Ruling out any move for a third front at the national level, CPI-M on Thursday said it was attempting to forge a combine comprising Left, democratic parties and secular forces for joint action on people's issues.

"There is no discussion on the third front at the ongoing (20th) party congress. We are for bringing together democratic and secular forces for joint action on people's issues," party General Secretary Prakash Karat said here.

Briefing reporters on the day's deliberations at the congress on the draft organisational report, draft political resolution and the political review report presented by him, he said at the time of elections, the parties could think of tie-ups in different states depending on the situation.

To a question, Karat said he did not think that anybody, including Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi party, was serious about a mid-term Lok Sabha poll now.

The delegates started discussion on the draft political resolution which said the defeat of the Left Front in West Bengal for the first time since 1977 was "a serious setback" for the entire Left and democratic movement in the country.

The party does not see the "narrow" electoral victory of Congress-led UDF in Kerala by a one per cent margin and three seats, as a rejection of the previous LDF government and its policies.

However, it wants to explore the reasons for the failure in both states and work towards winning back people's support.

Karat said the party?s decision to withdraw support to UPA government in 2008 was discussed in detail at the congress.

The party was categorical that it was necessary to withdraw support on the nuclear issue."We feel we could have done it earlier and the only regret is that the Left could not prevent operationalisation of the nuclear deal," he said.

On the political review report mentioning 'deviations? by cadres who were drawn to vices like corruption, he said the report did not mean that all partymen were like that.

It only mentioned certain instances where the party had to take disciplinary measures against some leaders and workers.

The central leadership also had to intervene on issues of factionalism in states, when there were instances of violations of the principle of democratic centralism and collective leadership. .