The key problem for most Londoners is the incredibly high cost of living, which is why my policies are all designed to save people money, while many will also save carbon as an added bonus. With things like lower transport fares, free insulation available to everyone, more affordable housing, a living wage of £7.20 paid by every employer, and a wider range of local shops and markets providing cheap, healthy food, I’ll improve everyone’s quality of life and cut living costs at the same time.

It was a very strange ‘debate’ which I don’t think Jeremy Paxman handled very well at all. Beforehand, we saw Tim Yeo (Tory head of the Environmental Audit Committee in Parliament) talking about ‘personal carbon quotas’, which are a Green Party policy we believe are the only way to tackle climate change in a socially just way. But then later, when I mentioned this policy in the debate, Paxman reacted like I’d suggested flying all our carbon emissions to the moon. Very odd, and Ken Clarke and Stephen Hale weren’t much help in keeping the debate to the subject in hand either. I thought I said only coherent and sensible things, but the debate as a whole was a bit of a shambles to be honest.

Apart from the fact that most of the Mayor’s initiatives need to be expanded (for example I’d triple the cycling budget), the main policy sticking point between the Greens and Ken Livingstone is that he still wants to build an enormous motorway bridge over the Thames Gateway. This is a policy remaining from his first term in office (before he needed our Green votes in the Assembly to pass his budget) and it would be disastrous for both Londoners and the environment. There will be a huge increase in noise and traffic pollution in east London, and is not the way to solve the transport infrastructure problems facing Londoners.

I’d spend the money on new train and tram services instead and reduce the need for car travel, rather than build more roads, which has never been shown to improve traffic problems.

I love the diversity - of people, lifestyles, culture and above all food. I love that within a few minutes of my home I can choose from, among other things, excellent Brazilian, Ethiopian or Phillipino food for dinner.

My plan to close the airport at the end of its lease and replace it with affordable homes and a green industries park would bring much wider benefits to the people of London than more tarmac and low flying aircraft. 

City Airport wants to expand by 50% onto GLA-owned land, and I have pledged not to allow this if I were Mayor.  The increase in pollution, noise and congestion would cause more misery for Londoners in the local area, and the further increase in carbon emissions would spell disaster for the environment.

The majority of City Airport customers are on short-haul flights, which could be replaced by other forms of transport such as trains. The new Eurostar facility from St. Pancras means travelers can be in Paris or Brussels faster than if would if they flew.

Simple answer “No.” Due to the ways votes are counted at this election, people have two choices. They can vote first for who they think will run London best, and then they can vote second for their Party loyality. I expect a lot of people to be voting for me first. Oh and can I also urge people not to forget about the elections to the London Assembly. There too people should vote Liberal Democrat so that either I end up with a strong team of people to support me while Mayor, or there will be people, beholden to no one person, who can hold another Mayor firmly to account.

There is absolutely no indication that introducing ID cards would make any difference to crime levels in London. There are much more effective ways of tackling crime, getting the guns and knives off our streets and dealing with low level crime. Would an ID card tackle this? No.