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

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.