ryanscribe

Answered by All London Mayoral Candidates

Sian Berry Since the Conservative Party privatised the railways, travelling by train has become more expensive and more miserable. If we were in government, the Greens would renationalise the railways... Show more »Sian Berry

Since the Conservative Party privatised the railways, travelling by train has become more expensive and more miserable. If we were in government, the Greens would renationalise the railways and get them providing real public transport again, at affordable prices.

In London, an integrated and affordable public transport system is vital for commuters and everyone who lives in London. In this election, I’ve pledged to cut fares, organise buses better, and build more tram lines. I’ll also link up existing lines to create a full orbital rail ring around London, so that outer boroughs are better linked together, and so that not all people travelling through London by train have to come into the centre and catch the tube between the mainline stations. This will do a lot to help congestion on commuter routes and on the tube during rush hour.

We’re also keen to bring many of the mainline rail franchises serving commuters under the control of Transport for London. We now have ‘London Overground’ providing more services and getting better stations thanks to this process, and we’ll build on this to create a much bigger and better overground system as fast as we can.

Answered by Lindsey German

Click play to watch this video answer

Answered by Adrian Van Klaveren

Well the two things come together. You can access TV through your PC and you can access your PC through your TV set, you can get text on your radio – all of those sorts of things and that will continue.... Show more »Well the two things come together. You can access TV through your PC and you can access your PC through your TV set, you can get text on your radio – all of those sorts of things and that will continue. I think actually that the crucial difference is one about the distance away from the screen you sit and I think that’s probably what the difference will be in the future – you know the kind of screen that you might have a few inches away from you – a hand held device, a mobile or whatever – and what content is right for that. There is what you might do in terms of sitting in front of a PC, there is what you might do at your desk or whatever , how you actually work there and what media you consume in that way, and then there is the rather more passive, sit back and sit quite a distance away from the screen and really be entertained, be immersed in something sort of approach. I think the convergence will be more along those lines, that you’ll still end up with those different devices and different forms of content will work for different ones there but that means thinking about it in a very different way from thinking “Oh, this is made for the web and this is made for TV.” I think those distinctions will break down and go away. Shrikala’s follow up: So you think we’ll continue to see people carrying radios and newspapers and watching the news on TV? Well, I think you will have people who are carrying a mobile device which is capable of receiving the radio and I think you can see that happening – you only have to look at the iphone and see that is the beginning of how some of that can actually come together, so you will see that happening. I think in terms of “Is there a role for newspapers in the future?” There is still a role – what newspapers are having to do is to change in terms of kind of content they offer. It becomes more about lifestyle and comment and less about news in terms of the overall package, and there’s a place for that- for people to read at weekends, when they are traveling, those sorts of times- that works and its actually quite a convenient package for being to operate in that kind of way. You know- you’ve got it in your hand and there’s a kind of aesthetic pleasure to it. So I think newspapers are having to re-invent themselves very quickly and in quite difficult circumstances but I think there is still a role for that as long as they can make the economics add up in terms of the costs of printing and distribution and so on, which is a very, very expensive business. Shrikala’s follow up: so for economic success newspapers will have to decrease distribution costs and increase advertising? Well clearly, the economic model there is under pressure in terms of what you can actually do: there is the cost of providing the content, the cost of then distributing it and what you can actually get back in terms of either advertising revenue or the actual costs of buying the publication. I think there will still be a place for that and people will find a way of making that work but they will have to change what they do in terms of the type of content, and continue to do that, and think about how you actually go about doing that – what kind of printing and distribution? Show less »

Answered by David Leigh

I still get the leeway to go and research stories. A lot of what you read on the Guardian's website is the product of heavy research. In some ways we can do more on the website than we can in the paper.... Show more »I still get the leeway to go and research stories. A lot of what you read on the Guardian's website is the product of heavy research. In some ways we can do more on the website than we can in the paper. See our site "The BAE Files" for example. It's opinion journalists who end up interacting all the time with other opinioators. I just try and tell people what's going on.What's to debate with me about that? Show less »

Answered by David Leigh

It depends whether I want to do 'flicking' or serious reading.

Answered by Steve Bennedik

It's difficult for me to judge media restrictions in Portugal. From the British media's point of view, it has hindered coverage, and I believe has been detrimental to the investigation. It has also allowed... Show more »It's difficult for me to judge media restrictions in Portugal. From the British media's point of view, it has hindered coverage, and I believe has been detrimental to the investigation. It has also allowed a vacuum, which has been filled to some extent by speculation both by the Portuguese press and the British media. Show less »

Answered by Abdul Muhammad Bari

Well firstly we have to remember that the proportion of middle-class Muslims are higher in the US than it is here in Britain. More immi-grants with professional backgrounds went to the other side of the... Show more »Well firstly we have to remember that the proportion of middle-class Muslims are higher in the US than it is here in Britain. More immi-grants with professional backgrounds went to the other side of the Pond. Aspiration is higher and opportunities for succeeding more attainable. This is only half the explanation. Yes, there are sections of our community who could be inward looking, but this would be more for socio-economic reasons. There are obstacle to success and we should all work towards removing any barriers. And I would contend that our faith repudiates the politics of separation. We are called upon by our faith to reach out to our neighbours, whatever their faith will be. In fact, Islam places an obligation on Muslims to look af-ter neighbours. Please refer to my book 'Race, Religion and Muslim Iden-tity in Britain' published by Awakening in 2005. Those who use derogatory terms such as 'kuffar' and seek the politics of separation are in a minority, misguided and are not aware of their own faith. For every one person who follows this path, there would be two more who would passionately argue against it. People such as those volunteers behind the www.islamispeace.org.uk campaign. Proud to be British, Proud to be Muslim, and committed to success. We need to encourage that. Show less »

Answered by Jamal Harwood

There is nothing new in this propaganda that merely repeats Tony Blair’s line of argument that there is a link between violence and holding the political ideas of Islam - ideas that carry massive public... Show more »There is nothing new in this propaganda that merely repeats Tony Blair’s line of argument that there is a link between violence and holding the political ideas of Islam - ideas that carry massive public support in theMuslim world. There is also a lack of any serious intellectual challenge from the likes of Hussain - on the one hand they say that they want to challenge our thoughts but then they call for banning - this is indicative of their inability to counter our thoughts. With regard to the proposal for a ban, this has been thoroughly refuted. These are just a few of the many statements made by those that have examined this question. 1. The Association of Chief Police Officers have said that they know "of no intelligence to justify a Hizb ut-Tahrir ban". [http:// politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1647285,00.html] 2. “I see no reason why HT should be banned on the basis of available evidence. I haven’t seen anything suggesting they have apologised for or glorified terrorism. I might not like their views but that doesn’t mean that they are criminal and that is an important distinction we have to make…members are against terror but can provide an insight into why people might become radicalised. It is important to know who one is dealing with in order to formulate a response.” [Bob Beckley, lead spokesman on community policing and counter-terrorism issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)] 3. "We have yet to see convincing evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organisation advocates violence or terrorism." [UK FCO Minister Bill Rammell, Hansard, 19/4/04] 4. "Hizb ut-Tahrir [HT] is an independent political party that is active in many countries across the world. HT's activities centre on intellectual reasoning, logic arguments and political lobbying. The party adheres to the Islamic Shariah law in all aspects of its work. It considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, a violation of the Islamic Shariah." [Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under FOI Act] Show less »

Answered by Jamal Harwood

We work to re-establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world, from where it was the dominant political system for centuries and in which those populations are seeking its return. A recent study by the ... Show more »We work to re-establish the Caliphate in the Muslim world, from where it was the dominant political system for centuries and in which those populations are seeking its return. A recent study by the University of Maryland published in April 2007 has confirmed the trend towards the Caliphate in the Muslim world, with the report stating: “Large majorities in most (Muslim) countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state (Caliphate)." The Caliphate provides a different historical experience to that you refer to from Europe, an experience of great stability and not built on the back of civil war. It is dangerous to frame all Political systems merely from the perspective of European history. Muslims want the Caliphate because it is based on their beliefs and has an historical track record. Attempts to impose western style democracy have failed – and are seen as associated with economic exploitation and political dominance by powerful Western governments. The support of dictators by democratic governments has also lessened respect for and distanced the people from that which you advocate. The Caliphate is a form of governance where authority lies with the people; the ruler is elected and accountable; and the laws are from Islam and not open to manipulation by the wealthiest in society. Show less »

Answered by Salma Yacoob

I agree that there are plenty of issues at home that need sorting out – for example the lack of affordable housing, high unemployment in many deprived areas, inequalities in educational attainment, ... Show more »I agree that there are plenty of issues at home that need sorting out – for example the lack of affordable housing, high unemployment in many deprived areas, inequalities in educational attainment, student debt, pensioners living in poverty, health issues, climate change to name a few. I think it is right that Muslims should care about and act in relation to these with the same passion that some do around issues of foreign policy. I helped form Respect precisely out of these concerns – to address domestic issues, in addition to international issues – to work alongside others from different backgrounds who also shared these concerns. I believe that as responsible citizens all of us - irrespective of whether we are Muslims, Jews, Christians, people of faith or people of no faith - have an obligation to strive for greater democratic accountability over our governments. It is our taxes that finance our foreign policy – that pay for the bombs that fall on people thousands of miles away. It is our government that is acting in our names when it wages war in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming our authority to do so. So, what is happening abroad has everything to do with us here. This is particularly the case for Muslim communities, as much of the current demonisation of Muslims is directly linked with the foreign policy decisions post 9/11. To care about other people, even if they are far away, is a basic expression of humanity. I think it is much better that people are concerned about the suffering of others, whether it is issues of war or Third World Debt, than that they harden their hearts to it. Furthermore, it is a sad truth that many of these problems arise from decisions made here. Not speaking up in my opinion makes us complicit in these injustices. The principle for me is to be consistent in standing against injustice in all its forms. Show less »