Thanks Ian, I look forward to reading your contributions which have always impressed me.

The situation does seem quite simple really:

There are those who are prepared to live with the current New Labour administration for another 5 years

There are those who have concerns about a continuation of this New Labour administration, but are seriously concerned about the prospect of the Tories winning either a majority or enough to form a government, and are suggesting that whatever is possible should be done to keep Cameron out, including tactical voting

And there are those who feel that neither the continuation of Blairite New Labour under Brown, nor the Tories under Cameron are acceptable, and would like to see a hung parliament, hopefully with enough smaller party candidates and independents returned to prevent either a simple Lab-Lib or Tory-Lib coalition.

I am proud to be a member of the third group, and proud to say that I was a traditional Labour supporter before the party was raped by Blair and his effete, spivvy snakeoil movement. I can understand the second group, and see nothing wrong at all in their call for tactical voting, but they seem muddled in terms of where they are going to land up...and if you arent sure where you are going, you will probably land up some place else

And the first group are simply loony...I dont think I even want to debate with them. If they cannot see the deep harm that Blair and Brown have done to this nation, they are blinkered and probably beyond saving. They are also due to become the latest extinct species, so their views arent really of much consequence.

It's obvious that Compass has gone mad to advocate tactical voting . Here in Cornwall we had a Libdem one party state untill resently. Thay were a total Fu* k up in all departments. We must keep the yellow peril at bay.

Simon, as the saying goes...'you can't be serious?'

Labour supports the trade unions? Where did you get that idea? They have not repealed one jot of anti-trade-union law that Thatcher brought in. How was BA and others able to use the courts to make strikes illegal. Anyway, read Robert's posts from the front line for a reality check.

Here is a list, just off the top of my head of what this so called Labour administration has done:

Trident renewal
Top-up fees
10p tax hike for the lower paid
detention without trial for (as many days as they can possibly get away with - literally!)
banking regulation - lack of
PFI
PPP where Brown fought through the courts to use this scheme that then failed (as we all predicted) and tax payer bails out to the tune of many billions. Now why is that sounding familiar?
Brown fought through the courts to make manifesto 'pledges' non-binding. So what they say is largely fiction.
Postal voting scam in Blackburn, home of a certain Mr Straw
General mis-management of the economy
Standing idly by while major industry went down the pan EG Marconi, MG, Cadburys (in a different manner).
....and this is before I mention the war.

This lot deserve a thorough thrashing (and trashing) I would say to teach them a lesson. The feeling on the boards, with the general populace is that they want shot of this crowd knowing full well the Tories are likely successors.

On another note: Good to see you back Lee.

Regards

Ian

I am voting no-to save the Labour Party from turning in to a Lib DEm supporters network- at this time we need the maximal vote for Labour=ote for labour-support trade unions and the labour movement-Lib Dems do not represent that

THE GUARDIAN ENDORSES THE LIB-DEMS.

Polly Toynbee will not be available for comment as she is spending the day in the toilet

For a long time I have been reading Robert (Swansea)talking about the reality of his life and how New Labour's betrayal of the working class has made him suffer immense pain and disillusionment. He is usually just ignored by more fortunate or wealthier participants who take the debate back to abstractions. I think it is high time for us to listen to Robert. He has told us honestly, day after day, about his own struggles and experiences in a way that I believe deserves great respect. I, for one,
treasure his contributions, and hope that he will continue to speak truth to power.

Carola, On the contrary, I am feeling very well in mind and spirit. On the point of being a Tory. You couldn't be far from the truth. My words are based on realism, they are based on personal experience on how Labour is observed and looked upon in my local community. Are we saying that individuals who comment on this website can do so only in agreement with those that take part.?

Robert (Swansea) why not join Respect?

How politically neutral is the NIESR ?

Carola,

What has labour done with immigrants they have placed them into nineteen detention camps, thats a nice word for concentration camps, it cost us £1600 a day for each person locked up, why not allow them to work feed them selves not jail them.

Labour is no different then the Tories thats the problem Brown he is a Tory, I remember him going back to the 1980's his cut your throat way of getting into positions, he has lived his life like this and now of course people are doing the same to him,.

His remarks about Ms Duffy was an insult to every real labour party member, because thats what brown thinks, all this bloke wants is to win, not to go down as the worse unelected leader, he will be unable to look Blair in the eyes.

fact is the last thirteen years have been a nigh mare we have lived a lie that lie was New labour.

yes I'm not voting labour.

Mark (Doncaster) surely you are a Tory? What are you doing on a Labour leaning website at all? it is bound to make you feel unwell.
Last night's debate showed Dave Cameron up as the true heir of the nasty right winger who planned Michael Howard's ill-fated 2005 campaign. He thinks immigrants committed to this country who have been here 10 years in a twilight world of cheap labour and squalid conditions should not be allowed to register for taxes (as Tory backers hate to do!) settle down and work for a decent living but he won't say what he'd do with them - if he knew where they were! Prison ships maybe? Or deportation? Mr N Griffin would love that one!
To Cameron it's obvious that inheritance tax cuts for wealthy Tories come before child tax credits for working families. No contest. I could never vote for him even "tactically", my hand would drop off.

I had another email this morning from labour you must vote labour Labour is the party of the working person, well I do not work I'm disabled after an accident at work.

Working class had become a swear word under new labour, it's chased the swing voters the middle class hence tax credits for £50,000 a year peoples.

Labour decided the way it had to go was middle England now it's telling me I must vote labour, they have no chance, Labour broke from me I did not break from labour.

Nope I will not vote Labour, Cameron is not Thatcher, then again he might be, but I'm willing to give him the chance, because Labour has done sod all for me.

The big push next is to get a party which will help the working class be that liberal or Tory I do not care.

But for me the Tories are the party which gave me more as a disabled person, Labour has attacked me from all sides, as Blair once said how do we know they are not all work shy scroungers.

I have been away for ages due to a combination of personal circumstances and deep disillusionment with politics. I was encouraged, however, to comment on this thread.

My own feeling is that Compass should be congratulated for the courage to do something that will be unpopular with many members. Its not as if Compass has invented this issue...it is out there, a reality in the minds of many voters, and inherent in the situation. All Compass is doing is to be brave enough to acknowledge it and call for it to be debated, despite the fury this will call forth from New Labour diehards.

But at this point, I must say I am not one with Neal's characterization as the main goal of tactical voting being to keep the Tories out. Where I stand, tactical voting is a more nuanced issue. For what its worth, this is my own personal take:

If voting Labour were to mean an end to Blairism, an end to Brown and his mawkish cabinet, an end to the betrayal of Labour by the bunch of effete campari progressives who have raped the party I once supported, then I would have no hestitation in calling for an outright vote for Labour. But if Labour won, there would be an intensification of all the worst aspects of Blairism, a shift further to the right and away from the unions and the working class, and the continuation of Britain as the tampon of the United States. So I am thoroughly opposed to the continuation of the current New Labour regime. It is cowardly, dishonest, neo-liberal, callous, and incompetent. There is zero prospect of a reform of New Labour while it has power. The Labour left has vanished up its own vortex and Mandelson rules. The prospects of a reform of Labour and a defeat of Blairism once Labour is out of office, is not great. Personally, I believe that the Labour right will hold power because the Labour left has shown itself to be craven and ineffective, and I say that as a supporter of what the Labour left should be doing, but isnt. Still, I will support Cruddas as the next leader as the "best chance"...rather Cruddas than (spare us, lord) David Miliband, Alan Johnson, or (screech of horror) Harriet Harman.

I am with Compass all the way in not wanting the Tories in power, although I do not believe that the difference between a Cameron government, and a continuing Brown government is all that significant. Cameron has one advantage...he is not the total poodle sycophantic brownnose of the USA that New Labour is. He is mraginally more likely to get out of illegal wars of aggression and could end up curring defense spending, which should be a top priority for all progressives.

I am with SG. I dont just dont want the Tories in power. I regard Blairism is equally distasteful and dangerous. I dont want Alan Johnson as Home Secretary, or David Miliband as Foreign Secretary any more than I would want to see the shadow cabinet take power. All are equally bad, albeit in slightly different, but ultimately inconsequential ways. I do expect a Cameron government to lie and cheat just as much as Labour has done over the last decade, but maybe they wont, or maybe they will do so with more panache. Most of all, I would like to see the politics of Peter Mandelson and the man himself, removed from Britain. I loathe everything he stands for. However, as I am sure will surprise no one, he will pop up as a member of a Conservative administration. It takes a silver bullet and a stake to the heart, I believe.

So I urge people to vote, according to their own constituency situation, in such a way as to increase the likelihood of a hung parliament, meaning reducing the chances of either Labour or Tories winning. For many of us our votes are purely symbolic. However I may feel, there is no prospect in my own constituency, of the SNP overturning Charles Kennedy's 12,000 majority. And personally, despite all his failings, I would still like to see Charles Kennedy in parliament even although I may end up voting against him for a local laddie.

On the whole, voting Lib-Dem in marginals is more likely to prevent the Tories claiming a victory than keeping Brown out of office. The choice for most progressives is whether a Lab-Lib or Tory-Lib administration is better. I would select a Lab-Lib administration but only by a whisker. I am still hoping the smaller parties do well enough to form a fourth caucus in a hung parliament. Brown will be watching all this happening on his TV at the manse, and I wish him the best in his retirement. It will be a relief to never have to see his "smile" again, or the fish that continually seems to be escaping from his mouth.

SG: Snort, snort... bull, bull. My, how you are so fine. LOL.

Mark (Doncaster), are you okay? Do you need to sit down? Should your neighbourhood be worried? I am sure that we are all sorry that you are so upset. Is there anything we can do?

Gavin, you are a university graduate who has not held down a real job and no nothing about life outside of the borough of London. I will take no lessons from you or the Compass team on what is best for this country to move forward and on how to rig the rules. Do not be taken in by this absolute folly and waffle of an idea. I do not believe what I am reading here.

Let me spell it out for you LABOUR IS FINISHED. Accept it

Tactical Voting. What on earth is Compass playing at. You don't like playing by the rules of the game so you are deciding to change the outcome of democracy by rigging the rules. Pathetic. Many indiduals who agree to this rather bizarre attempt to stop the inevitable really need to pause for thought. Labour is finished, it has no future as it now stands so Compass supporters let democracy take its toll and stop this nonsense. The Labour Party are victim of their own doing.

"Is SalfordGal anti Trade Union as well?"

A typically churlish response which, in a display of perverse generosity, I will attempt to answer. As I said, "In the first place, a Labour party was needed to represent organised labour...". It is obvious to me, at least, the THE Labour party (whether in its New Labour manifestation or some other has singularly failed, and will continue to fail, to effectively represent the political, economic and social interests of the members (and their families) of the trades unions which fund it and which have supplied much of New Labour's electoral organisation during this election campaign.

'Nuff said?

Is SalfordGal anti Trade Union as well?

Assuming that Labour is highly unlikely to win a majority there are two key objectives for Labour supporters
1. Ensure that the Conservatives do not win a majority or even get close to it
2. Labour achieves more votes than the Liberal Democrats.

1 is marginally more important than 2 but only just. The problems are that the two objectives may be in conflict and that it depends on how everyone else votes which cannot be known, although the closer to election day the decision is made the better. My view at the moment is that 1. is likely to be achieved because of the increase in support for the Lib. Dems and that 2. will be difficult for the same reason. So my advice at the moment would be to vote Labour in all seats.

This is from the perspective of a social democrat who is also a tribal Labour supporter. In terms of policies I acknowledge that there are areas of Lib Dem policies which are more attractive than Labour's at present - foreign policy, defence, civil rights and some aspects of social policy. However, my big suspicion of the Lib Dems is their attitude to public services and employment rights/ trade unions and I am comforted by the thought that many Labour members do not share the views of the current leadership on foreign policy, defence, civil rights etc.

"A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Cameron in my book, how would we look as Compass then?"

A lot less stupid than Compass has looked since its outrageous and anti-democratic support for the coronation of an unelected - and unelectable - Brown.

A vote for the Lib Dems is going to produce neither a Brown nor a Cameron government (who're both for the chop) and, indeed, it may well lead to a real revolution by creating the necessary pre-condition for a return to something resembling effective parliamentary government.

Think of it this way, though: voting tactically against the Tories is the best opportunity we have to finally shatter and and completely destroy the Tory party.

As a Compass member I am voting no.

The Lib Dems have some nice headline policies. I want to scrap Trident, ID cards and tuition fees too but their nice progressive veneer is just that.

As well as being a Compass member I am a trade unionist. Lib Dems do not support the trade union movement. Just this morning Vince Cable has said he wants to get rid of working time regulations that guarantee minimum annual leave, rest breaks and maximum working hours. They want to stop trade union funding of the party the unions helped to create. Compass helped to run a very successful campaign against privatising the Post Office – with the CWU - the Libs want to go even further than the Tories and privatise the whole thing. How can we as Compass members even countenance supporting them?

Besides anything, as an organisation that Lib Dems members cannot actually sign up to, we are giving the signal to progressive people that voting for Lib Dems is ok. That the Lib Dems are actually progressive. Progressive Labour candidates are fighting the nasty tactics and dirty campaigns of the Lib Dems on the doorstep everyday – voting yes to this is kick in the face for them. And that goes for people in winnable seats, people in marginals and people who are just trying to keep their parties going and not lose their deposits. And let’s not forget that the Labour vote helps carry local council seats in many areas as well.

The Lib Dems will take no notice of Compass – why would they? They can’t even be members. We’re not talking about trading votes in a mutually beneficial manner, we’re talking about telling Labour supporting people to vote Lib Dem. We’re telling them that when the Libs will more than likely prop up the Tories. We’re telling them that when a condition of any coalition with the Libs seems to be dependent on popular vote anyway.

A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Cameron in my book, how would we look as Compass then? We ask people to help the Libs get more seats, then they prop up the Tories.

This has been one of the best debates we have had on the site. Thanks everyone. Neal

As a member of Compass who is not a member of the Labour Party, I last voted Labour in 1997. Since then I have since voted Green, SNP and Lib-Dem in elections to the Scottish and Westminster parliaments. But strictly speaking these were all protest votes aimed at punishing Labour for its neo-liberal domestic policy and Atlanticist foreign policy. This election is the first one at which I plan to vote tactically in the sense I propose to withhold my vote from my most preferred party - the Greens - and instead use it to help stop the Conservatives regaining my seat, Stirling, which has been held by Labour since 1997, but is vulnerable to a 5.5 per cent swing.

With this background, I had no hesitation in voting "yes" in the Compass ballot. (Whether at this late stage in the game what Compass says will make any difference is rather doubtful: we can but try). In the current situation, the top priority is to make sure the Tories do not win an outright majority. There are many constituencies, like mine, where voting against the old party duopoly, as advocated by Mike Prior, would almost certainly help to hand the seat to the Tories and thus militate against this objective. However, Mike is correct to argue that if, as seems likely on current polling evidence, the Lib Dems win a higher share of the UK-wide vote than Labour, but still end up with only 100 or so seats, even the Tories will find it hard to defend the retention of FPTP. So in safe Tory seats and in Tory-Lib Dem marginals, those who would normally vote Labour should be encouraged to vote Lib-Dem. In a handful of seats, people should vote Green, SNP or Plaid Cymru. In other cases, it may well not be clear which candidate is best placed to defeat the Conservatives and people will just have to do the best they can. Tactical voting is a chancy business. This is one of the reasons we want electoral reform.

Given the Lib Dems' long-standing support for PR, preferably in the form of STV with multi-member constituencies, it is readily understandable that in the event of a hung parliament in which the Tories are the largest party, they will give Cameron the right of first refusal. It should not be assumed that the Tories' partisan attachment to FPTP will be a deal-breaker. Cameron has every reason to try to secure Lib Dem support for an emergency budget. And there are other crucial areas - notably financial reform - where the two parties' policies are different, but not incompatible and where they could probably reach agreement. (Forget about Trident and Europe. A minority Tory government would be a temporary arrangement designed to deal with the most pressing issues facing the country: political reform, banking reform and coming up a plan for reducing the budget deficit that keeps bondholders happy. There would almost certainly be another election within 12-24 months.)

The obvious way to clinch a deal would be for the Tories to match Labour's offer of a referendum on electoral reform. Indeed, they would be well advised to seem to offer than Labour by promising a multi-option referendum rather than restricting the choice to the status quo versus AV. In the abstract, AV has serious shortcomings, but in current circumstances it has one powerful advantage: namely, that in a straight choice, it would have a good chance of winning the day, whereas with several alternatives on offer, it is likely that none would command a majority, saddling us with the status quo by default. If this happens, we should put maximum pressure on the Lib Dems not to accept the deal and instead go for Labour's last-ditch, but straightforward offer.

One last point: it seems obvious that we are at the beginning of a long overdue process of political realignment. In this kind of situation, clear thinking and practical flexibility are essential. Tactical voting exemplifies these two qualities, so let's start as we shall need to go on.

Despite being a member of the LP & living in a Constituency with a LP Candidate who could realistically win back her seat. I said Yes to the Campaign by Compass, a Group which I am also a member of. I didn't do so lightly & put real thought into my Yes! Was I voting just to change the Voting System ? I concluded No! we desperately need this Radical Change & the STV method is the fairest. Today, yet again I glimpsed the petulant face of Cameron & went through listening to his lies about change & knowing the truth regarding his real Agenda & it made me sick & frankly, afraid for all of us. I was born & spent my childhood in the North East which Cameron is Targeting for Total Private Ownership. The NE has gone through hell but has made Herculean efforts to move on & is faring as best it can because the 'people' historically always have. I know this is true of so many other places & people. I asked a friend what she thought about voting tactically i.e. Lib Dem (before) this all blew up around us all & being constantly bombarded & she had already decided to vote for a Lib Dem Candidate. Already she had made up her mind not to vote Labour. She mentioned others who will be doing so too. She wants the Tories out by any means & even though she lives in a Constituency where her Labour Candidate probably will win she & others are going for the Lib Dem Candidate. Why? because she is pent up with anger against Labour who she is citing & blames for a probable Tory Victory. I read Loraines' comments & all she had to say regarding the Hamper Debacle when the Labour Government didn't offer anything to help people out; People without savings in the conventional sense; this was their way of saving for Xmas a bit at a time over a long time. THEY worked hard, they are decent people, people such as these do Count. Read Loraine's contribution, her second paragraph but especially her last. It's the truth. Now as I said my Labour Candidate will probably win here & in a few days time we will know & I may give her my vote but ONLY to KEEP the TORIES OUT. Days is all we have, DAYS & the day after tomorrow especially with the extent of stuff coming through my letterbox & email from all & sundry (You can't block them all out well..I can't). The last Leaders Debates tomorrow night...we will listen & think & talk then we will think and talk again. Our agreement, our decision will be as it always is now KEEP THE TORIES OUT & if it looks & feels as if our Labour Girl has the better chance of winning then we will go for it, on the other hand if all things are not equal regarding that. I will vote with Compass.
But Labour should think itself lucky to have my vote. Read Loraine's contribution Compass because she feels what I & many others feel. I know that my Party is the Labour Party. They will have to take on board
the 'people' me & you & us. Their last chance? But we Must Keep the Tories Out. We have to. This is to Compass. I don't care about being published in your list. All the work towards The Good Society is all about the above. So many of us & you know who we are wish for that.
Jeanne

Good grief, Compass in the name of Gavin have revealed that they have actually looked in on the comments on this thread. Perhaps they could start making a habit of debating matters more widely on this (their own) web-site.

"The Lib Dems, always suspect, now not very credible at all on matters of social democracy. Why was a socialist party needed in the first place?"

I think you must be referring to the Labour party.

In the first place, a Labour party was needed to represent organised labour; in the second place, Campbell-Bannerman died leaving a moral vacuum at the heart of the Liberal party; and in the third place, the unique conditions which existed as the Great War staggered to its close were the primary determinants of the Labour party's vaguely "socialist" (or more precisely, Fabian corporatist) political, social and economic aspirations fixed by Shaw and Webb in the aspic of the Labour party's constitution.

Still, I suppose it goes to show that Spencerism and lung cancer aren't the only things of note to come out of Nottingham.

The Lib Dems, always suspect, now not very credible at all on matters of social democracy. Why was a socialist party needed in the first place?

As I understand it, Cleggs position on Labour comimg third is that he would not support Gordon Brown remaining as PM- not that he would rule out working with Labour per se. I doubt that he need worry. If Labour comes third then Brown will surely fall on his sword.
Personally, I would doubt the spectre of a Tory-Lib Dem collation - Clegg would be on borrowed time with his own membership if he allowed a Tory governement to push though policies like the inheritence tax cut or the repeal of the fox hunting ban. These are policies that the Lib Dems have vehmently opposed. It's also worth asking if a party that have been so ideologically bound to FPTP in the way the Tories have would really consider abandoning it for some short term gain? I doubt it - the risks for the tories are too great - they know that they would be on the wrong side of a progressive majority under PR.
Surely it makes more sense for the Lib Dems to make common cause with Labour - if we look at the three most publised Lib Dem policies - Electoral reform, review of Trident, Mansion tax - these are all policies that have a substantial level of agreement in principle (if not always in detail) within the wider Labour Party. Similarly, Labour should not be afraid of taking on the elements of current Lib Dem thinking that are demonstrably to the left of the Labour manifesto.
We will need fresh and radical thinking after May 6th. i don't think anyone should assume for a minute that the currebt leaders are the only people who will be taking that forward post election.

Stan raises a good point but one which I fear we will have no joy with.

I wondered if the Social Liberal Forum had made a call for Labour voters to stay Labour in Lab/Tory marginals but they haven't even updated their site since 15th March.

And relying on the left of the LibDems to advance such a strategy cannot be relied upon after reading Paul Holmes comments in today's Guardian, on the LibDem 'left's willingness to work with Tories.

Hi Stan - we will publish a statement when we know the result of the ballot. In terms of the issues you raise I would strongly advise you to read the briefing that Neal has written today.

I have already signed the tactical voting petition, Gavin, but I am beginning to wonder how this squares with Nick Clegg saying he will have nothing to do with Labour if they come third in the popular vote. Tactical voting for the Lib Dems increases this possibility since it reduces the national vote for Labour. If we help vote them in to second or first place shouldn't they be doing something for us? How about a Compass statement on this?

I would like thank every one for all of your comments and to commend you all for the high level and quality of debate on this website concerning this issue in recent days. I think it is really important that Compass is doing this and would further add that as a democratic organisation I think it is fundamentally right that we are putting this issue to a membership ballot, not telling our members how they should vote in the ballot and therefore allowing our members to make the final decision, I think this is the right way of doing it. Please vote if you haven’t already and continue the debate.

I am not sure that getting hung up on the definition of ‘Progressive’ helps in deciding for or against tactical voting, or in determining attitudes towards the Lib Dems. The notion that the Lib Dems are not ‘progressive’ in the terms that ‘new labour’ uses the term, is facile nonsense. ‘Orange Book’ liberalism is based on support and acceptance of Thatcherism; but so too is Labour policy. Even allowing for that, the most ‘Orange Book’ Lib Dems, are to the Left of Labour’s dominant ‘new labour’ faction on specific policies. The ‘progressive’/ ‘not progressive’ argument as presented here is one-dimensional and reduces politics to a mere pantomime. The Working Class ‘Many’ can bet the shirts on their backs; their jobs and the roofs over their heads that this Gvt has an economic review which it has not made public, but which will form the basis of very, very substantial cuts in the economy from next year. Labour, Tory and Lib Dem alike are hiding behind repetitive arguments over a particular six million quid to get them through the election. As many workers in the public and private sectors are aware, cuts other than the £6m worth banded about in the election shadow boxing, are already in train.

There are those of us who will vote Labour come what may despite ‘new labour’ and its rightwing policies masquerading as ‘progressive.’

There are some policy differences with the Lib Dems. These should be advocated with vigour: indeed with as much vigour as possible, - to keep the Lib Dems out of office and to stop those elements in the ‘new labour’ coalition who in fact want a permanent realignment (as they would see it,) with the Lib Dems. If there were any such reconciliation not only would social democracy and the role of the organised labour be further marginalized, but those Labour Rightists most anxious to reconcile with the Lib Dems would support the Orange Book liberals and not the slightly more social democratic and redistributivist of the Liberal Democrats.

I have voted Yes, and I urge others to do so too.

Lee says 'It seems more than likely that if you vote Clegg, you will let in Cameron by the back door.'
Which is a quite unsubstantiated assertion.
I am in a new constituency in the South, where Labour are quite weak. I will vote Lib-Dem primarily because there is a chance that the Tory can be defeated by them.

Lee also says 'A vote by Labour supporters for the Liberal Democrats will just be used by Clegg to boost him in forming a coalition on his terms - which he has indicated is most likely with the Tories.'
I took Clegg's comment on not working with GB if Labour came third in the overall voting, as a way of stopping Cameron using it as a reason for not voting Lib-Dem - because that is the sure way of reducing the overall total of Tory MPs.
Clegg's hands will be tied by the rest of his party when seeking coalition (if it comes to that). I cannot see Cable et al ever having common cause with the Tories.

Tactical voting is the way.

Three reasons to vote no:

1. If Labour has more votes than the Tories but fewer seats, Labour has the people's mandate to govern. Tactical voting for other parties in Tory seats does Labour no favours.

2. I have lost count of the number of times tactical voting has backfired. A good Labour candidate in a Tory seat where the LibDems came second in 2005 can leapfrog the LibDems into second place. And if all the tactical voters had voted Labour, then the Tory would be unseated.

3. Compass is well-respected in the Labour Party and its views are valued. Advocating a vote against the Labour Party devalues Compass's currency. A shame, just when we need a strong, sensible voice in the party.

Vote Labour in the 2010 general election.
Vote No in the Compass ballot.

I have voted no in the debate. The last few days have reinforced why I think others should do likewise.

It seems more than likely that if you vote Clegg, you will let in Cameron by the back door. A vote by Labour supporters for the Liberal Democrats will just be used by Clegg to boost him in forming a coalition on his terms - which he has indicated is most likely with the Tories. Clegg may now be tactically be rolling back from this a little, but this seems to just be tactical positioning.

Some have falsely argued that the “left” in the Liberal Democrats would ensure that it only creates a coalition with Labour - that is it would stop the Tories - should a coalition be on the agenda post 6 May. Today’s Guardian makes it clear that this is simply not the case. It states: ‘Key leftwing members of the Lib Dem ruling executive ...said that they would support their leader in a coalition with the Conservatives if he could secure policy concessions such as a referendum on the voting system. One member of the executive said a deal with the Tories would be possible if Clegg could secure such a referendum because he would be "walking on water".’

If a coalition government is required, then any genuine progressive should firstly want it to be a Labour led one – not a Tory led one - and then for the maximum weight for Labour over the Lib Dems within it. This is best served by maximising the Labour vote.

Whilst I am a supporter of policies that have also been backed by the Liberal Democrats, such as opposing the Iraq war and Trident replacement, there have been many Labour MPs who have also adopted the correct position on these issues. Let’s remember 139 Labour MPs opposed the Iraq war.

In my opinion Compass seems to put a positive gloss on the position of the Lib Dems, with seldom any references to their reactionary policies which can be seen day after day in councils across the country. Compass should not mislead people. I thought the Compass statement in the Guardian article on the referendum on tactical voting distorted the position of the Liberal Democrats by omitting how Nick Clegg has moved the Liberal Democrats sharply to the right. His ‘Orange Book’ economic policies originate in Thatcherism. They have said they would make ‘savage’ cuts to front-line public services, scrap Child Trust Funds, cut Child Tax Credits and axe winter fuel allowance for under-65s which will hit the poor amongst other policies. The Lib Dems refuse to rule out cuts to the NHS. Even on the policy of scrapping tuition fees, a policy I have long supported, the Liberal Democrats are not saying they would do this in the next parliament (but within 6 years). The Liberal’s claims that they support fairer taxes is disingenuous. It will not help 3 million of Britain's poorest people - the unemployed, sick, low-paid part-time workers and most pensioners. Their attitude to rights at work was illustrated in Leeds where the Liberal-Tory alliance sought to abuse equal pay legislation to cut the pay of refuse workers by 30%.

"Honestly, I think in the middle of a serious election fight, the proposal for tactical voting from within Labour's own ranks is a scandal."

Unlike, say, shamelessly exhibiting a completely lack of political nous - and an even more total lack of anything resembling good sense - on a widely read website. Shame on you, Ahmed. What will your mum think when she hears the neighbours sniggering behind your back?

Looking at compass' constitution it looks like you can vote for another party and be a member of Compass so surely there must be people who are members or supporters of Compass who vote lib dem but could be persuaded to vote Labour if it meant keeping out a tory. This has got to be about votes going both ways though.

The proposition for tactical voting falls down on a number of fronts;

1. What in the LibDem stace is either 'progressive' or 'Left'? Certainly not Nick Clegg's call for 'savage cuts' and Cable's threat to cut public sector pay and jobs. In this regard, the LibDems are only progressive because they don't have the label 'Tory', but then neither does UKIP the Greens or the DUP.

2. Labour's ability to retain office, either by itself or in coalition depends entirely on the strength of its own vote, as Nick Clegg himself has made clear. Tactically voting for the LibDems only weakens that position. Vote Clegg- Get Cameron.

3. Why the sudden burst of anti-Toryism, necessitating tactical voting? They are struggling to get 35% of the vote and, if they managed to scrape by as the biggest party it woud be with their lowest share of the vote in 150 years. They would have no mandate to govern and could only do so with Nick Clegg's permission (their hopes had been pinned on the Ulter Unonists). Since Nick Clegg is minded to grant them their wish, it simply underlines how futile and unprogressive the idea of tactically voting LibDem is.

4. Are the LibDems about to reciprocate by voting Labour where they cannot win, or in equal nubers to proposed Labour tactical votes for them? Thre is no sign of that. The proposal therefore amounts to an abdication of the responsibility to fight for Labour's policies and maximise Labour votes. And hand Labour's organisational independence over to a man who wants to do a deal with Cameron.

Honestly, I think in the middle of a serious election fight, the proposal for tactical voting from within Labour's own ranks is a scandal.

Clegg has really put me off. If Labour and the Lib Dems together achieve a majority, will any part of that vote be positively right-wing in a Conservative sense? So what if Labour on fewer votes happens to get more seats, this would tell me as much about Cameron not having sealed the deal, as it would about New Labour having lost its lead. We must also remember all those who do vote Labour and Lib-Dem, especially Labour, to have a Conservative-Lib-Dem coalition would negate more than would a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.
Okay, the Lib-Dems might have not wanted it to seem to the floating voter that a vote for them would be a vote for Brown, but even without Clegg making his rash statement, the parties were maintaining their basic post-Lib-Dem resurgence.

Clegg just needed to keep reiterating Lib Dem policy and to say that whoever else supports it he will speak to.

The media like to push the Conservative-Lib-Dem idea because they have decided that Brown must go. Like everybody else, I wish New Labour only to hell, but I haven't stopped recognising that the people around Cameron are unreconstructed Tories. In any case, the 1979 Tory manifesto was famously not as radical as Thatcherism turned out to be. Mind you, with all the cuts to be made, perhaps the Tories will be as unpopular as pre-Falklands early eighties and, unlike that time, the unions are not what they were for any Tory to prove him/herself against and there should not be any Galtieri moment.

Does Clegg think, that all those people who know all about Brown and who presumably loathe him and yet still vote Labour, does he think it okay to ride-roughshod over that vote?

I will be voting NO.

Lib Dems can't even be members of Compass, it's not like we're swapping votes in crucial seats, we're just proposing to offer them Labour votes. On a practical level, only Labour people will take any notice of what the ballot result is - again, asking labour people to vote Lib Dem but getting nothing but diminished popular vote in return.

Crucially, what exactly do we get from them in any eventual outcome? The Libs want to do away with trade union funding of the Labour Party - is that what we're supporting? They might want PR and to scrap Trident but anyone who thinks Clegg's Libs are progressive needs to look again, and again after that. It pains me to agree with Luke Akehurst but we might be in a different situation if Charles Kennedy was still leader but he's not.

An improbable scenario, Michael? If only. Particularly not improbable in any PR System. Surely the two BNP members of the EU Parliament make that clear enough?
As to the point about belief; its plausibility, its material foundation for socialists rests in the fact of the Trade Union link with the LP; and the fact that a range of socialist opinion in the LP gathers under the LRC banner and the commitment to Clause 4 of the LRC constitution. It is noteworthy that the TU link is one of those dividing lines of Labour neo-liberalism, which tactically separates the governing group of Compass from their fellow ‘progressives’ who rule the Progress roost. Quite firmly now, Compass realise that is long as organised labour is politically weak and susceptible an essentially ‘new labour’ worldview mediated by the likes of Compass, there is no need to follow the anti trade union agenda of Progress and others. In this sense, Compass is authentically an heir to Thatcher. It was Thatcher we taught the neo-liberals, in their battle to destroy social democracy, that you cannot run a neo-liberal economy and society in flat defiance of the working class majority.

It is encouraging to learn that you are no longer one of Compass’s paying guests; though as someone located a little beyond the ‘Left’ parameters of Labour neo-liberalism and decidedly not in the LP, Compass will doubtless continue to smile approvingly in your direction. How telling that it is Neal Lawson you felt you had to convince on the issue of Compass support for PR. The assorted ‘new labour’ political and commercial baggage- once a guarantee of access and networking influence- inevitably associated with Neal Lawson is now a hubristic millstone which seems to be changing the internal dynamics within Compass’s dominant group. Jon Crudass in association with Jonathan Rutherford seem now to want a little more influence and elbow room. If the Cruddas assertion in terms, that he has the backing of Compass in a yet to be triggered Labour leadership contest is the truth, than a slight change in the in internal dynamics of Compass is underway.

This, as much as the general election salience of electoral change, is probably what has propelled the uncharacteristically Compass desire to actually consult its membership on a the matter of policy: in this instance, tactical voting.

The worst outcome of all in this election would be a Tory majority, so anti-tory tactical voting makes sense to me and gets my vote.

Any by-product of such tactical voting is not within our control. Yes, perhaps it'll result in a Lib Tory alliance but all we can hope for is that the Libs make it conditional upon introduction of some sort of PR. If it's a Tory majority, they will reduce number of seats and leave in 1st past the post thus giving us no hope of anything other than Tories for my remaining lifetime (i hope to live another 40-50 years).

I am a Labour member and am very very sorry to say that the party don't really deserve to govern again until they start to respect the interests of typical Labour voters again, whether that is the rights of the unemployed, disabled, trade unionists, post office users, those on council house waiting lists, kids in sink schools etc. The epitomy of their bad behaviour was probably their reluctance to help out those people who lost their Christmas savings a few years back when a club went bust (cost only £38m) but found the cash immediately to help middle classes who lost out to Icelandic banks etc not to mention their defence of continuing bonuses in a banking industry that would be defunct without the tax payer.

Labour needs to relocate its heart otherwise there is no meaningful option at voting time. We should all be working towards making this happen. Compass, please take note.

Unless we have tactical voting it will be Labour/Tory marginals that will suffer the most. In 2005 an increase in the Lib dem vote delivered 16 Labour seats to the Tories and only took 12 for themselves. If we see further swing from the left to the lib dems in these marginal seats the Labour majority will be wiped out.

If Compass advocates everyone to vote Labour blindly it will be doing an injustice. People aren't stupid - if you want to keep the Tories out then you have to vote tactically. If you are in a lab/con seat you should vote Labour and if you are in a Lib/Con seat you should vote lib dem. If you vote labour in a consverative/Lib seat then you will be helping to deliver that seat to the Tories. It is simple. So everyone should be voting YES in the ballot!

i have voted no. the priority for progressives is clearly maximising the labour vote in this election.

if labour – the government party – comes third, it has to be out of power. clegg has to either do a deal with the tories, or let cameron rule a minority government like alex salmond rules a minority government in scotland. that is a disaster for progressive politics. a disaster for progressive politics means a disaster for public services, interventionist economic policy and welfare & fiscal policies that prioritise the needs of the most disadvantaged.

nevermind your horror (which i share) about iraq, or your opposition to trident (no one is more passionately opposed to nuclear weapons than me) or your disgust at the failure to make much progress on expanding social housing (where labour now has miles away the best policy); if people are willing to see the left of centre party in british politics descend into third party status, by celebrating a surge in the lib dems, then people have to consider where that takes us: the ascendancy of a political discourse that has no time for the trade unions, and no real power for those councillors and those MPs who continue to represent the poorest wards in Britain and the movement which has always delivered radical change.

elections really shouldn’t be considered a consumer choice if you define yourself in any way on the left, because if you’re on the left politics isn’t just about you. elections shift political gravity and that is the choice being made

"Clegg is quoted as saying "I think a party which has got the most votes and seats - which in other words has got the strongest mandate but without an absolute majority - has got the right to seek to form the government" and also ridiculed the idea of forming a coalition with Labour if it came third in number of votes cast - even if together Labour and the Lib Dems could form a majority."

What it means is that a variety of options are open, the preferred (and most realistic) option being that the LibDems form a coalition with Labour with Clegg as prime minister, Harriet Harman, the Acting Labour Leader, as deputy prime minister, the mighty Vince as Chancellor, and Mandelson as Has-Been.

As a Management Committee member I want to express my concerns with the proposals for advising on tactical voting.

I think Nick Clegg's comments at the weekend show why Compass must be calling on Labour supporters to vote Labour in all seats. Clegg is quoted as saying "I think a party which has got the most votes and seats - which in other words has got the strongest mandate but without an absolute majority - has got the right to seek to form the government" and also ridiculed the idea of forming a coalition with Labour if it came third in number of votes cast - even if together Labour and the Lib Dems could form a majority.

On the Andrew Marr show yesterday, this was reiterated with Marr asking "Lets be crystal clear about it. Let's suppose Labour lose the election in terms of number of votes cast around the country but because of the electoral system have the largest number of MPs in a hung parliament. You would not support Gordon Brown remaining as Prime Minister under those circumstances and you would not go into any kind of relationship with Gordon Brown which would allow him to stay as Prime Minister?" To which Clegg responded "Absolutely. I think a party that has come third, and so millions of people have decided to abandon it, has lost the election spectacularly, cannot then lay claim to providing the Prime Minister of this country."

Therefore only by maximising Labour's vote can any anti-Tory coalition be formed if the electoral arithmetic necessitates this.

And whilst I recognise their progressive role in opposing the invasion of Iraq, we should not ignore the Lib Dems record of spending cuts when in power in local government, their stated commitment to "savage cuts" to cut the deficit, and their regular criticism of the trade unions integral role in the Labour Party.

Ben Folley
Compass Management Committee member

Jackie Ashley in today's Guardian is reflecting on the in fighting that will come in the Labour Party after a defeat. She thinks it will be bitter and the party could split. But on closer reading she doesn't think the left will split from NewLabour. She thinks the Blairites will split from the Brownites.

That says it all. She only now counts NewLabour as the party and is saying thta they will split. The left are optional extras. Jackie Ashley doesn't seem to realise that without the left neither Blairites or Brownites mean anything. Without the left they have no USP.

Urging us to stay under the Labour umbrella for unity and strength will be farcical when there are two umbrellas. Let's get PR and our own umbrella.

Hell of a thing when a labour government has to battle to keep out the Tories, but the sad fact is we have had a Tory government since Thatcher, Blair was not labour and brown has nothing at all to offer.

How many on here said when brown won we see no difference, how many of here said oh god no when Brown said wait until you see my visions, jokes on this site were he better use a good quality cannabis joint.
But what was Browns vision it was to return to the third way and Blair.

The fact is now labour cannot say to the people vote for us because we are a socialist government, people would laugh so much, so where do labour policies lie the third way has proved rubbish, so where are Labour voters coming from