Is Compass about to call for tactical voting on the liberal left?

The search for a new, non-tribal politics continues.

The influential left-wing pressure group Compass -- launched in 2003, chaired by Neal Lawson and fronted by Labour's Jon Cruddas -- has sent out an email tonight to its 4,000 members asking them whether or not the organisation should devise a short statement in support of tactical voting to help stop the Tories from winning the general election.

A ballot form is attached to the email, which says:

something seismic could be happening in British politics which reflects the Compass view of a more pluralistic and tolerant progressive democracy . . . So should Compass actively promote this new politics by arguing for tactical voting -- and calling on people to back the best placed progressive candidate to stop the Conservative candidate and deprive the Conservatives of victory at the general election?

Endorsing tactical voting, naturally, means endorsing Liberal Democrat candidates in Tory-Lib Dem marginals -- something that Labour pluralists like Alan Johnson and Andrew Adonis have so far refused to do. To be fair, the letter acknowledges that such a move by the organisation could be controversial, noting that "while Compass is not affiliated to the Labour Party many Compass members are also members and supporters of Labour".

Compass has been attacked in the past by Labour tribalists for daring to reach out across party-political lines, inviting non-Labour figures such as the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, to its conferences. So I imagine the likes of Luke Akehurst won't be too pleased tonight.

I'm not a member of Compass, but if I was, I'd be backing the move. Why? 1) Progressive coalitions are a good thing. 2) Labour tribalists are short-sighted and self-destructive. And 3) Lib-Lab tactical voting might be the only means left of denying the Tories victory on 6 May and preventing a disastrous Cameron premiership.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.