A Lib/Con coalition is the only route. But….
After what was a very long night – and a couple of hours sleep – what’s the conclusion?
First it strikes me as somewhat amusing that all three party’s bloggers are disgruntled… Labour boys saying Brown’s got to go, the Tories asking how the hell did the Tories not win and that their strategists should go…and Liberals asking wtf happened to the so-called surge that left us with less seats than before. Lots of disgruntlement all round.
There will be a time and place to analyse the Lib Dem strategy and be in no doubt serious questions must be asked. But that is not for now. Now we have to ask what the Liberals do over the next 24/36 hours?
Nick did very well to make the statement when he did concerning the Tories. He looked decisive and in command. In reality he had no option but make that statement. A Lib/Lab coalition is not numerically possible unless it hoiks in all manner of smaller groups (all who seem to be demanding sack loads of cash for their support). A Lib/Con coalition does work numerically.And the Tories have more votes and more seats than any other party- though with only about a third (36%) of UK voters backing them, the Tories have no mandate to do anything.
Cameron recognises this – hence his expansive offer to the Liberals, an offer explained in some considerable detail (given the circumstances) on national TV, on areas where he thought there was common ground – civil liberties (lets take him on face value for now), green issues, pupil premiums etc..Added to that John Major (who Cameron talks to a good deal we believe) has hinted that “seats in cabinet” might be on the table. What are we looking at 2/3 seats? Clegg/Laws/Cable ???? Probably.
On some issues he was less conciliatory. He disagrees with Liberals on Europe (though how many real decision have to be made in the next few years is questionable). He disagrees with Liberals on Trident (though this is down to cash and scales of resource and I guess not a deal breaker). The supposed differences on the timing of spending cuts are fewer than have been made out and immigration is unsortable by any party – so I am sure compromise can be found on all these issues.
On the issue of political reform Cameron has, however, put up a road block. His offer of an all party committee on political reform shouts of “kick this one into the long grass”…his suggestion that the Tory preference is a change to constituency boundaries shouts “kick this into very very long grass” .
He surely knows that this would be unacceptable to the Liberals – so is this just his opening offer – or does he really think he bully/face down Clegg on this issue?
He is very wrong, if he thinks Clegg can roll over on PR.
Whilst a Lib/Con coalition looks like the ONLY way forward right now, Cameron & Clegg MUST find a deal on PR that they can both sell to their respective parties AND THE WIDER ELECTORATE.
At the moment, Liberals want PR now. Tories dont want PR at all….There is a solution here that both parties may find palatable.
Agree to put the question of PR to the people in a referendum
Say – in the Autumn – with no whip involved. Tories can campaign against – and explain why. Liberals can campaign for. The will of the people decides.
By now we all know about the Liberal “triple lock” – Nick has to get any coalition deal through his party – and as we speak Labour high command are beavering away to make sure that a Lib/Con deal breaks down. Phonelines are hot as they call senior Liberal MPs and activists to put pressure on Nick NOT to do a Tory deal – using the “Tories wont give you PR , we will” line. How do I know – I had a call from a “mate” from the other side asking me who in my opinion were the big guns on the Federal Executive (oh how I laughed).
So Cameron and Clegg need “to get real” fast.
The Liberal parliamentary party (who must agree the deal) meet tomorrow (Saturday). The Liberal Federal Executive (who must also agree the deal) meet on Sunday. tick tock tick tock.
May 9th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Ian – hmmm. You have clearly never worked in a party or been an activist (especially a lib or lib/dem activist)or you would understand why party members are deeply suspicious of any talk of coalition. Nor can this debate be had without considering the party members concerns.
History is littered with promises of electoral reform and every promise has been broken. That is why there is so much being written about how hard it will be to get broader party support from the Lib Dems..
There are huge risks to being a junior coalition partner… and a party does have the right/duty to protect its future existance..None of these comments are necessarily at odds with the wider public interest.
Jon – I think Cameron is the last person to want an election on Lisbon.
NBeale. I think an offer of a referendum on political reform to be held (say) by this time next year would be fine.. as long as its a binding promise – not to be gone back on. I can’t see any coalition agreement without a guaranteed fixed term for it to run (i think that has already been agreed)- so if they can agree the referendum will happen WITHIN the coalition agreement period they’ll almost certainly be shaking hands on a deal. I agree that there are more pressing issues – and no one is saying sort PR out first by any means.
May 9th, 2010 at 12:13 am
Excuse me parachuting into this discussion from outside the Liberal Democrat fold, but it does seem to me that your party is faced with three distinct courses of action, two of which would be disastrous in the near term:
a. Go into some sort of half-arsed coalition with Labour + every man and his dog, get royally screwed at the polls by an incensed electorate when it inevitably collapses as nothing gets done about the deficit due to the insane tempo of back-room politicking and pork-barrelling required, to say nothing of the Labour implosion when they try to work out who should be the leader.
b. Do nothing, allow a Tory minority government to form and pass a Queen’s Speech, get blamed by the media for not doing the right thing and get slaughtered by an incensed electorate when the inevitable election comes in September.
c. Do some sort of deal with the Tories, who are sincere in looking for same, accept that electoral reform is on the agenda in the first Parliament, but also accept that your coalition partners will be posing opposing arguments to yours during the Referendum campaign.
May 9th, 2010 at 2:51 am
It’s a difficult situation for all. I believe Nick Clegg will roll over on PR, but Cameron will agree to electoral reform of some kind.
Nick is stuck, as Cameron won’t support PR, and supporting Gordon Brown as PM in a coalition (also requiring virtually every other party in the commons) will lead to an even worse result for the Lib Dems in an election 6/12 months from now.
Cameron will play hard ball on this as a Lib/Lab pact still doesn’t reach a majority and supporting Gordon Brown will appear as a betrayal of ‘new politics’.
May 9th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Giles, why do you think Clegg will ‘roll over’ on PR, and do you honestly think his party will let him? It was my impression that PR was inscribed on the heart of the Liberal Democrats — am I wrong?
May 9th, 2010 at 3:13 am
btw if any is interest the Social Liberal Forum is calling for a government of national unity
http://socialliberal.net/2010/05/08/social-liberal-forum-calls-for-a-government-of-national-unity/
May 9th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Oh to all those Tories who say PR is not important did they notice the protest yesterday afternoon, yeah the one which Clegg was forced to come out & address.
May 9th, 2010 at 3:39 am
Ziggy: Just because there was a protest does not mean it necessarily reflects the will of the British people:
“Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that, of course, they are many in number, or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled, meager, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour.”–Edmund Burke.
May 9th, 2010 at 4:05 am
‘Ziggy: Just because there was a protest does not mean it necessarily reflects the will of the British people:’
Oh & your an expert on what the people want, you’ve been gifted with ESP or some other kind mental telepathy.
Its been less then two days but I’m already pissed off with Tory arrogance assuming they know what the ‘common interest’ happens to be or assuming they know what the ‘national interest’ happens to be.
Bollocks the only interest is self interest.
Oh & if you going to quote Burke at, I’ll quote back something along the lines of evil will prevail if good men don’t act.
Good on those protesters for reminding the Lib Dems on what they’ve been promising they’d support for years.
Oh yeah & don’t think any of us dumb enough not to realise that the whole crap with ‘common interest’ or national interest’ & belittling PR as an issue, is a means of bullying Lib Dems into conforming with the Conservative line.
At this election 45% of the electorate didn’t vote has it crossed your mind as to why? Sure the expenses scandal has done its damage to disfranchise people from participating in the democratic process, but the number of people has been falling over the previous two general elections & one reason is that people don’t think their votes count.
May 9th, 2010 at 6:46 am
The protests were organised by ’38 degrees’.
If you think that bunch has any interest in PR, or in the LibDems being part of government you are dreaming.
They were there in the ‘hundreds’, not exactly representative of the population.
Added to the fact that people who talk about ‘PR’ could probably not even name ‘FPTP’ if asked what the existing system is let alone the alternatives to PR and FPTP.
May 9th, 2010 at 6:57 am
I used to be a member of the Lib Dems from the SDP side of the union but hastily left as it cosied up to Blair under Ashdown. Only an idiot would contemplate joining with a Labour party that has been so comprehensively rejected for its deceit and dishonesty.There is no reason to enter into any coalition which will ultimately lead to a further erosion in national support. There is every reason to appear statesmanlike by agreeing to support the conservatives as the natural government choice( more seats and votes) and voting for each policy on its merits.That appears to be what the electorate wants to see and any prospect of shady deals will tarnish the Lib Dems and PR for a generation.
May 9th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Angela you are right i am not an activst or a party member of any colour and my viewpoint may be lacking an internal view – but am I not the sort of person activists are trying to get their message to
I want to try one more go at forwarding a non activist / party member viewpoit
An extreme example when the tribes in South Africa Talked there was an insistance that there was no talk of history or who did what to who, it worked
Nelson Mandela then helped with talks with all the Tribes in Ulster / Northern Ireland and he ripped apart those who were stuck in dogma from the past
That is not to say they in Ulster / N I dont have painful memorys the past is important and should not be rubished, the question is how important is it to move on
I am posting in good faith because as an ordinary voter who was and still is angry over expenses I was re engaged by Nick Clegg in the TV debates
The electorate will not be dissapointed by the GE result and very pleased no one has a huge majority
I can accept that all activists have worked hard given up a lot of their time will be upset their party did not get the result they worked so hard for
But what your work did achieve is more people voting in general and less people voting for Mr Brown
To me that is positive
To my way of thinking a Con / Lib DEM 3 or 4 year WRITTEN (& published) agreement is what the electorate would like to see and I can see the following benefits
No one can really afford another quick election ( except perhaps the tory’s)
You are demonstrating restraint and saving public money
You will have time for State funding for political partys to be introduced
Parliament is cleaned up
You can spend what money you do have on your holy grail putting your case for whatever version of voting reform you prefer.
because you are in government you have greater access to the news media
If you have your own people in government you are proving to the electorate you can govern (Very effectivly countering a much and often stated charge from Lab & Tory that your policy is easy to say because you wont be in government to carry it out)
If i sat and thought about it some more I could go on & on
but I dont want to write war and peace I am trying to ask hard working committed activists to serriously consider looking at the olive branch in a different way which i respectfully sugest is the way the electorate would look at it – Is that not what your hard work effort and dedication is designed to reach out to
As I understand it your worry as a junior partner is that you will be shafted – I see that – so a leap of faith is needed.
A leap of faith with a back up plan is the sensible way forward what you do as a back up plan in my view should be your internal discussion I have no real idea how i dont have your experience but what if
You have an admirable doorstep leaflet programme if / when agreement is reached leflet the electorate on what you have agreed and update perhaps quarterly on what has worked what needs work etc
If there is an issue that disadvantages you find away of explaining it to the electorate via Gardian / 24 hour news channells etc But not in a dogmatic all guns blazing way
The electorate have said in this GE they want co operation to work if you go in with it in good faith but are let down or bullied or shafted The electorate will see it and punish
Politics for many people has been a turn off – your leader has re engaged with a mini obama moment – perhaps his charisma could lead to a better more rewarding position
The fact you have only lost 5 seats you might argue on reflection is a better result than being squeezed like you have been before I can remmeber a time when you had only 6 MPs so to my generation you have proved you are still credible
I really hope this post is seen a postive contribution that was / is my intention and I thank you for your time
May 9th, 2010 at 11:01 am
I’m a Brit now living in New Zealand (PR works fine here), with a conservative leaning government.
What I find amazing about some of the comments in this forum from people who claim to support PR, is that they seem to be arguing for PR and coalition governments on the one-hand, but that coalition should only be with a left wing party on the other. That is not a tenable position.
Get used to it, the electorate gets to choose the mix and sometimes you are going to have to work to find a position with parties of any colour to find a balance which more reflects the electorate’s mood. If you can manage to do that and make it clear that you are indeed working for the good of the country and keep you promises you may reap the benefit. It’s much more likely the electorate will vote for PR if they see coalitions working, which right now if far from certain. Hey we might even get to really drag the conservative party towards the centre, and get PR so the rabid conservative right can go off an form their own party (and then support PR no doubt).
May 9th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Ziggy refers to a claim that Alex Salmond who is no longer a Westminster MP has suggested a “progressive coalition” but (i) it does not say whether any of the SNP MPs are prepared to renege on their manifesto commitment and (ii) the BBC article says that Labour has rejected the idea of a coalition with SNP. So that is just a red herring.
The PR protest was organised not just by 38 degrees but by a number of “progressive” organisations/websites that are allegedly non-party such as Power 2010, Left Foot Forward and a score of others but could only raise a few hundred demonstrators, around three dozen per organiser. So to call this a “mass” protest is a little misleading – more people got to mass in Wesminster cathedral every Sunday!
OK Ziggy I get the message that you hate the idea that the Tories might be part of the government after winning most votes and most seats, but please can you put up a honest rational argument next time.
There are three choices – a Con-LibDem government, a Con-Lab government or no effective government and a repeat General Election after a few months by which time the country will be in an even worse state and only the Conservatives will be able to afford to run an election campaign. Ziggy seems to want the last, which I think is the worst choice for Liberals.
May 9th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Oh yeah if you Tory types want to be serious to reducing the deficit then agree to scrap Trident & pull the troops out of Afghanistan as that will save a few billion
May 9th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Does being able to do arithmetic make me a Tory?
Interesting concept…
May 9th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
watching from a distance I am midly amused because it would seem to me that Ziggy is setting himself up as the John Presscott of Liberal Voice
May 9th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
LOL
Nah I’ve not screwed my sectary nor gone around punching folk nor taken up eating pies for a living
May 9th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I truly hope the people involved in the various negotiations (on all sides) play more nicely together than (most of, not all) you lot here, or the UK truly is in trouble. Get a grip.
May 10th, 2010 at 12:12 am
I’ve written much on my own blog about this.
Trying to form anything with the scum who got us into this mess is fantasy land. The numbers do not add up. Even the likes of Lord Greaves who I am sure in any other situation would be as appalled by the idea of a Tory led coalition as anyone else, knows that such a deal would be untenable.
It would last months if that and if truth be known it probably was the Tories’ first thought until they too realised the maths did not add up – get a “progressive” (‘scuse me while I clear the bile from my throat) Lib-Lab coalition to screw it up and we’ll be in with a landslide that would make Atlee’s look like a minor rock-fall.
As to whether PR should be a deal breaker, I don’t believe it should. And have written extensively about why. The best advert for PR would be to make Cameron a liar with his scare-mongering last week about a hung parliament being bad and a coalition worse. What they should do, possibly, is explicitly *exclude* voting change from the collective responsibility of a coalition, allowing the Lib Dems to join with whoever else wants to table a bill to try and achieve that for that one purpose. If the others don’t want to do that without being in power, then they are not believers and will likely not deliver on it even if they were in power.
I believe we will find common cause with Tories like Douglas Carswell on voting change over time. But the reality is that there are other ways to skin that particular feline. For example, both parties, theoretically at least, believe in large scale devolution of powers. If major spending decisions are taken at more accountable local levels, and perhaps we can more easily gain PR for those since a. they are used to multi-members wards and divisions and b. they are more used to town hall coalitions, then in a sense what does it matter how we elect people to a toothless Westminster. But also that first step in fairer voting systems across England, joining those already in place in Scotland and Wales will be an important driver for change in the Westminster way of doing it, and we won’t have been seen as having hawked our soul (and/or economic sanity) for PR.
We cannot wait six months or whenever another election might come along to start dealing with the fiscal situation. We are more like weeks than six months away from becoming one of the PIIGS. That *is* the result of politicians refusing to work together as Vince, Field and Bottomley called for last April we cannot allow refusing to work together to tip us from the private debt collapse into a sovereign debt collapse. The markets do not play the sort of fantasy economics the Treasury plays with its off balance sheet liabilities. They know that the real public sector liabilities are more like three times the stated deficit and they will want politicians to own up to that soon and look like they are prepared to address it.
But I also think that such a deal would be good for the Lib Dems as a party. For too log now the more statist left in the party (after all as far as I am concerned I am radical left) has lost sight of the fact that the central understanding of liberalism is that we make people off by abolishing the layers and layers of state created privilege that disadvantages them in so many ways. Joining with Labour will not address it – for they believe that state intervention is the way to achieve that. The Tories cannot do it on their own because a large part of their constituency still consists of those that benefit from that privilege.
But it is the cheapest, most liberal way of evening out the disparities in wealth in this country and then seeing whether any government intervention at all is needed to help the most needy – it will be far, far less than now, if at all.
For the best part of a century, that fundamental insight has been missing from British governments, which have lurched from state interventionism to crony capitalism and back – and in the past thirteen years of course the fusion of both in Blair’s fascist corporate state,
Incidentally Ziggy – I think your analysis of where the state socialist left in the party comes from is wrong. It is the “old Liberals” who love to point out (when attacking me as the aberration of liberalism) that their love of the state predated the merger and that in fact the SDPers are more likely to this day to be the “economic liberals”.
Of course, as I say elsewhere, I would kind of prefer it all to fall apart anyway and for people to discover that living without a government is not just possible, but beautiful, but I doubt anyone’s going to let that happen any time soon!
May 10th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Several posts over the past two days have called for sensible collaborative politics to get us out of the mess we are in.
To return to the subject of my post. I agree with them.
There will need to be leap of faith on both sides… there will need to be compromise on both sides… there will need to be give and take…
there are a couple of things that will need to be sorted – that are currently “sticking points”. One of those is political reform. As I said in my post – I think the solution to this conumdrum is to allow the British public – in due course(but not too long) – to decide on what electoral system they want to determine the nature of their goveernment. I do not think that the Liberals should “demand” some form of PR in these discussions. Nor do I think the Conservatives should “deny” a new voting system. I think the compromise is to allow the electorate to decide. Not now – now is for sorting out more pressing matters. But within a senisble time frame – and no going back on their word once its been agreed. We’re all sick to death of that. I do think that it is in the nations interest for there to be a Lib/Con coalition. Here’s hoping they can reach agreement.
May 10th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Several posts over the past two days have called for sensible collaborative politics to get us out of the mess we are in.
To return to the subject of my post. I agree with them.
There will need to be leap of faith on both sides… there will need to be compromise on both sides… there will need to be give and take…
there are a couple of things that will need to be sorted – that are currently “sticking points”. One of those is political reform. As I said in my post – I think the solution to this conumdrum is to allow the British public – in due course(but not too long) – to decide on what electoral system they want to determine the nature of their goveernment. I do not think that the Liberals should “demand” some form of PR in these discussions. Nor do I think the Conservatives should “deny” a new voting system. I think the compromise is to allow the electorate to decide. Not now – now is for sorting out more pressing matters. But within a senisble time frame – and no going back on their word once its been agreed. We’re all sick to death of that. I do think that it is in the nations interest for there to be a Lib/Con coalition. Here’s hoping they can reach agreement.
May 10th, 2010 at 1:47 am
Geez Jock you do waffle on some
In fact I’m surprised you’ve found the time what with all the pointless intellectual masturbation you averagely indulge in with your anarcho extremist friends at the Libertarian Alliance.
‘I’ve written much on my own blog about this’
Yeah well its been a waste of your time because who gives a toss about what some bigot oh sorry I meant anarchist thinks.
By the way if you’re still a party member does the party hierarchy know that you are going about saying you’re an anarchist & hanging out with extremists some of which have some pretty bigoted views?
Oh so the thought of a ‘progressive alliance’ makes you want to puke…well many of your extremist bigoted views make me want to puke.
Whatever you might now call yourself whether it be, anarcho-mutualist or geo-mutualist or even more apt an anarcho-w**ker, you’re just your typical libertarian bigot,
‘Incidentally Ziggy – I think your analysis of where the state socialist left in the party comes from is wrong’
You would
May 10th, 2010 at 8:00 am
@ Angela
“I do not think that the Liberals should “demand” some form of PR in these discussions. Nor do I think the Conservatives should “deny” a new voting system. I think the compromise is to allow the electorate to decide. Not now – now is for sorting out more pressing matters. But within a senisble time frame – and no going back on their word once its been agreed. We’re all sick to death of that. I do think that it is in the nations interest for there to be a Lib/Con coalition. Here’s hoping they can reach agreement.”
Here! Here!
May 10th, 2010 at 8:58 am
@Angela
The one thing that seems quite clear is that Cameron and his New Conservative Party are even more like New Labour than we previsouly thought. The revolution is gossamer thin. And Cameron doesn’t command that level of control over his party, especially since losing the election.
Now I think the Lib Dem situation is extraordinarily precarious. As a serious political party, we face an existential crisis. And electoral reform is the only way out. But Cameron cannot give it, PR would keep the Tories out of office for generations. So how to over come this?
During the early stages of this campaign I spoke with my Lib Dem PPC and suggested we back direct prime ministerial elections, with the resulting constitutional reform of separating the executive from the legislature, in a similar way to the US system. It would free parliament from the dominance of the executive, allow a prime minister to pick the best minds for his cabinet and not just from the narrow gene pool of parliament, give the people what they seem to want, which is the chance to directly elect their prime minister (I wish the public understood its own electoral system), and, most importantly for us, it would raise the chance of having a Lib Dem executive while keeping the beloved FPTP system.
This would represent a huge compromise for the Tories, but its at least sellable.
If the Libs don’t get some kind of tangible concession on political and electoral reform, we are staring oblivion in the face.
mpg
May 10th, 2010 at 9:31 am
@everyone
BTW, I’ve been reading the commenters over at Conservative Home. If you think the vitriol against your political tribe his excessive here, you should take a look at that blog…
May 10th, 2010 at 10:06 am
“work with us and not against us.”
Excuse me, Shamik Das, who the fuck do you think you are? Who the fuck are you, to issue a memorandum like that?
Fuck your party. You had 13 years to bring in PR. You didn’t. Now you want to cling to power by tricking the Lib Dems into thinking you can pass a law enabling a referendum on PR. BullSHIT you can. Not all of your MPs would go for it. And seeing as the numbers are tight, only if every Labour MP were whipped to within an inch of his or her life to vote for it, would it pass. The coalition would collapse soon after.
So when the LibCon coalition delivers decent stuff, we will see who’s doing well in Lab/Lib marginals.
May 10th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
I have voted Lib Dem in the past but did not do so this time because the economy has to be sorted and fast. A changed electoral system would be good but the economy is an emergency? The Lib Dems talk about the good of the country as their priority but it is starting to look like they are holding the country to ransom to get the electoral system they want. How can they even consider putting together a coalition of so many parties with so many differing priorities at a time when the country must have stable government! If this goes on much longer the public will turn against the Lib Dems.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@gmc
While you might be right about the country turning on Lib Dems if they did a deal with Labour, it is simply naive to argue that we are not acting in the national interest. Of course we aren’t. Neither is the Conservative Party. They are opposing PR because they think that it will keep them out of power for generations. Simple as that. Do you think that the Cons are acting any less than in the national interest for not being willing to give an absolute commitment to a referendum on PR?
The fact is, the Lib Dems face grave difficulties electorally, whatever happens hereafter. For them not to think about those difficulties would be suicidal on the part of the Party and irresponsible in the extreme.
We all have to be patient in this. Don’t worry, you’ll get your Tory government, one way or the other.
mpg.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
I don’t really care that much for a Tory Government but ditching Labour is essential to any real recovery. I take what you say on board but the Cons have done rather better than the Lib Dems in the election. They didn’t get an overall majority but they were not far off and, if anyone cares about the voter, the Tories have more right than any other party to power. The Lib Dem proportion of the vote is small even allowing for the defects in the electoral system. I think the Lib Dems have a lot of general respect and are second choice for many people – just what you need in the kind of electoral system you yearn for. What I am really saying is don’t blow it all by propping up Labour when so large a proportion of the electorate is desperate to be rid of them. That’s all from me.
May 11th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
It seems that the Lib Dems are prepared to prostitute themselves to ally with Labour today. If they prop up a Brown government,who really knows what excuse the man will come up with between now and Autumn to justify staying in Downing Street. The party will become a laughing stock and slip back into oblivion if this happens and the contempt from large chunks of the country will be palpable and well deserved. The endless talks and suggestion of shady deals will kick PR into the long grass of the minds of the British public and deservedly so.
December 10th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Hi there, – came across this blog due to pure luck when looking round the web this afternoon, and delighted that I did! I do like the layout and colours, but I ought to say that I’m having issues when it loads. I’m using Lynxlet 8.1 web browser for mac, and the footer does not line up well. i am fairly certain used the exact same layout on a company’s website, but the menu seems alright on mine. I suspect the mistake is at this end and just maybe it’s time to upgrade!