But we are clearly in different times. In England we now have four-party politics, and will continue to do so up until election day. Which is not to say that Ukip will ultimately poll 12 per cent or even 8 per cent. But even with a 5 per cent share they will affect the election result. We cannot we say with (well-founded) confidence what will happen to those voters currently telling pollsters they will vote Ukip. It is not axiomatic that they are all Tories who will return to their blue home. Some will have voted Labour or Lib Dem in the past. Some Ukip "supporters" are simply exasperated by all the major parties. They may not vote at all. (The chances of another dismal c. 60 per cent turn-out at the next election seem quite high.) If Labour is the largest party after the election, perhaps comfortably so, we can expect the Lib Dems to enter coalition talks with them. That was the principle that lay behind the Lib Dem's approach three years ago. It would be a vindication for them, and so-called "equidistance," were they able to form a new coalition with Labour having spent five years in government with the Conservatives. This story - that Labour are very likely to be in government after the election, if only in coalition with the Lib Dems - is not one being told by the Westminster lobby or most other commentators. This could be because it is wildly wrong. I don't think it is, for the simple reasons set out above. It is possible, I suppose, that a recovering economy might convince more people to vote Tory than did so in 2010. But growth is likely to be weak, and wages flat. Vigorous growth in the mid 1990s did not persuade many people to vote for the Conservative government then. And there are few precedents for parties being more popular after a term in office. The high hopes that some had for Cameron have been largely dashed. So why the pooh-poohing, the sneering, the rejection of the possibility of prime minister Ed Miliband waving from the doorstep of No.10? I think other, murky factors are at play. For one thing it is not just the public that hasn't really forgiven or forgotten the last Labour government. The media haven't either. For many of them it feels "too soon" to have a Labour government again. Some reporters, I think, remember the rough treatment they suffered at the hands of New Labour's media management machine. And they are not ready to "move on." And then there is the Labour leader himself. He doesn't fit the conventional leadership template. He is not doing it the way Tony did it or Dave did it. He does not strike poses or gush with soundbites. He is more tortoise than hare. And this does not suit the media's purpose or fit in with their preferred timetable and way of working. We should, however, remember the result of the race that took place between the tortoise and the hare. Quite a lot of people, including perhaps some supposedly on his own side, do not really want an Ed Miliband-led Labour party to win. He has challenged orthodoxy and politely but determinedly ignored much of the advice he has been given. This is troubling. He threatens to be a quietly radical prime minister, and some people are a bit nervous about that. But with under two years to go to polling day he is heading for Downing Street. That, I think, is by far the likeliest outcome of the next election. I fully expect his arrival in No 10 to be described as a shock. Stefan Stern is a management writer and visiting professor at Cass Business School