Clearly a tough set of results for the Liberal democrats – but not all gloom and doom. Here is Mark Pack’s post on LibDem Voice (before the London results came in)

Beyond the headlines, six points in particular strike me:

1. It looks as if the party will keep control of all the councils that had Lib Dem majorities before Thursday. Cambridge is a technical loss, but the party will keep control on the Mayor’s casting vote. Each of those Lib Dem council leaders and their teams deserve heavy praise for that impressive verdict on their council and political skills. (one lost post this post).

2. The results in seats with Liberal Democrat MPs, at least in England, have generally been good, not only in southern England but elsewhere too. In Hallam, for example, we won every seat and our vote was up on last year. That is a major saving grace: the local election base where it really matters for general election results has come out of the last two years in a much better state than elsewhere.

3. Outside MP seats, some areas where the party would hope to gain MPs in future elections, such as in Winchester, showed decent progress on last year and an ability to go head-to-head with the Tories and survive. Some, but by no means all. There is, however, a big enough local government place in the sorts of seats the party could fight seriously for the party to be able to be contesting seriously comfortably more seats than it has won in any previous general election. If the party has to fight on a smaller front that will be because of other political considerations, not because the local base is not there. That is particularly worth stating because some in the media are trying to push as “the party is doomed” line.

4. The smaller parties have generally done badly. UKIP may have piled up some votes, but it is not breaking through in winning seats. The Greens have continued their generally lacklustre performance of the past few years. Winning their first Parliamentary seat in 2010 is the major caveat to that, but even in the 2010 election results elsewhere were frequently poor and their local government base has not made a breakthrough. Thankfully the same too can be said of the BNP, who have been doing even worse – probably ending up losing all their seats up for election.

5. Labour’s progress is decent but not spectacular. Their results this year are (still) worse than other previous oppositions have achieved, even some which have gone on to defeat. Superficially that is bad news for Labour, showing how far their recovery still has to go, but it is also a warning for the government: this may not be Labour’s peak of mid-term popularity.

6. Unless there is a bizarre outbreak of reshuffle panic, any changes should wait until Jeremy Hunt’s fate is clearer, i.e. until after his appearance at the Leveson Inquiry. When a reshuffle does come, the Liberal Democrat changes will see David Laws return. Given the size of the task still facing the party, changes should also be made that reflect the relative media ability of Lib Dem ministers (see this league table). There is no room for those who are content to be low profile. Every minister needs to be making a full contribution to getting over the party’s message.

Ok – so it was never really in doubt who I was going to vote for in the Mayoral election today – Brian Paddick!

But when I sat down to complete my postal vote last weekend I did grab hold of the booklet (delivered to every household) containing the Mayoral candidates’ manifestos – just to see what they were all saying etc.

Before I became a local campaigner and then an elected Liberal Democrat politician in Hornsey & Wood Green I was a designer for around twenty years – a graphic designer. So I couldn’t help but notice that the double-page spreads allocated to each of the candidates to put their case and attract votes were some of the worst examples of graphics I have ever seen – except for Brian’s.

Design is all about communication. And if the layout is confusing or the photos rubbish quality – then the chance of a benign effect is minimal. And it is the first impression that carries most of the message. Yes – of course it matters what the content is – and of course many people will have made up their minds without reference to the content of the manifesto booklet based on the televised debates, political allegiance regardless or whatever. But if anyone out there is likely to be influenced these ‘advertisements’ then you would think the candidates would have made a bit of an effort to maximize the opportunity of this delivery of their messages to every household in London!

Just go and look at the three main contenders – and compare and contrast.

Paddick’s is well laid out, clear, clean and direct with an excellent (and clearly professional) photograph of himself. The visual impact is designed to work across the two pages making it by far the most dynamic layout of all the manifestos in the booklet. The type is neat and legible; the colour use effective with the key ideas easily accessible – decent homes for all, fares that work for you and a justice system that works.

Ken’s spread does communicate his key point – which is all about fares. So fair play on getting the key message across. But there is far too much text, and the two pages are not laid out to work together. The different messages on fares compete with each other and the opposing page is a ‘letter’ and seems disconnected from the main thrust. It all seems a bit messy.

But by far the worst of the big three manifestos – is Boris’s. The layout is dreary. There is so much text and so many ‘key’ messages that the reader won’t know which of the various blocks of type he or she is meant to go to first. The photo of Boris doesn’t run across the gutter and cuts off his shoulder oddly. So – I can’t really say what his key message actually is.

To me – design really matters – obviously because I was a designer. But more than that – if a candidate doesn’t know how to present themselves and their ideas to the best advantage (or finding someone to design their manifesto to do so) then that bodes ill for their ability to communicate properly as Mayor.

Politics is all about people and communicating ideas and policies and action. And if you do that – then the people will come!

Hurrah! At last – Highgate can operate as an entity in its own right. The inaugural meeting of the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum will take place on Tuesday 29 May at 8pm upstairs at The Bull, North Hill, Highgate.

For so many years Highgate has been bedevilled by being split between two local authorities – Haringey and Camden . We all worked very hard during the passage of the Localism Bill for an amendment that would allow local areas like Highgate that are split across different local authorities to have a Neighbourhood Forum – and we won!

So – the next step is to apply to Camden and Haringey for designation as a Neighbourhood Forum. In order to do this there needs to be a properly constituted organisation with a Constitution and an elected Committee.

So there has to be an AGM to approve the draft constitution and elect a committee.  The Bull on North Hill has kindly allowed the Highgate Neighbourhood Forum to use their upstairs room. Sadly, however, that means there won’t be full disabled access to the meeting, for which the organisers apologise, but they hope that everyone will understand that, as they have no funds as yet, they have to accept offers as they are made.

They ask that you let them know if there is anything they can do to help anyone with mobility problems get up the stairs and assure everyone that they will be sending proxy forms for voting for those who can’t make it to the meeting. They would also be very pleased to hear from anyone who is able to offer them an accessible venue for future meetings.

You can get more information from their website here.

Here is my column from this week’s Ham & High:

I was walking down Crescent Road in my constituency the other day when a woman came up to me and said something to the effect of, ‘I think you are a fantastic MP – but I am so upset that you are banning people from wearing the cross’.

So – from the mischievous misinformation from the pages of our print media to my home beat – I am fed up with this misrepresentation – hence this column.

The short version is this: the government is being taken to the European Court of Human Rights in a court case on whether there is a human right to wear a cross at work. What the government has been arguing (and British law states) is that people should be free to wear crosses if they wish, unless their employer has a compelling reason to say ‘no’ (such as risk of it carrying an infection in hospitals).

The grounds for saying ‘no’ have to be reasonable and cannot be used as a backdoor way to discriminate against any religion. They would be subject to a court being able to rule on whether the employer really is being reasonable. The same principle should also apply to the symbols or items that are important to other religions. (This is in fact all how the law is currently interpreted; the case is coming from people who want to change it.)

What that also means the government is also arguing against is the claim that is being made for a special legal right to wear a cross that would trump such provisions and mean that someone could insist on their right to wear a cross, even if an employer had reasonable grounds to say ‘no’.

Alas, some have decided to report that latter as if the government thinks people should have no rights at all to wear a cross. Not so! No-one is arguing that employers should be able to prohibit cross wearing on a whim or without very good reason.

Both I and the Government believe that people should be able to wear crosses openly at work. I have never – in any place or organisation that I have worked for or in over the years – seen or heard of anyone being told not to wear a cross. I have never, in my own office, ever stopped anyone wearing anything.

In fact, the occasional eye-catching case aside, employers are generally very good at being reasonable in accommodating people’s religious beliefs – and rightly so.

The legal case itself involves the Equality Act 2010. Under this, employers can apply certain rules, for example about not wearing jewellery, which may have an impact on people of certain religions. If any policy has that effect, then the employer must have, to use the jargon, a proportionate and legitimate reason for adopting it, such as for health and safety reasons or in order to comply with a legitimate uniform policy.

The current law applies in the same way to people of all religions and beliefs. It makes clear that any actions that would directly discriminate against those of a particular religion, such as Christianity, are unlawful. In addition, where a policy indirectly discriminates against those of a particular religion and this policy cannot be justified, that is also unlawful.

Those are very important provisions and protect against a bigoted employer trying to discriminate in the guise of health and safety or other workplace policies. They are also why the Government believes that the Equality Act 2010 (supported by all three parties) strikes the right balance between employees’ rights to manifest their religion or beliefs at work and the business needs and requirements of the particular employer.

The Government greatly values the vital role that Christian organisations have in our society and the part they play in national life, inspiring a great number of people to get involved in public service and providing help to those in need.

So – I explained the actuality to my constituent – and she said she had thought it very peculiar that someone who is as liberal as I am would wish to ban the cross.

Indeed!

Great news at the beginning of this week for schools in Haringey. After years of our campaign to get fairer funding, the coalition government has agreed to adjust the funding formula.

For decades Haringey’s schools have had to pay Inner London costs without Inner London funding – leaving local pupils short-changed. For 13 years the Labour Government did nothing about this injustice and when I launched our campaign back in 2007 I was a lone voice. But thanks to the huge support from the thousands of local Haringey residents who responded to our leaflets and emails and signed our petitions this campaign snowballed.

The change brings us into line with other boroughs like Hackney and Islington in terms of the inner / outer inequality. As a result of this campaign, schools in Haringey will now receive more funding per pupil – a great campaign success story!

However the full details of the new funding formula have not been published yet, so I’ve written to the Education Secretary welcoming the promised changes but demanding the very best deal for Haringey. Rest assured the campaign will continue until our schools have got the fair funding they deserve.

It was a busy day yesterday – launching the Coalition’s consultation which outlines plans to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage ceremony. You can access a copy of the full consultation document on the Home Office website – here .

The Coaltion Government recognises that there are a wide range of views on this issue and wants to hear from all perspectives. So please send in your views by completing a simple, online survey available here .

You can follow this on twitter at #equalcivilmarriage.

If you have any queries, please email Holly.Riley@geo.gsi.gov.uk

It’s International Women’s Day on Thursday – and my local paper, The Journal,  have asked me to name my top 5 influential women of all time.

I know who mine are but who would be yours?

This is the comment piece  published inside the Telegraph today.

It’s an interesting question and a pressing one in the debate around equal civil marriage. It is owned by neither the state nor the church, as the former Archbishop Lord Carey rightly said. So it is owned by the people.

The fierce debate over the past few weeks has shown people feel very strongly about marriage. Some believe the government has no right to change it at all; they want to leave tradition alone. I want to challenge that view – it is the government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future, not stay silent where it has the power to act and change things for the better.

I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, irrespective of whether they are gay or straight.

We are not prioritising gay rights, or trampling over tradition; we are allowing a space for the two to exist side by side.

I want to set the record straight once and for all: we are not changing religious marriage. We respect and value the vital role religion has to play in our society. We understand how strongly some religious groups feel about the issue, which is why we are listening and we want to work with them. But there are a range of other views we need to listen to as well.

I want to urge people not to polarise this debate. This is not a battle between gay rights and religious beliefs. This is about the underlying principles of family, society, and personal freedoms.

Marriage is a right of passage for couples who want to show they are in a committed relationship, for people who want to show they have found love and wish to remain together until death do them part. Why should we deny it to people who happen to be gay or lesbian who wish to show that commitment and share it with their family, friends and everybody else? We should be proud of couples who love each other and a society that recognises their love as equal.

That is why you will not find us watering down this commitment.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone

I was recently interviewed by My Muswell about local issues as the local MP. Given Muswell Hill was where I started my political journey it was a walk down memory lane. You can read the interview here.