Firstly, Labour is going to win this election quite comfortably. Their majority will be diminished, but they are still  going to be returned with an overall majority approaching 100 (they currently have a majority of 139). I think we're looking at Labour returning somewhere between 370 and 380 MPs (down from 416, but still a formidable majority)

Secondly, the Conservative Party is going to be in for a fairly disappointing night. They will improve on their 1997 and 2001 performance, but not by much. I think they are  going to elect somewhere in the neighborhood of 185 to 195 MPs, only a slight improvement on their current 166 MPs. Over at Political Betting, a slightly Tory-leaning, but still perhaps the best "inside baseball" website covering British politics I can find, a number of the Conservative partisans have been trying to spin the polling data and betting lines to the best of their ability, but it seems clear to me that their spinning has gotten a little less frantic this weekend, with the realization that the Conservative Party is going to suffer its third substantial defeat in a row. Michael Howard's campaign has been more competent than the last two Tory campaigns, and has a done a good job mobilizing the Tory faithful: however, it has also done a good job of reminiding non-Tory Britons why they don't vote for  the Conservative Party. (perhaps a lesson for those who think a hardcore "fire up the base" strategy is the way to go for liberals. Note: polarization and drawing "clear differences" only works if you are in the majority). The results will further confirm that the Conservative Party is in a crisis not dissimilar to that experienced by the Labour Party during the 1980s. What's more, this election will show that the Conservative Party has not yet figured out the degree to which their party even has a problem, that they are no longer "the natural party of government". (see also Kos's surprisingly insightful Guardian article that compares the Conservative Party's problems to those of  the Democrats. (actually, I think the Conservative Party's difficulties are considerably more dire).

Finally (apologizies to Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party), the Liberal Democrats are going to come out of this election with a sense of accomplishment. I think they are going to improve considerably - percentage-wise - on their 2001 showing, receiving in the neighborhood of 23% of the national vote (compared to the 18.8% they received in 2001). Somewhat unfortunately for the Lib Dems, however, this will translate into only about 65 to 70 MPs, as the electoral system is biased against the Lib Dems for complicated structural and psychological reasons. However, 65 to 70 MPs will be a significant improvement on their current 51, and will represent the party's best ever showing.

So to sum up, before moving on to some deeper analysis, my predictions are as follows:

Labour - 36.5-37.5%, 370 to 380 MPs
Conservatives - 32.5%-33.5% 185 to 195 MPs
Liberal Dems - 22.5%-23.5% 65 to 70 MPs

Allow me to refer you to the internals of this Sunday's Times/YouGuv poll. Before moving ahead, let me note the following - that YouGuv is a poll that is generally more favourable to the Conservatives than most British pollsters, and that - contrary to their recent poor performance in the US 2004 election - they generally are accurate in predicting UK elections. With this said, there are two internals in particular that are just dire for the long term health of the Conservative Party in its current guise. Firstly, look at the breakdown by age. Amongst voters, 18 to 29, the electorate breaks down as follows: Labour 36%, Conservative 24%, Liberal Democrats 29%. In other words, parties standing from the center leftwards attract 2/3 of the votes in this age bracket. Pretty bad for the Tories, but young folks tend to be left-leaning, and often become more right-leaning with age. Rather, it is the second age bracket that should be especially disturbing for the Tories. Amongs voters 30 to 50, the electorate breaks down as follows: Labour 40%, Conservative 27%, Liberal Democrats 24%. So amongst voters in the prime of their working lives, who bear the brunt of the nation's taxation, the only major right-leaning party in Britain attracts one-third of voters. These folks are not changing their political affiliations as readily as the younger folks. The only reason the Conservatives can maintain the pretense as Britain's primary opposition party is that voters over 50 favor them by 40 to 30% over the Labour Party (with 20% of the over 50s favoring the LDs).

Now, a classic left wing counterargument to the significance of the above is that Labour has become essentially a right wing party. I disagree with this. In the context of 1970s Britain, current Labour economic policies would be viewed as center-right (as would those of the Liberal Democrats). This is what Margaret Thatcher achieved: she destroyed the pretense the Labour Party had that socialism in Britain was popular or inevitable. As a result, the Labour Party was forced to change. But lets be clear: in an American context, the Labour Party's policies - on economic issues and on civil libertarian issues - would be strongly within the mainstream, if not on the left-hand side, of the Senate Congressional caucus - think Jon Corzine, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, Patty Murray. They are pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environmental reform, pro-universal health care, pro-state guaranteed retirement, etc.. Don't be fooled by the Iraq War only in thinking of the Labour Party.

The Liberal Democrats are in many ways indistinguishable from the above, although they have staked out certain positions to the left of the Labour Party where the Labour Party has allowed the space to do so: particularly over the Iraq War, but also on issues like the need for national ID cards and drug decriminilzation. But in ideological terms, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have been converging since the late 1980s. The Liberal Democrats noises leftwards are more short term tactical moves than anything else, at least in my opinion. If the Liberal Dems got into a position where it looked like they had a serious possibility of winning a general election, they would tack back to the center.

But what does this convergance mean? Well, I'll return to the aformentioned YouGuv polling internals. The question asks: "if you had to choose between a Conservative victory and a very large Labour majority, which would you prefer LEAST?" Amongst those planning to vote for the Liberal Democrats, 60% answered they would rather a have a VERY LARGE Labour rather than ANY kind of Conservative victory. So what? What does this mean? In other words, a functional anti-Conservative majority exists in Britain. This is further confirmed by other polling data I have seen, which consitently shows that if forced to choose between a Labour victory and a Conservative victory, British voters consistently choose a Labour victory by 10% or more. To put that in American terms, that would be like a replay of the 2000 election in which Gore defeated Bush something like 54% to 42% and won 40+ states in the electoral college.

As to WHY Britons are hostile to right wingers, and why Thatcher's legacy has been surprisingly bad for British conservatism, the reasons are complicated, but consider the following:

1. no Christian right - Britain is a very secular country when compared to the US.
   
2. a much stronger trade union movement - now and historically - and a much more politicized working class
   
3. related to point two, a much greater acceptance that there is a "public good"
   
4. lack of an idea that England/Britain is an "exceptional nation" with a "special" mission. This is not to say that Britain is not a nationalistic country, because it very much is - but the idea that Britain has any "special role" to play in the world would be seen as laughable.