Miliband or no Miliband?

Will he or won't he? (Probably not).

But more importantly - would it make any difference at all if he did have the top job?

Labour's disastrous result in the Glasgow East by-election allowed political pundits to entertain themselves with wild predictions: If the swing away from Labour were to be repeated at a general election then Labour could be left with just one MP in Scotland, the PM and the Chancellor could be among the many who would lose their seats, etc.

But, assuming a Labour win is all but impossible, could a change of leader at least provide damage limitation come the next election?

The Daily Mail reports that allies of Brown have warned that "pressure for an election would be "unstoppable" if a new Prime Minister was installed for the second time since 2005 without voters having a say."

Of course the idea of any other parties demanding that any new leader this term should immediately call an election (as they did when Brown took office) shows a deliberate refusal to acknowledge political history.

As John Kennedy O'Connor pointed out on ABC's 'Perspective' program back in June 2007, the Tories hardly a have a good record in this area when "five of their last seven Prime Ministers took over mid-term, four of whom doing so without even an internal party election"

Despite this, the myth that Labour did anything out of the ordinary - or wrong - when Blair handed power to Brown without immediately calling a general election is one that is (unfortunately for the Government) rife amongst the electorate, perpetuated by the media and the opposition.

But whether or not a challenge is made this term, undoubtedly behind the scenes Labour will already be looking for a successor as leader. The bookies certainly rate Miliband's chances.