Chris Huhne's speech at the Social Liberal Forum conference on Saturday makes the main headline in the Guardian today. Sadly I missed the actual speech because I was busy on some of the admin of the conference.

I'm slightly irritated by the reference in the article to "a conference of social democrats" - although there is considerable overlap between Liberal Democrats who might describe themselves as either 'social liberals' or 'social democrats', the terms do not mean the same thing. You can read an interesting discussion about the distinctions between the two on the Liberal England blog.

(Incidently, there was a lot of media interest in the conference. I signed in BBC News, ITN, Channel 4 News, Sky News, the Independent on Sunday and The Observer)

One of my jobs at the conference was to set up interviews for bloggers with some of our star speakers - Vince Cable Chris Huhne and Evan Harris. I joined in the latter, and thanked Evan for graciously submitting himself to a uniquely Liberal Democrat form of interrogation.

Evan and I had just come from a conference session entitled "Health Reforms - good for us" which I had chaired and where he had been the main speaker. I started by asking Evan to summarise his reaction to a week that had seen the FutureForum's report on the consultation on NHS reform, and the Government's reaction to it.

He claimed a victory for the amendment that went to Spring Conference, and which was was heavily backed by the Social Liberal Forum.That led to a complete rethink by our Parliamentary party, and eventually to the 'pause' and then the climbdown that we have seen this week.

As demanded by Liberal Democrats, the revised proposals for the NHS have removed competition on price, have increased transparency and local accountability and have watered down the over-controlling brief given to Monitor (the new regulator) to drive competition.

But Evan was concerned that the FutureForum's report was written by Health officials, who appeared to have been instructed to find new ways of driving competition. Liberals Democrats are not against choice and competition, but in times of austerity other principles are far more important - quality of care, cost effectiveness, fairness, access to services, reduction in health inequalities - and yet these seem to have been downgraded in the report.

That was followed by an interesting discussion about the most effective ways for Liberal Democrat members to influence Government. Our party policy is determined by members at Spring and Autumn conferences, and the experience over the Health and Social Care Bill has shown just how powerful this can be. But it is, as someone said, a rather 'clunky' way of doing things and leaves a six month gap between conferences during which much can happen without members' involvement. Evan outlined the roles of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Policy Committees, where the Federal Policy Committee has a crucial part to play. Evan has also been involved with the SLF in developing conference motions to strengthen that link. However, this may seem rather arcane to readers who are not interested in internal party politics.

You can read a comprehensive record of the interview with Evan over at Spiderplantland.. Lisa Harding who writes that blog asked Evan a couple of thoughtful questions about the human impact of political upheaval. Evan had unexpectedly lost his seat after a campaign which had become personal and hurtful. He was surprisingly gracious and not at all bitter about the experience. However, he was worried that the success of the attacks on him would have two consequences, namely that it would encourage this unpleasant style of campaigning in the future and that it might put off good candidates from standing.

Would he stand again for Parliament? He would not commit himself on this question - it depended on the outcome of the Boundary Review. But even though his achievements from the outside have been momentous, I can't see him wanting to stand on the sidelines for ever.

From left: Andrew Emmerson, Andy Strange, Evan Harris, David Grace, me, Lisa Harding

You may have seen Lynne Featherstone (Equalities Minister and Liberal Democrat MP) on the BBC calling for the Chief Executive of Great Ormond Street Hospital to resign over the Baby P scandal.

You can watch the interview and read Lynne's own blog on the subject which gives far more detail than I ever could. Mark Pack gives a useful summary on Lib Dem Voice.

In a nutshell, Lynne claims that senior staff at Great Ormond Street withheld important information from the Serious Case Reviews into Baby P's death. You may remember that while Haringey Social Services were heavily criticised at the time, there was also real concern about the medical incompetence at the hospital where doctors failed to pick up very serious injuries to the child.

Update: 2nd July 2011

Doctors at Great Ormond Street have called for an inquiry into the cover-up.

So Kingston Market Place is, according the the Guardian, the 'surprising' second in Google Street View's poll to find the best shopping street in the UK. (Hopefully, this link will show the final results later today, but in the mean time they can be seen on the Guardian page)

Why 'surprising'?

A rather fuzzy photo I took when the TA were parading through the Market last yearUp to half a million visitors per week come shopping in Kingston, so presumably they enjoy its very special surroundings. The Ancient Market area is a group of mediaeval streets surrounding a triangular open space, which houses a daily fruit and vegetable market that has a charter going back 400 years, and a history going back to the Saxons. Whether shopping in Ghost or Kew, Patisserie Valerie or Greggs, you do need to look up and take in the fascinating architecture.

The oldest shop in the Market is the late sixteenth century house to the left of the iconic building that used to house Next (I do hope it gets a new tenant soon), but there are several others dating from Tudor times. My favourite is the tiny black and white shop, which used to be the town mortuary, situated round the corner in the Memorial Gardens.

I'm not a fan of pastiche architecture, preferring new buildings in an honest contemporary style, so I was rather worried about the reconstruction of the west (river) side of the Market as part of the large development by St George's. They decided to give the store where Next now is, three different facades, reflecting the Tudor, Regency and Victorian styles found in the area. But I have to admit that they have done it with flair.

Chrissie Hitchcock must be very proud of the Google accolade. She was Chair of Kingston Town Neighbourhood until her stint last year as Mayor. She campaigned for the pedestrianisation of the Market Place, against Conservative opposition, and that has given the space a piazza atmosphere, with outdoor cafe seating, visiting food markets and a German Christmas market.

Chrissie was also responsible for the delightful flat-bed fountain. In the summer (and sometimes in the winter too) children love running in and out of the unpredictable spouts of water.

Half a million visitors a week is a lot for this small borough of 160,000 residents to cope with. Although the Ancient Market is the heart of the town, Clarence Street with the excellent Bentalls Centre, John Lewis and all the High Street brands is just round the corner. The Market itself is close to the river with all its pubs and restaurants and the Rose Theatre.

For some years we have had a Kingston Town Centre Management team, which is independent of the Council but with its full support. In 2004 it established the first Business Improvement District in the UK, branded as Kingston First. This takes a 1% levy on top of Business Rates from all the businesses in the town centre, and the funding is used to make improvements.

This has been hugely successful - and again I have to point out that this was a Lib Dem initiative.

But going back to that Guardian article about the 'best shopping street' award, I was taken aback by the claim that London did not make the shortlist. Er ... Kingston is in Greater London, you know.

Isn't it odd how Kingston is seen as part of London when it comes to raising funds for the Olympics (even though Kingston will have no direct benefit) but that it never appears in lists of things to do in the capital. London is too often equated with London postal districts (the old Inner London) rather than Greater London. Kingston seems to fall into a crack between London and Surrey.

In spite of this, shoppers come to Kingston and foodies find restaurants like The French Table not far away in Surbiton.

So, thank you, to everyone who voted for Kingston (and yes, I did vote for it!)

According to the Guardian and Private Eye (two impeccable sources), one of the two MPs in the Borough obtained a superinjunction - the sort of gagging order where no-one is even allowed to mention that it exists. The reason that I can comment on it now without fear of legal retribution is that the injunction was lifted in March.

Zac Goldsmith MP, his former wife Sheherezade and his sister Jemima Khan were granted a superinjunction in December 2008. This was to prevent the Daily Mirror and other papers from reporting that their email accounts had been hacked. When the injunction was lifted a couple of months ago it was replaced with an order which still forbids anyone to mention the person who did the hacking, but at least we can now acknowledge that there was an injunction.

However, according to Private Eye (not available online - you'll have to buy it) when the injunction was lifted 'the judge strongly censured the trio for allowing what was meant to be a temporary measure to extend for more than two years longer than was necessary, a "serious breach of the undertaking for which there is no good excuse" which created "interferences with freedom of expression and derogations from open justice".'

Zac Goldsmith has today admitted that he took out the injunction. He claims that the it was necessary because we do not have a robust privacy law in the UK, which he is now campaigning for.

I do agree with him about the need for some kind of privacy law, but the right to privacy does have to be balanced against freedom of expression and the public good. Since I am not allowed to know the contents of those emails that were hacked I cannot judge where the balance lies in Goldsmith's case. But I do know that superinjunctions are beyond the means of most of his constituents, who cannot afford to protect themselves from press intrusion.

I spent Easter weekend in Northern Ireland and was intrigued by the posters for the Stormont Assembly elections, which all encouraged people to number their preferences. Over there they use Single Transferable Vote (STV) in multi-member constituencies - so the ballot paper would be rather like the ones we get here for local elections, with three names from each of the larger parties plus some independents. Voters rank them 1, 2, 3, 4 etc instead of by using a maximum of three crosses. (Incidently, it was absolutely essential to get proportional representation at Stormont, which is why they used STV and not First Past The Post).

STV and AV are both preferential voting systems, in that the voter numbers the candidates in order of preference. AV can be used in constituencies where there is only one winner, whereas STV is more suited to multi-member constituencies, such as local council wards.

From some of the debate about the referendum you might imagine that preferential systems are totally alien to British politics. In fact, they are already widely used.

Next year for the election of the Mayor of London, we will use a version of AV with just two preferences.

In Scotland they use STV for local council elections. Wales in considering doing the same in the future.

And, as mentioned before, the Assembly Members in Northern Ireland are elected by STV. They also use STV for elections to the European Parliament.

You probably hadn't noticed, but intriguingly, there are two ballots going on in the House of Lords at the moment, and they both use AV. One is to fill a vacancy in the small number of remaining hereditary peers, and the other is for the Speaker in the House of Lords.

And to cap it all, the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties are both elected using a variation of AV - indeed, if FPTP had been used for the Conservative leadership, David Davis would now be Prime Minister, not David Cameron, who trailed behind on first preferences.

Odd, isn't it, that Parliament uses AV for its own elections and yet a sizable number of Parliamentarians are trying to tell us that it is not suitable for the rest of us!

I spotted a Conservative trailer in Surbiton yesterday, with a poster that said "No to AV - because we can't afford it"

Eh?

Is that the main reason the 'No' campaigners want to give usfor voting against AV? If so, they are bonkers! AV will not cost a penny more than the current voting system.

No - I'll revise that. It is not bonkers, but seriously misleading. And it is the Government (or at least, the majority partner in the Coalition) that is effectively misleading people about their own intentions.

They have said quite explicitly that they will not be introducing electronic systems to deal with Alternative Vote ballots if there is a Yes vote. Indeed, it isn't necessary. Australia has been carrying out parliamentary elections by AV for many decades and has never used electronic methods for voting or for counting the votes.

And yet the Conservatives are trying to tell us that AV will cost a lot of money because of the electronic systems that they claim will be necessary!

Managing an election using AV will cost no more than managing one using FPTP.