IF YOU WANT REAL CHANGE THIS TIME, VOTE FOR IT

The tempo of the election is being raised daily but the drama of the leaders' debates is now over. The key outcome from those debates is the apparent certainty that the Labour Party is heading for oblivion, rather in the style of the Conservatives in 1997. The two party pendulum swings the other way - or so the Tories will be hoping. Happily (to continue with this analogy a few moments longer) the pendulum is no longer swinging back and forth but round and round thanks to Nick Clegg's performances. Where it stops on May 7th is up to you.

The simple truth is that it no longer has to be this way, no longer do we have to endure a two-party stitch up. Things can change. What we are left with now is a three party fight which will, I hope, focus increasingly on policies and plans to cut the deficit. The Liberal Democrats have been attacked over our policies but this must be taken as a compliment, for at least our critics are considering them seriously. Our policies to address the deficit in year one of a new government, for example, with a comprehensive spending review in June 2010 to identify further savings on top of the £29bn already outlined (the £19bn planned by Labour plus an additional £10bn set out in our manifesto), have been comprehensively picked apart yet no other party has come close to identifying clear, concrete areas for savings, such as scrapping ID cards, introducing fair taxes for plane travel and air freight, cancelling the Eurofighter and stopping the waste on the obsolete replacement for Trident. Where are those Tory savings going to come from? 'Efficiencies'? Do me a favour, this is Whitehall we're talking about!

Our policies on dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants are perfectly sensible, allowing them to earn citizenship after ten years of living here, rather than just talking tough before polling day and then quietly ignoring the problem after May 6th as no one actually knows where these people are. There's the lie at the heart of Tory and Labour attacks: 'we'll get tough on immigration' suggests (i) that they know how many illegal immigrants there are - they don't, (ii) they have the £10bn and huge resources required to find, round up and then deport the likely hundreds of thousands of people involved - they don't.

The Lib Dems are here, our policies are there for everyone to see - and criticise - but we stand by them - I stand by them in Henley - as a sensible programme for action this year. We're not going to disappear to allow the old parties to stitch things up for another 65 years. I hope you will look here at what we propose for our economy, our environment, our schools and our creaking political system and think about giving us your vote on May 6th.

If you want real change, vote for it.

SCOTCHING MYTHS PART 2: THE EURO

The opposition parties, especially the Conservatives, are likely to target us on this issue in coming days as the leaders focus on foreign affairs in the leaders' debate on Thursday. Setting aside my advice to any Tory leader to avoid reopening the European wound that still gapes in the Tory side, let me quote what the Lib Dem manifesto (page 67) says:

'We believe that it is in Britain's long-term interest to be part of the Euro. But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and in the present economic situation, they are not. Britain should join the euro only if that decision were supported by the people of Britain in a referendum.'

Now that commitment will not be popular to many people but it is a clear, unequivocal statement of where we stand. Two key points must be made, in bold, below:

1. We do not plan to do this any time soon. It is NOT a manifesto commitment, merely a statement of our beliefs.

2. We have clearly promised a referendum on this or any other major change to our relationship with Europe.

Can the Conservatives in particular be this clear?

For those of you still reading, as this is not a topic of major interest to most voters who have given it a second's thought, allow me to remind you that the Conservatives took us into Europe without a referendum, the Conservatives signed the Single European Act - committing us to joining a single currency in the future - without a referendum and the Conservatives signed the Maastricht Treaty establishing the larger European Union without a referendum.

Liberal Democrats are clear and open about our commitment to Europe. Are others?

SCOTCHING MYTHS, PART 1: AMNESTIES FOR IMMIGRANTS

Following Nick Clegg's peerless performance on Thursday the Liberal Democrats are now being targeted by the old parties. One of these attacks claims that we will give an amnesty to all immigrants. This is a lie.

There is a large number of immigrants in Britain, most of them working hard to support themselves and their families. There is no possible way that any government could afford or manage to deport every illegal immigrant so what we propose is to allow those illegal immigrants who have been in Britain for over ten years and who speak English to earn citizenship.

This is not an amnesty: it is a tough measure which recognises reality, rather than pandering to tabloid headlines. If only our opponents had such a clear, practical policy then might be in a position to cricitise. They don't so they can't.

CONSERVATIVES ON EUROPE - LIKE TURKEYS VOTING FOR CHRISTMAS

Can I first apologise for the length of this post but the detail is crucial to destroying the latest Conservative attack on Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

The election campaign has a hard but enjoyable slog but it was still nice to have something to genuinely laugh about this morning as I heard on the radio that the Conservatives have attacked us over our stance on Europe. We must remember that this is the issue which effectively destroyed the Conservatives in the 1990s and from which they are only just emerging.

Liberal Democrats, building on a long tradition of internationalism, are of course pro European but we are also highly critical of a creaking institution which - let no one forget - the Conservatives took us into without a referendum.

Let's review that proposition for a moment. Britain joined the 'Common Market' in 1973 under Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath and he certainly didn't allow voters a real say on this major issue. A referendum on membership was only held in 1975 under the new Labour government.

The embarrassment doesn't end there for the Tories. In 1986 Margaret Thatcher's government signed up to the Single European Act - once again without a referendum. The Tories will tell you that this Act improved the efficiency of Europe and was thus a major step towards the 'trading bloc' which they profess to favour. However, one detail they won't own up to is that the Single European Act also signed Britain up to joining a single currency.

Let me repeat that: the Thatcher government signed Britain up to a single European currency without a referendum in 1986.

The embarrassment for the Tories continues when we jump forward to 1992 when the next Conservative government signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty - without a referendum - which created the new 'European Union', among whose innovations was a common foreign and security policy and greater powers for the European Parliament. Effectively, you could say that 'Europe' as a self-supporting entity came into existence in 1992 and the COnservatives signd up to it.

As many people will be aware the aftermath of the Maastricht Treaty was the near-extinction of Conservatives over years of in-fighting and argument, culminating in the 1997 Labour election victory.

Now the policy detail. As I mentioned, Liberal Democrats are completely committed to the European Union but we also want to make significant changes which the other parties have ducked for decades:

* We want to stop the pointless and hugely expensive monthly movement of MEPs and their entire offices between Brussels and Strasbourg purely to satisfy the French. Why haven't the Tories or Labour done this before?
* We want to remove trade barriers to help create green jobs, benefiting British businesses and helping to address climate change across the Union.
* We will stop the 'gold plating' of European directives, whereby British Civil Servants add extra aspects to European laws, making them more onerous and putting the blame on to Brussels.
* We will use the European Union to work for stricter international regulation of financial services and banking.
* We will keep the pressure up for reform of the outlandish agricultural subsidies to give farmers, consumers and taxpayers a fair deal.
We will seek continuing reform of the EU budget to make sure your money is only spent on things the EU really needs to do.

Britain is a small island off the coast of Europe. The so-called 'special relationship' is so one-sided that it is not a real relationship at all. We are a very successful international actor in most forums across the world but this is increasingly because of our cooperation with our European partners. Britain is a European country and has been for all but about 150 years of its existence, when it looked outwards towards the empire.

We must work towards a better, reformed Europe which serves our interests and those of our partners. We won't achieve anything if we cut ourselves off from the debate. I hope the Conservatives think long and hard about this attack on the Liberal Democrats. To say they have left a flank open is an understatement of continental proportions...If they do wish to pursue this I trust Nick will show them no quarter.

CHOICE IN EDUCATION? YES, BUT ONLY WITH THE STATE TO STEP IN WHEN THINGS INEVITABLY GO WRONG

The Conservatives have launched a manifesto pledging to give parents the power to open their own schools if they are disappointed with local provision. The Conservatives promise that the process will be made easy for these parents but it won't be easy, will it?

Setting up a school will inevitably be a bureaucratic nightmare as the state will need to ensure that the appropriate checks are made on staff, that staff are qualified to do their jobs, that buildings are found or built and that they meet the required standard for access, size and local services. If the Tories really plan to 'free up' parents to do this, they face two outcomes:

* either these proposed new schools will be set up exclusively in areas where more affluent families can devote the time and resources to do this, leaving areas of families who don't have the time to commit to new schools with the same choice of one school;
* or the plans for parents to set up schools will be made so easy that the new schools will in effect be local authority schools anyway in which parents have a titular role, making the organisation of local provision by education authorities much more difficult and increasing costs for everyone.

There will be no revolution in schools provision, instead there will simply be patchy examples with one or two winners and a lot of losers.

I live in a village with a plethora of volunteer groups, including a community shop which I am involved in. These community groups tend to attract the same small groups of people who do most of the volunteering, leaving the great majority of people to enjoy the clubs and services provided with little or no input. That is normal and entirely reasonable for a community wood society, a toddler group and an 'evergreens' club for older people but it will not be sufficient for a school. That's my fear with the Tory plans: the idea will be welcomed with acclaim in a local community. Residents will come together and organise meetings and plan and slowly, over several months, the numbers of people involved will dwindle, leaving fewer people to run what will be a huge undertaking. This is normal for voluntary groups and most are quite comfortable with such a consolidation but for a school - a key part of the life of local children and families for years - will this be sufficient or will local authorities be asked increasingly to step in and take over schools set up in haste, having played no part in the planning of local education.

Instead of this bureaucratic and divisive nightmare, what about simply pledging to improve existing schools by investing £2.5bn in the education of the least well off pupils AND giving more control back to existing schools and local communities to manage their own affairs, since they know a lot more than Whitehall what their priorities are. Would you support a party which proposed that straightforward solution to problems in our education system? If you would, please vote Liberal Democrat on May 6th.

On the other hand, if you want yet more experimentation with our education system with inevitably varied results across the country, vote for the Tories.

TAX BREAKS FOR MARRIED COUPLES? WHY NOT ALL PARENTS?

Plans for tax breaks for married couples are in the news again as the latest Conservative push for votes. The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, has decried this proposal as 'Edwardian' and rightly so. As a married man with small children I would - like everyone else in my situation - welcome any tax cut but I can also recognise that we are not living in the world of Dixon of Dock Green with old ladies cycling to church and cricket on the green, as a Tory leader of yore famously put it. The simple truth is that society is - and has always been - a bit more complex than some parties would like to make out.

Where is the tax break for the widower bringing up children on his own? Where is the tax break for the woman who has escaped an abusive relationship to protect herself and her family? Where is the tax break for the cohabiting couple which has decided to adopt? Where is the tax break for the grandparents who have taken on parenting responsibilities to help out their children? Where is the tax break for the two loving parents who want to do the best for their children but whose marriage has ended through nobody's fault?

As ever, Conservative proposals throw up more questions than answers. Policies designed to win votes have not been thought through in terms of our wider society and the next five, ten or twenty years.

Why not simply provide a tax break to every person on an average income who is working? Why not raise the tax threshold - the level of earnings at which we start paying taxes - to £10,000, improving the lives of most people in work and in particular those on lower incomes, some of whom will stop paying taxes altogether, allowing them to invest their own money in their families instead of getting costly and bureaucratic handouts from the state.

If you think that's a good idea, have a look at www.libdems.org.uk, because we're the only party promising to make taxes fairer from April 2011 - in other words legislating for such a change this year. And the proposal is fully costed by our Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable so it is affordable now, not at some indeterminate date.

If you want real change, vote for it on May 6th.

DON'T THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE ANY NEW IDEAS

I was amused to hear the other day that, after 60 years of trying, the best idea the Conservatives have for dealing with young people is 'national service'. Now this idea is not necessarily without merit and could be developed but it is hardly new and coming from the Conservatives it does rather smack of desperation - after all, the notion could have come from any Tory leader from about 1930 onwards. Coming from a supposedly progressive leader who supposedly represents change, it seems simply mistaken.

Like Conservative economic plans for uncosted 'efficiencies' to tackle the gaping deficit, their proposal to introduce national service for young people relies on rather too many 'if's, such as if voluntary organisations will be willing to join such a scheme, if there will be appropriate funding for such a scheme and if young people will be persuaded that it is in their interests to participate.

Instead of exhuming 'national service' for an easy headline, what about improving opportunities for all young people through free university education? What about properly funding paid internships with employers? What about ensuring that no young person claims Jobseeker's Allowance for more than three months without a right of access to training, apprenticeships, work experience or specialist advice? What about making the minimum wage - which the Tories opposed - the same for everyone, so that young people can afford to work for a living?

In another example of our Conservative opposition borrowing ideas, I was flattered to be told by a resident in Thame that my photo (see left) in front of the bridge at Henley clearly inspired the Conservative leader, who decided he would copy it for his election campaign launch opposite Parliament. Praise indeed!

I WANT REAL CHANGE FOR HENLEY, NOT JUST SPIN

At last the election has been called and pretty much everyone welcomes the chance to finally deliver a verdict on the tired Labour government. Perhaps the only group nervous about the coming campaign is the Conservative Party, which has slipped badly in recent months and which has found itself on the back foot as the lack of anything to say has been exposed under media scrutiny. David Cameron wants people to vote Tory because they aren't Labour but that's just not enough.

So, in the spirit I intend to hold to during this campaign I want to set out simply why a vote for the Lib Dems is not only the right thing to do but is the only choice if you want real change, not just a change of image promised by David Cameron.

The Lib Dems propose four steps to a fairer Britain:

1. Fair taxes that put money back in your pocket
* The first £10,000 you earn tax-free: a tax cut of £700 for most people
* 3.6 million low earners and pensioners freed from income tax completely
* Paid for in full by closing loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy and polluters

2. A fair future creating jobs by making Britain greener
* Break up the banks and get them lending again to protect real businesses
* Honesty about the tough choices needed to cut the deficit
* Green growth and jobs that last by investing in infrastructure

3. A fair chance for every child
* Ensure children get the individual attention they need by cutting class sizes
* Made possible by investing £2.5 billion in schools targeted to help struggling pupils
* Give schools the freedom to make the right choices for their pupils

4. A fair deal by cleaning up politics
* Put trust back into politics by giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs
* Restore and protect hard-won British civil liberties with a Freedom Bill
* Overhaul Westminster completely: fair votes, an elected House of Lords, all politicians to pay full British taxes

There is no question that Labour have run out of steam and that the Conservatives represent 'more of the same'. If you want real change, vote for it.

I hope you will consider voting Liberal Democrat on May 6th and I am proud to represent the Lib Dems in Henley constituency.

TORIES UNABLE TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINANCE PLEDGES

So this is the big plan of the Conservatives in advance of the General Election. They would block some of the National Insurance rises planned for next year. The plan will apparently benefit 7 out of 10 employees and it will be paid for by cancelling some as yet unnamed projects and by 'efficiencies'. The Labour Party is also declaring that 'efficiencies' will pay for their limited promises to cut the deficit.

Conservative proposals for 'efficiencies' include halting spending on major new IT projects and cancelling some existing ones, negotiating significant cost reductions in the contracts held by government departments with major suppliers, controlling recruitment by closing some back office and support roles when they become empty, cutting back on discretionary spending such as expenses, travel, consultancy and office consumables and reducing public sector property costs by vacating space and cutting the running costs of buildings. All pretty nebulous and all about as likely to achieve the required savings as I am of walking on the moon any time soon.

Is anyone going to be convinced by this rhetoric? I hope not. For the record, the Liberal Democrats have identified £15bn of savings on specific items for the coming year, such as cancelling the needless replacement of Trident, which will be used to start addressing the deficit and cutting income tax for the lowest paid. This is not rhetoric, it is a specific pledge based on a realistic assessment of our financial situation. It contrasts starkly with the Conservative pledge.

Under our proposals, 4 million of the lowest paid people will no longer pay tax, giving them a better chance to help themselves rather than relying on state handouts paid for by National Insurance.

So rather than recycling less money to help the less well off, the Liberal Democrats will simply let them keep their own money. That makes more sense to me than a technical cut in NI.

As for these much vaunted 'efficiencies', we all agree with the principle and the next government, whatever its stripe, must look hard at this area but making spending pledges based on such an uncountable notion is rather like asking people to pay for their weekly supermarket shop with a blank cheque for the shop to fill in as it sees fit. No one would do that so why should we be asked to give our support to a party which cannot tell us what its commitments would cost if elected?

If you want to know exactly where your money will go before you vote on May 6th, vote Lib Dem. If you're happy to sign that blank cheque, try the others.

WHY WON'T THE TORIES SAY WHAT THEY WOULD CUT AND WHEN?

The budget has been received with a degree of acclaim by many commentators, primarily because Chancellor Alastair Darling did not mess up. He has been commended for walking a budgetary tightrope just a few weeks before an election without dropping the patient that is the economy and without slipping up to drop his own party in it so close to polling day. These furiously mixed metaphors aside, the problem with the budget was not what it said but what it didn't say.

Everyone is aware that the country is in a difficult situation. The government has borrowed a huge amount of money to avoid a deep depression and this has been successful so far. The Liberal Democrats have supported this approach as the alternative in this period of major financial upheaval would have been turmoil for millions of people across the country. We have also recognised that the deficit must be addressed as soon as possible, starting this year. The Conservatives have called every economic decision wrong for more than two years, going against economic orthodoxy, most countries around the world and even that champion of profligate spending, the IMF. Yet still they continue to claim the moral high ground and to call for immediate cuts to address the huge budget deficit - although they won't say what they would cut.

And there is the problem: neither the Conservatives nor Labour will say how they will address the deficit. This failure to spell out the tough decisions needed now stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Liberal Democrats under our inspired Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable. Six weeks from polling day only the Liberal Democrats have identified £15bn worth of cuts to be made this year and a clear programme for addressing the deficit, including cancelling the unnecessary replacement for Trident (the existing system can simply continue to be deployed).
(see here for more on this)

As Andrew Grice puts it in today's Independent: "With the honourable exception of the Liberal Democrats, the main parties are still being deliberately vague about specific cuts. Labour's hastily-put-together £11bn package of "savings" relied on our old friend efficiency savings. The Tories claim that leaves more than £20bn of cuts to be found by Labour in the full-scale spending review conveniently delayed until after the election."

That's Labour conveniently accounted for but what of the Tories. Well, if you're happy to vote for a political party which makes vague pledges in the face of an unprecedented deficit, you might wish to vote Tory. If you think that the general blandishments of 'jam tomorrow' are sufficient for an economic policy, George Osborne is your man. If you think that every other major economy has been wrong to borrow today to avoid the worst outcome from this period of turmoil, blue is the colour for you.

Alternatively, if you believe that the man who predicted the credit crunch might be the right person to address the fallout and the recovery, you could do worse than consider Vince Cable and the Liberal Democrats. If you think that the party which called for bank nationalisation as a necessary tool to avoid social unrest and stabilise our financial sector got it right, try the Liberal Democrats. And if you think it is better to vote for a party which makes it absolutely clear that we face difficult times but which sets out clearly how it plans to address them, think about the Liberal Democrats.

The adventure is over for David Cameron's Conservatives. They have failed to persuade the electorate and they have been found out.

NO COALITION, NO NEED

The Liberal Democrats are holding our Spring conference in Birmingham, to widespread critical acclaim. Sadly, family life and an appointment at Oxford United meant that I was unable to get there but I have been encouraged to read and listen to the positive coverage the conference has received.

Unfortunately the tired issue of a hung Parliament has been raised and is being flogged to within an inch of its life by the media. I have for many years been concerned whenever hung Parliaments and coalitions have been raised as this is considered by most media commentators to be the height of our ambition as a party. I'd like to point out the truth from the point of view of this PPC.

I voted for Nick Clegg as party leader precisely because he alone of the two candidates set out his ambitions to win an election, not to come third or even second. I previously supported Paddy Ashdown for the same reason. I am a Liberal Democrat because I want to deliver Liberal Democrat policies, not watered down, tired Labour pledges or whatever the Conservatives stand for in any given week.

The Liberal Democrats remain the only truly democratic party whose members directly elect the leader and president and vote on all our policies at our democratic conference. That is why the membership sometimes annoys the leadership - because that's democracy and we're demonstrably for it. It is therefore a source of great comfort to me that in the event of any coalition talks after an election we have what is known as the 'triple lock' system which would require the leader to get the approval of the Parliamentary party, then the federal committee then the party membership as a whole before he or she is able to agree to a coalition.

I am standing for Henley on a Liberal Democrat ticket, not anybody else's. I will promote Liberal Democrat policies throughout this campaign and then in Parliament if elected. If asked to vote on a formal coalition with the worn out Labour government or with the ephemeral Conservatives I will oppose the idea.

This Lib Dem is 100% committed to being a Liberal Democrat, not anything else.

The good news for me is that what I hear from Nick Clegg tells me that he agrees but that he is being prodded and pushed by the media into giving all sorts of Svengali-like answers to ever more tautological questions. They are fishing and, happily, he is not biting.

I hope you will vote Lib Dem on May 6th because we are a strong, democratic party which has 'called' most of the major issues in politics correctly in the past decade and which will be the only party to go into the campaign with a fully costed programme for economic recovery, deficit reduction, lower taxes for 99% of the population, the abolition of the hated Council Tax, a sensible, deliverable green agenda, and a commitment to democratic renewal.

When the other parties sign up to that I'll support them but it is my guess that on that day the Devil will be wearing thermal underwear.

So, for the record, it is a categorical, unequivocal no to any coalition from me.

LIB DEM PLANS TO CUT THE BUDGET DEFICIT WIN PLAUDITS IN THE PRESS

Today's Independent says the following about one party's clear, costed plans to reduce the budget deficit as quickly as possible:

'It is ironic that financial markets seem jittery over the fiscal consequences of a hung parliament because the Liberal Democrats, who could hold the balance of power in such circumstances, actually have the most detailed deficit reduction plans of all three main parties.

'The party's Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, has proposed scrapping Trident, a civil service pay freeze, abolishing regional development agencies and reducing tax credits for wealthier families – cuts considerably more extensive than anything Alistair Darling or George Osborne have yet dared to present to the public. The Liberal Democrats have even stepped back from one of their most cherished and popular policies – scrapping university tuition fees – in deference to the bleakness of the fiscal outlook.'

The article goes on to note that the traditional view of the LDs as a party of high spenders is just plain wrong. I cam across this the other day and it some convincing on my part to assure people that we aren't.

FAIRNESS: FOUR PLEDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

More detail on the principles which underly the Liberal Democrat election campaign. In a speech on 11th January, Nick Clegg set out a very clear set of priorities for the party as we enter the election season.

The value that connects everything we want to achieve is fairness. There are four priorities for how the Liberal Democrats will make Britain a fairer place:
1. Fair taxes
2. A fair start for every child
3. Fair, clean and local politics
4. A fair, green economy with jobs that last

1. FAIR TAXES FOR ALL
The first priority is to introduce fair taxes, with radical proposals for the biggest tax reform in generations. The Liberal Democrats will close loopholes for the richest and introduce a tax on mansions to fund tax cuts of £700 for everyone else.

No-one will pay income tax on the first £10,000 they earn, meaning millions of low earners and pensioners will stop paying taxes altogether, while millions more will get hundreds of pounds back in their pockets. Only we are proposing to make taxes permanently fair, not just planning cuts for the richest in our society.

2. A FAIR START FOR CHILDREN
The next priority is to give every child the fair start they deserve through a huge transformation of our education system that will build the foundations of a fair society. That means cutting class sizes so children get the individual attention they need to thrive. The Liberal Democrats will put an extra £2.5 billion into schools to pay for more teachers, better discipline and catch-up classes so children get the individual attention they all need.

This means an average of £2,500 extra per pupil for the schools teaching the million most deprived children in the country, funded by taking above-average earners out of the tax credit system and cutting wasteful programmes at the Department for Education.

The Liberal Democrats will also phase out tuition fees over the course of six years, so that, after school, everyone who gets the right grades has the opportunity to go to university without fear of debt, no matter what their background.

3. FAIR, TRANSPARENT AND LOCAL POLITICS
We are the only party committed to real change of our political system. This means getting big money and corrupt donors out of politics altogether, reducing the number of MPs by 150, giving power over the police and NHS to local communities, changing the voting system to abolish safe seats and giving you the right to sack corrupt MPs. These are changes that would upend our political establishment.

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives will ever offer change on this scale. They will defend the status quo to the last. Only the Liberal Democrats offer the chance for a different politics. Another whitewash is unacceptable, we need permanent change to make politics clean, fair and local.

4. A FAIR AND SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY
The Liberal Democrats will shift the economy away from the traditional over-reliance on the City of London and on financial services. Our plans will usher in a new era where growth is enabled in every part of Britain in a way that promotes green technology and creates lasting jobs. We will put an end to the casino banking that caused the financial crisis by breaking up the banks and encouraging regional and local ways to bring competition back to the financial sector and make sure businesses can find the money they need to grow. Under our plans, councils will regain control of business rates, reconnecting local enterprise with local politics; Local Enterprise Funds will help people invest in growing businesses in their area and Regional Stock Exchanges will give companies a way to move into public equity without the huge risks and costs of a London listing. The Liberal Democrats will also create a new National Infrastructure Bank to bring in private money to build the transport links, energy grid and public buildings we need for a sustainable, low carbon economy in every part of Britain.

Now we don't claim to have all the answers but we are setting out a clear, costed programme for government, which can't be said of the Conservatives or Labour. They will tinker, we will transform.

SHOP CLOSURES HARM OUR VILLAGES

News that another village shop in Benson has been lost will be a huge blow to residents. Villages rely on their local businesses to keep them vibrant and when shops and pubs close villages can become little more than commuter zones.

Benson is lucky to retain a busy local community using the school, village hall and recreation facilities and the remaining local shops but every loss of a rural amenity is a challenge to communities.

In my village we have worked hard to reopen and maintain our village shop. It has been a huge effort and I am pleased to say that it is now thriving but it remains a daily effort to ensure that we continue to trade and succeed. We have recently seen our last remaining pub close its doors and we are nervously waiting to see if anyone will come forward to reopen it. Once again the village has begun to consider if a community venture might work but this would be a significantly greater effort than a shop.

In 2009 alone, 12,000 rural shops closed across the country.

The Liberal Democrats have a clear, affordable policy to help threatened rural businesses to survive and grow. Highlights include the following:

1. We would make small business rate relief automatic, not discretionary, so that small shops and businesses which pay a far higher proportion of their income in taxes would immediately benefit.

2. We would cut employment taxes, reversing the planned National insurance rise.

3. We would cut red tape, which is a huge burden on small businesses, including introducing 'sunset clauses' into all legislation so that it does not simply continue to be a burden to businesses through government inaction.

4. We would seek to improve access to credit by improving and better regulating the banking system.

5. We would introduce local enterprise funds to assist the start up and success of new businesses.

6. We would introduce regional stock exchanges to match local investors with local businesses.

7. We would require local planning authorities to develop retail development plans to guard against inappropriate supermarket expansion which could threaten local high streets.

8. We would protect and improve the business model of Post Offices, introducing a 'Postbank' to give access to a bank account to everyone, delivering more government services through this national network of local offices and making Post Offices local hubs for missed deliveries which otherwise tend to have to go back to a regional office if they cannot be delivered first time round.

Competition is a benefit to us all, as is local availability of the goods and services we all want to enjoy. I may be wrong but I am not aware of such a detailed portfolio of policy proposals from the other parties to keep Benson and other rural communities thriving and helping them to grow in the future.

EDUCATION: INVESTMENT NOW OR COMPETITION MAYBE?

Plans by the Conservatives to allow parents or private groups to set up schools in direct competition to local state schools have been questioned by academics and experts who have pointed to indifferent results in many of the schools in Sweden, where the party got its idea from. The issue of choice has also been queried, with a report from the Centre for Economic Performance pointing out that there is already reasonable choice in the British system. It seems that the result of this policy will simply be to dilute funding for schools, making it more difficult for them to improve.

The Liberal Democrat approach is entirely different, focusing on the children at schools rather than institutions. To give every child a fair start, we will spend an extra £2.5bn, targeted at schools taking on children who need more help. This will benefit every child in every school, as it will be possible to use the cash to cut class sizes and provide one-to-one tuition or offer catch-up classes, ensuring every child gets the individual attention they need.

Performance at school is closely linked to children’s background. The poorest children are only half as likely to get 5 good GCSEs as other children. Too often, the poorest children start school already struggling and fall further behind as they grow older. Schools taking disadvantaged children aren’t getting the money they need. The existing methods for distributing deprivation related funding are confusing and inconsistent. Nearly one in three pupils at secondary school receiving free school meals attend relatively affluent secondary schools, including many in Oxfordshire.

Area based targeting misses a large proportion of the poorest pupils – including many in rural areas. There is a huge gap between poor children in different parts of the country: in Kensington and Chelsea, 59% of poor children get 5 good GCSEs, while in some rural areas it is 14%.

We must never forget that even in affluent areas of Britain such as Henley many people struggle on average or low incomes. The government seems always to want to penalise Oxfordshire for being well off but the reality is more complex than any headline figure for earnings or wealth.

Liberal Democrats will pay for this education policy from savings in government, including reforms to tax credits (which will save £1.5bn) and administrative savings in the Department for Education and quangos (which save an additional £1bn).

The choice is therefore investment now in everyone's future or a piecemeal scheme which is likely to allow better off families to opt out of the local state school, paid by the state, thus reducing the size of the pot for everyone else.

OKAY, SO WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?

My first key priority is to get a real feel for what the Lib Dems will be promoting as our key areas at the forthcoming General Election. I have spent years familiarising myself with the policies but they always come into sharper focus at elections, so a degree of revision is required.

Unlike some parties I could mention we have a comprehensive set of policies covering all aspects of our society. The one I always find the most interesting is the policy on the welfare of fairground goldfish (we're for it!). It may seem trivial but it matters to the goldfish. From there we stretch right up to the international sphere, with a proper policy on Europe - not fear, loathing and general suspicion as practised by the Tories and Labour but a genuine desire to make the EU work better based on the conviction that countries working together is far better than the alternative, which we've tried once or twice.

The election campaign will be fought on the basis of our core belief in freedom, which I have always read as being a strong imperative that the government should leave people alone unless it has to get involved in their lives to protect or improve it.

There will be much more on this, hopefully allowing me to build up a good picture of why people should vote Lib Dem, which is, after all, why I'm writing this.