Our party political broadcast is up on Youtube, and I have to say it is the best one I have ever seen.

No cheesy, animated jokes like Labour's, no cringe-inducing case studies like the conservatives, just an explanation of our policies by our leader in person.

The Lib Dems were the only party to oppose British involvement in Iraq, and are the only party recognising the important shift required in foreign policy over the next few years if we are to be a force for good in the world, instead of an Airstrip One, as we have become under the red-blue blue-red consensus.
Nick Clegg underlined this policy in a speech at Chatham house today saying that the decision before us is as important as the economy, or the reform of our political system.
He went on:"Of course our relationship with the US is of immense importance, but that should not mean that Britain unquestionably does what America wants... On Iraq, on Russia, on the Middle East, on the interrogation of torture suspects and many other issues our strategic interests have differed."
It seems clear to me that when compared to Labours sinister gagging of criticism over Torture and the Tories isolated amateurism in Europe, a vote for the Lib Dems in 2010 is an independent and intelligent choice on Foreign Policy.

This governments disregard for law and order and international justice is well documented. Enthusiastic support of the "war on terror", their wide use of anti-terror laws on ordinary citizens participating in peaceful protest, their attempts at pushing through the "End of Parliament Act" (which was luckily stymied by Lib Dem Shadow Justice Secretary David Howarth,) are just a few of the ridiculous things this government seem to have no problem with. But today we got another, altogether shocking example.

No less than four front bench politicians, including the Prime Minister himself, have commented on a ruling by the courts in regard to the illegal rendition and torture of Binyam Mohamed. According to the Guardian's article about it this morning, not only do they feel they are entitled to try and discredit an independant judicial ruling, but they were putting pressure on the judges as they deliberated. This is surely the most significant fact in the matter. I, as a private citizen, don't know if Binyam Mohamed was tortured, or whether MI5 or the CIA were involved in the process. I defer to the judgement of an independent court assigned to hear his case.

But how can I believe in the judgement of that court if the government has been putting pressure on the judges? Such pressure might cause the judges to cave, giving the government their way and keeping the facts from me, or it might cause a more obstinate and bloody minded judge to go against what the government wanted (or, as is more likely, might subconsciously influence them as they heard the case.)

It takes a serious misunderstanding of the constitutional concept of the separation of powers for the government to place itself in this position; that in which I don't feel I can trust the judgement of a court. It should be taken as read that government should never be allowed to pressure anyone in the justice system (except perhaps their own barristers...) and this is just another example of why Labour are not fit to govern.

Under a Liberal Democrat government, judicial process would be unfettered, and when a ruling goes against a public body there would be enquiries, not a spin campaign to disown our justice system as we have seen here.

Politics never had a particularly good name, but after the expenses scandal, it really has become a profession to be ashamed of. Only the Lib Dems have the courage to offer the kind of fundamental changes that will fix our broken politics.

The problems that plague our system of representation are numerous and wide ranging, but I think we should start by looking at how expensive parliament actually is. As well as the fact that their expenses were/are opaque and almost totally unregulated, I think there are also far too many MPs (they can't even all fit in the house at once!) Add to that the fact that our democratic system is corrupt, since we allow all sorts of exceptions so that foreign nationals and big companies can donate money to political campaigns so they get taken more seriously that British voters, and unfair, where we discount some voters choices if they choose the "wrong" party in their area. And on top of all that, peoples' local services are run from large unaccountable bodies like Police Force Headquarters and Primary Care Trusts. There are other problems too, but I think these are the main ones that make politics so inaccessible and unfair.

The Liberal Democrats are proposing a large set of changes to tackle all of these problems. To start with, we would cut the number of MPs by 150 and make expenses transparent and fair (taking care not to discourage people with families from standing for Parliament,) cutting the cost of Parliament significantly in the process. I think it's really important that any changes to the way expenses work don't stop people from all backgrounds standing for Parliament, and with the Lib Dems commitment to equality I trust them to make an unfair and expensive system into a fair one that is good value.

We would tighten up the laws for funding election campaigns to keep big money and corrupt donors out of political altogether. We would also reform the way elections are run; so that you can make a genuine choice on election day and vote for the party you want to represent you, rather than forcing you to make a tactical decision. One of the things that I think government is supposed to do is take power away from the rich and give it to everyone equally. The Lib Dems would change the campaign finance law so that this is really the case both on election day, and every other day.

We would give local people control over their local services, by putting management of the police and NHS in the hands of locally elected officials rather than Whitehall departments, and give people the right to sack their MP if they break the rules. I think people should be in charge of their own local services as this both makes them more empowered when trying to solve problems with them, and allows councils to try different things to more quickly find best practise; and that goes for MPs as well as NHS administrators and police chiefs.

I don't think Labour or the Conservatives will ever offer change on this scale; the status quo is too convenient for them. I saw this when Labour came out for a referendum on the "alternative vote" system; it is one under which the Labour vote goes further while the Tory one is held back; another politically motivated constitutional reform proposal. Only the Liberal Democrats are offering the chance for a new, different politics, as far as I can see. In the words of Nick Clegg, "Another whitewash is unacceptable, we need permanent change to make politics clean, fair and local."

We all know that the economy is in trouble. We also know that the same can be said of the environment. The Liberal Democrats, including Vince Cable, have been asking the difficult questions in Parliament on these tough financial issues, and I think we are the only ones with a serious plan to tackle either problem.

The Lib Dems have been constantly on Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling's backs about the free handouts to bankers, and I think it is disgraceful the way they have let the city boys' hubris ruin people's lives in the real economy. And if you think the Conservatives have the ability to do anything about the problems think again - George Osbourne has never even studied economics. Meanwhile, we have another serious problem on our hands; I watched the COP-15 in Copenhagen fail in front of my eyes, and we are one of the worst countries in the EU on renewable energy usage (only about 2% of our energy comes from sustainable sources.)

The Liberal Democrats have a serious set of proposals to tackle these major challenges that the other parties have so spectacularly failed to rise to. We are proposing tougher restrictions on banks receiving public funds, and breaking up large banks so that when the casino operations go wrong it doesn't affect peoples' mortgages and business' credit lines.

We also recognise that we need to wean the economy off the current dependence we have on such outfits, and propose a radical Green Tax Switch to solve this problem, and help us prepare for a Zero Carbon Britain. We would tax carbon intensive activities at higher rates, and use the extra revenue to fund alternatives; so after energy bills have gone up we would subsidise home insulation, after petrol prices have gone up we would subsidise electric car charging points. I think this is great becuase not only would this allow businesses and consumers to go green more easily, it would also stimulate growth in green technology businesses allowing us to build a sustainable economy.

The Lib Dems are the only ones serious about putting Green Issues at the top of the agenda; and making sure Bankers aren't prioritised over the British people.

In our society, 6 in 10 peoples' earnings are directly affected by their father's profession. As far as I can see, the Lib Dems are the only party putting their money where their mouth is on improving Education, stopping disadvantage before it starts.

Social mobility and equality have taken serious hits over the last few years. You would think a Labour government would be on the ball about this sort of thing, but in January 2010, nearly thirteen years into his Government, Gordon Brown said that a National Equality Panel report was "Sobering." This is not acceptable from the government who promised us "Education, Education, Education", but gave us "Tuition Fees, Iraq, Social Stagnation." For me, Gordon Brown blaming the rising levels of inequality on Thatcher, after 13 years in government, is disingenuous buck passing.

The Lib Dems want to combat disadvantage through real investment in education, a child poverty reduction strategy not nearly matched by either of the other two parties financially. An extra £2.5 billion would be put into primary education, which we call the Pupil Premium, to cut class sizes, and offer children who fall behind individual catch-up tuition to stop disadvantage before it starts. This policy is funded by taking high earners out of the tax credit system, and cutting wasteful programmes at the Schools Directorate. The Lib Dems would also abolish university tuition fees, although the high cost of this policy means that it must be applied gradually over 6 years, so that it would come into effect fully after we are out of recession.

I think the Pupil Premium is the core of what would be a really effective strategy for levelling the playing field, and our opposition to tuition fees remains a key factor in our education policy. I want to see a society in which there is no significant statistical link between the school you attended and whether or not you went to uni, whether or not you earn minimum wage, whether or not you are long-term unemployed, and only the Lib Dems are putting effective measures at the heart of their strategy on this vital issue.

The Lib Dems are the only party willing to give British Children an equal chance at succeeding in life no matter what their background; and we back up our words with serious investment, unlike the red-blue blue-red consensus.

Under the British tax system at the moment, people with low and middle incomes pay higher tax rates than those with high incomes. The Lib Dems first priority is to redress this imbalance and make our tax system fairer.

Although we have high tax rates for large incomes, there are plenty of loopholes, meaning that people who can afford an accountant can pay less tax than they should. The only justification for allowing inequality, as far as I am concerned, is because it indirectly benefits everyone (the technological advances of the last century would not have been possible without the market.) But, we don't need to allow this inequality to dictate such massive differences in quality of life, especially for the several million people in this country below the poverty line who pay tax. As far as I am concerned, people at the top of the quality of life distribution should pay at least their fair share, if not a bit more, than the person with median earnings. Also, the way we pay for local services is massively unjust; people shouldn't have to pay tax based on how big their family is, and therefore how large their house is. Council tax is regressive and hugely unfair.

The Lib Dems are proposing my sort of massive shift in tax policy in 2010; we would close all the loopholes in the tax system, to make sure that people on high incomes pay their fair share, and pass on the benefit by raising the threashold at which people start to pay tax to £10,000 a year. This would lift millions of people on low incomes (like some part-time workers and pensioners) out of tax altogether, and mean a £700 tax cut for millions more households with moderate incomes. I think this is the kind of social redistribution that would help people through the recession, but also be a lasting change in the way quality of life is distributed in our society.

Also, under a Lib Dem government, Council Tax would be replaced by a local income tax, stopping councils unfairly penalising large families and pensioners, and putting the emphasis back onto people's ability to pay. This would allow councils to target their rate increases so that they can raise badly needed funds without penalising some very poor people, and I think it is the only fair proposal to come out of any of the main political parties for fixing this problem.

This is a massive shift from the status quo- only the Lib Dems have the guts to propose this badly needed radicalism to make the way we pay taxes in Britain fair.