bonzo1

Answered by Ken Livingstone

I am totally opposed to expanding Heathrow, which would lead to increased traffic congestion and pollution in London.

And as we get more evidence of the role of aviation in contributing towards catastrophic climate change it's obvious that Expanding Heathrow would wreck our attempts to cut carbon emissions.

That is why I am also against Boris Johnson’s plans for a new airport in the Thames Gateway – which he described as his “big idea” for London.

Answered by Ken Livingstone

Londoners should decide whether or not to charge high emission cars for the pollution they inflict on the rest of us, not a luxury car manufacturer flexing their muscles in the courts.

I am proposing a £25 a day charge on the most polluting cars, like some 4x4s and high-powered sports cars, because we have to do something to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

Londoners will have a clear choice on 1 May – vote for me and we will introduce the new CO2 charge, or back Boris Johnson and he will scrap it.

Porsche have a clear vested interest in attempting to block the CO2 charge, because almost all of their vehicles are in the highest polluting class. Porsche should focus their attentions on cutting CO2 emissions from the cars they produce, and leave it to Londoners to decide how to tackle pollution in their city.

While the purpose of the CO2 Charge is not to raise revenue, we anticipate it will also raise around

£30-50 million in revenue each year, which will be reinvested in transport improvements across the capital, including massive improvements to cycling and pedestrian facilities in London.

Answered by Siân Berry

Our recommendation that our voters cast their second vote for Ken Livingstone is for an insurance vote to stop the Tory candidate Boris Johnson whose anti-social and anti-environment views and policies we believe would be a disaster for London.

But the elections on May 1 are about more than just the Mayor. There are 25 Assembly seats available and the Green party hopes to gain at least 4 of these. In the last term our 2 seats have allowed us to drive a hard bargain over Ken Livingstone’s budget every year, where he needs our votes. Therefore, we have been able to seriously influence policy in London. For instance we introduced measures to provide free insulation for the most vulnerable in our city that will cut fuel bills and save residents money, tripled the budget for walking and cycling from 21m to 63m, and created the London Living Wage Unit that campaigns for the all employees in London to be paid a minimum wage of £7.20.

Answered by Lindsey German

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by All London Mayoral Candidates

Brian Paddick:

There is a danger that this election is turning into a personality contest, a sort of “London Mayor Idol” if you like, rather than a proper debate about policies that could deliver better services in the capital over the next four years. Instead you have a candidate running on their old record, a candidate who has never run anything and avoids all discussion of policy where possible, and someone like me who wants a proper debate about how we take London forward. I am serious about the job, and I don’t promise anything I cannot deliver. See my Contract for London for further details.

Sian Berry

There do seem to be a lot of policies in this election that are made up in the back of taxis on the way to the press conference. My favourites of these are both from Boris Johnson. He said he will plant just 10,000 trees, when we are already half way through a programme of planting a million trees in London, so he clearly knew nothing about this and just made his number up. The other classic was when he said he’d put bus conductors back on every bus – a great idea, but he underestimated the cost by more than £100 million.

Because the London Greens have worked on the budget for the past four years (since Ken Livingstone has had to rely on our votes to get his budget through since 2004) our policies are much better thought through. We do know what our policies cost and how we’ll pay for them, unlike some other parties’ candidates.

Answered by Adrian Van Klaveren

In terms of payment, generally not – we are asking people to contribute and our experience is that people are usually very keen to contribute to our coverage and be able to give their pictures, their accounts of the events they’ve actually seen. We’ve occasionally paid for particular content if we have it exclusively and so on, and that will continue, just as we have in the past with amateur video – the only difference is that nowadays there is just much more of it around, because most people have a mobile phone with a camera attached to it and can email it directly from there. It’s just an increase in volume of that but I think the principles are that generally we don’t have plans to pay for that sort of content – there would have to be a very specific reason why that would be the right thing to do. In terms of people writing their own sort of accounts of things, I think there is a place for that. There are two ways in which that really works – there are people who are experts on stories because they’ve got personal involvement, personal experience of it. If you want to hear their accounts because that helps inform your overall understanding of the story, it makes it actually a much more rounded account if you are able, through your website, to say “And here’s an account of a person who knows about this, who has experienced it, has lived through it” or whatever. That’s a good thing to have and in terms of people who witness particular things , you know, those accounts… they don’t just need to be a short email, if somebody feels that they are able to write their own particular account of it, that can be very powerful and very valuable to us. And there is this kind of opening up of the news that you can let people have the space to be able to do that, and you do get a difference of perspectives, a difference of style and so on. I don’t by any means think that it is the entire answer of what it is that people expect from us but I think its a part of it and I think its something that we want to encourage. Shrikala: So you would ask a journalist to go through what has been written to check that it is up to the standards of the BBC? Well, I think the key thing is for people who are reading it, is to understand the basis on which that account is there. If it is an account from somebody who has sent it to us, a member of our audience, I think that’s what needs to be clear to people. I think there is a danger of us for getting into “well we’re going to moderate everything, we’re going to edit everything, we’re going to make it all the same as everything else we would do through our own journalists”. I think you’ve got to make that distinction and to say that actually, this stands there in its own right as long as there are no particular legal defamation problems or anything like that with it – we should check for that. But beyond that I think our role for that sort of account is as a publisher of it, as opposed to people who are trying to edit it and make it conform to our own particular style, our own way of doing it, for the very real fact that if we start trying to do it that way- where we are trying to edit it in lots of different ways- we won’t have the capacity to produce very many of those accounts. It won’t actually achieve the kind of opening up, the kind of democratisation if you like, that actually is the reason for doing it. Because it will be subject to our capacity to be able to edit them much better that we’re very open with the audience, “this is the basis of this, the status of it, it’s not the same as something done by one of our journalists, but we think you might be interested in reading it”.

Answered by David Leigh

Be on all platforms, Carve out distinct identities. Cut costs.

Answered by Dr Stephen Hopgood

The short answer to that I think is yes, but I'm going to make a distinction between what we might call political rights and human rights. We can all think of circumstances under which we think that violence is justified, unless we are thoroughgoing pacifists. And many pacifists have famously recanted at some point when they realised the horrors that we're facing. The argument that the Tamil Tigers and the PKK would both make at some level is that this is self-defence for them as an ethnic or religious group. What they’re after, both of those organisations, is a state. Within a state they think that they can defend themselves. That state can then guarantee political rights for its citizens. So what they would argue, undoubtedly, is - once we've got a state rights really begin to matter because rights are then enforceable, and there is a legal recourse if those rights are trampled upon. Human rights that exist in a more rhetorical realm don't do any good for the Tamil Tigers when they're being carpet-bombed or the PKK when they're being attacked by the Turks. There are the words restore human rights in the question, I think what they would argue is in order to get anything approximating rights you need a mechanism of self defence, you need a state, and when you are trying to fight for that state against an existing state which is already heavily armed, there is no alternative. What if we replace PKK with Nelson Mandela and the ANC? At some point Nelson Mandela made a very conscious decision that he and the ANC would have to resort to armed violence. This in a sense is a ‘cuddlier’ example of the use of violence to restore human rights If you imagine that we didn't condone violence in the ANC case we would basically have an endless continuation of apartheid. So I think a blanket ban on violence, really, risks freezing a form of injustice.

Answered by Craig Murray

I have no doubt whatsoever that in terms of international law Tony Blair and George W. Bush are guilty of major breaches of international law, which in the past have been shown to be breaches that can be sanctioned, where action can be taken. I think the first reference for that has to be the statutes of the Nuremberg tribunal, which made absolutely plain that launching an aggressive war and planning and conspiring an aggressive war, including not using diplomacy in good faith, was a war crime, in fact was the most fundamental war crime. I think the launching of the war against Iraq on the basis of lies, and the fact that they sought an aggressive war against Iraq for a long time is undoubtedly a sanctionable war crime, and that's the most important answer. There are then further breaches of international law. Under the Hague convention, once you have occupied a country it is illegal to exploit its resources, or to change its laws. The Hague convention of 1907 is quite explicit on that point. And when Bush and Blair obtained the legalisation of the occupation of Iraq, post-facto, by a Security Council resolution, that Security Council resolution specifically said they must abide by the Hague convention. They nonetheless went on to break the Hague convention by privatising hundreds of Iraqi companies and giving their assets to American companies, which was done by the US provisional administration, and was a despoliation of Iraq, contrary to the Hague convention. So, you’ve got two areas there, launching an aggressive war and then economic exploitation of a conquered country, both of which are plainly illegal in international law. And in both areas Bush and Blair, and on the Nuremberg precedents their foreign ministers or secretaries of state, their top military leadership and others are plainly guilty.

Answered by Niall Couper

Not at all - human rights go hand in hand with good, successful government. Look at countries that enjoy prosperity and stability and you'll find that they tend to be countries that have democracy, a free press and a lively civil society. More fundamentally, the horrors of torture, arbitrary imprisonment, executions and persecution can never be justified in the name of 'stability' or 'government'.

Answered by Philip Ingham

Cycling is hugely popular year round in many northern European countries with climates every bit as bad as ours. That suggests to me that the weather is, generally, not the deciding factor in the success of city cycling schemes. From personal experience, a properly equipped bicycle, with mudguards, lights etc is practical to use for commuting in all but very wet, icy/snowy or windy weather - in other words, the odd day here and there, all year round. There's nothing quite like cycling on a crisp winter day!

Answered by Linvoy Primus

Personally, I’ve never had a problem with what other players earn. I started my career at Barnet and having seen the lower end of the football ladder I am grateful to have been able to work my way up. There are obviously many players who haven’t been able to do this, but the same goes for situations within clubs. Some players are better than others, and like in any other business, people will earn different amounts of money to each other. That’s just the way things go. Of course, you read stories and hear rumours about players demanding what others are earning, but it has never really been something that has troubled me.

Answered by Barry Fry

Peanuts. But that’s how the game is these days. When you’ve got players being looked at by Premier League clubs it’s great, because that’s the only way you’re going to see a good amount of that money come filtering down, but when you’re struggling to pay the bills compared to those at the top raking in millions every week, that’s when it can seem that football has lost its common sense. There are ways of getting around the money side though, and that’s to invest in players who really want to achieve. The Premiership has created a lot of big-time Charlies, and by the time they come down to League 1 or 2 they’re in it just for the money as they wind down their careers. That is why we have recruited a lot of players from the non-league game. The top players are as good at or better than most players in Leagues 1 and 2, and having seen the other side of the game they have a real hunger and a drive to succeed. They give it 100% every match and every training session, are willing to learn, and it’s one of the most refreshing things you can find in the modern game.

Answered by Brian Barwick

The Football Association take a very dim view of any player who plays out unsporting behaviour on the football field. We have a set list of prevention and penalty measures, and we are always reviewing and reshaping these to ensure the overall health and faith in the game remains constant.

Answered by Paul Ince

I think players do still genuinely want to play for their countries – guys like David Beckham and John Terry are passionate about England. And look at how the under-21’s went about their European Championships over the summer. I was England’s first black Captain and I know representing my country was a monumental thing. I think clubs are more protective over their players these days – that’s true – because there is so much more at stake.

Answered by Anthony Lilley

Only if it’s the least worst option – as Ashley Highfield says, the screen on the back of the seat in front of you on the plane isn’t as good as a cinema, but it beats 12 hours looking out of the window