Question: Has the Brent East result changed your outlook on Labour's prospects in next year's mayoral race?

Nicky Gavron: The result wasn't good for Labour and I don't want to minimise the knock back.

I think we are going to learn the lessons from Brent very fast and so no, I don't think it's got huge implications for the election next June.

I did find on the doorstep that there was protest against the Iraq war but I also know that people really wanted to talk about local issues as well.

I've been a community activist for about 30 years, a community campaigner and I think that we didn't get out and speak to enough voters, we didn't listen enough to them.

My whole style is to really take on board Londoners' concerns, to listen to them and understand what their issues are.

Labour is really the party of community so clearly we've got to get back to our roots and get out and engage with people more.

Question: Is that to say that the party didn't engage enough in Brent?

Nicky Gavron: I think we had a good campaign but it's true that we didn't engage effectively enough.

Question: Do you think Ken Livingstone's close association with the Labour campaign in Brent will further confuse voters as to who is the Labour candidate?

Nicky Gavron: Ken's involvement in Brent East was a very clear and obvious one.

The fact that Brent East came up was because of the tragic death of Paul Daisley and the previous MP in people's minds was Ken Livingstone. It was an important endorsement.

Certainly I'm hoping that Ken's going to stick to his word and support Labour candidates in the GLA elections next year.

And if he does that, I'd be happy to support his return to the party after his ban is up on that basis.

Question: Are you still urging your supporters to transfer their second votes to Livingstone?

Nicky Gavron: I think that is very important in terms of not splitting the vote.

One of the reasons I put my name forward was to avoid splitting the vote.

It is very important to not underestimate London's voters.

They will realise that they've got two votes in next year's election.

Question: Is it the role of the candidates to say where their second preferences should be going?

Nicky Gavron: Every voter has a choice about where their second preference goes.

Indeed they have a choice whether they cast a second preference.

However, obviously I will recommend that people who support me use their second vote for Livingstone. And he is saying a similar message.

Question: Given that you are seen as the pro-Livingstone voice within the London Labour Party, why do you think you were dropped as deputy mayor?

Nicky Gavron: The Labour group and myself on the Assembly have worked constructively with Ken in recent years so, yes, I was quite exasperated about that. But it has a silver lining because of course it has enabled me to get on with my campaign.

You will shortly be seeing the fruits of the last few months of not being deputy mayor.

He did it because he is starting his election campaign early and he's calculated that he wants the Green vote.

Question: But you are still quite happy for him to return to the Labour Party even though you feel he has not done everything by Labour that, in your view, he could?

Nicky Gavron: Lets get it clear, if he sticks to his pledge to support Labour candidates for the GLA, I'm happy to support his return to the party after the five-year ban is up.

Question: What are the key policy differences that mark you out from your rival candidates?

Nicky Gavron: The thing I want to say first is that I've been working on policies and initiatives for London longer than any other candidates.

That's actually why Ken chose me to be his strategic planning adviser and to lead on the London plan.

I've also been in always thinking of the next agenda for London.

Right through the '90s as chair of the London Planning Advisory Committee, I was working very closely with boroughs of all political persuasions, to develop the cutting edge policies that we've only just started to put into our strategies at the GLA.

We've only just started to implement them.

I'm now of course working on the next set of policies and London does need much more radical policies.

Our problem at the moment is that, although we have a rising population, too many Londoners are now leaving London and we've got to stem that.

They are leaving because of the cost of housing. They are leaving because of the state of the environment and the streets particularly, they are leaving because of crime, and they are leaving because of transport.

And I am going to produce policies which will address that.

Question: Can you say anything more about what those policies might be and how they might differ from the other candidates?

Nicky Gavron: Well so far neither Steve Norris or Simon Hughes has said anything much about their policies.

Question: Steve Norris has said he will scrap the congestion charge and both he and Simon Hughes have said they will put more police on the streets.

Nicky Gavron: Well there is a complete consensus about putting more police on the streets. You couldn't put a fag paper between any of the candidates on that. The question is how you do it.

Labour is looking at moving by the end of the second term to more like 35,000 police.

This would mean six officers per ward. It's a combination of sergeants, constables and police community support officers.

I notice though that Simon Hughes - who should really be called the Mayor of Wonderland - has just pledged himself to eight officers per ward without any money to pay for it.

I don't think the Lib Dems have got a clue about how you pay for any of their recent pledges.

And I'm not quite clear that Norris is saying anything very specific yet. No wonder he doesn't want to talk much about policy. The Tory record is always one of slashing public spending.

Question: In terms of being specific, is scrapping the congestion charge not a specific proposal? Are you as happy to defend the charge as the mayor?

Nicky Gavron: I commissioned the research which resulted in the congestion charge when I was chair of the London Planning Advisory Committee.

I worked with boroughs over two years to produce the Traffic Reduction Strategy, which had congestion charging as one, albeit a very important one, of eight different transport measures to really make London work.

And the mayor actually made me his deputy mayor partly because he wanted me to help him see though the introduction of congestion charging.

I support congestion charging. But you have to remember that it is only functioning in central London.

And central London is unique in the UK in having very good public transport.

The whole point of it was to free up road space so that public and other forms of transport could run more smoothly and also to improve the look and feel of London's streets, particularly for pedestrians.

However, there is congestion all over London. There is much more serious congestion in other parts of London, especially outer London, than there was in central London pre-congestion charging.

And this is because traffic is rising at enormous rates in outer London whereas it is static in central and inner London.

Also outer London is where most journeys begin and where public transport is poorest.

There is a huge job to be done in terms of improving public transport all over London.

We also need to fine tune congestion charging. But this can only be done when we have new technology.

This will make it possible to make a fairer charge based on differential charging for different times of day, different journey lengths and different fuel use.

Question: Has the problem of congestion in outer London been exacerbated by the charging in inner London?

Nicky Gavron: No I don't think that's the case at all. However, I do believe there is really still a massive amount to be done with buses.

Of course I welcome what's already been achieved in buses. Usage today is now at its highest since the early 70s.

The real problem with bus transport is about how the contracts have been negotiated.

At the moment the only people who are benefiting from the way the contracts have been negotiated are the operators who seem to be getting very big profits.

I don't think the passengers and the drivers and the other bus workers have benefited.

Now most of these bus contracts, 80 per cent of them, will come up for renewal over the next four years. So there is lots of room for improvement and I'm looking very carefully at that.

I'm also looking at a whole new way of thinking about bus transport in London.

I don't think we can continue as we have with just better enforced bus lanes and more buses. We need a step change. A theme you will see me return to later in my campaign.

Question Why can't Crossrail be delivered in time for the Olympics in 2012?

Nicky Gavron: It would be a great shame if we don't get it delivered for the Olympics. Crossrail is about more than just the Olympics, it is crucial for London as a whole.

And that is one of the things I am pressing the government on.

Question: Is this not indicative of the kind of lack of ambition in big public projects that makes Britain less likely to win an Olympics?

Nicky Gavron: There are two points that I want to make.

First of all do we lack the ambition to deliver these big projects.

The point of having a mayor is that there is somebody in place who can really accelerate what is happening to London.

And I would say even over the last three years, one of Londoners' concerns and one of my concerns has been that we haven't had a fast enough pace of change.

And I do think it is absolutely critical that the mayor is able to make political alliances, to work closely with government and every government department and to be able to deliver actually what is needed.

My second point is that - and this comes back to Crossrail being a very big scheme which needs funding - London is the richest city in Europe and arguably, if you take inner London, one of the richest cities in any part of the world.

And yet it doesn't have the ability to really help itself.

If regional government - and this is a prototype for regional government - is really going to work, it's got to be given much more power and resources.

One of the things I'm going to really argue for is more trust and more autonomy for the GLA, and I would like to see that extended to the boroughs too.

A radical shift of power to local and regional government.

There is a huge opportunity for the GLA to be a catalyst for a whole new set of functions for the boroughs.

Question: You've mentioned crime as being one of your priorities. Are you happy to be associated with David Blunkett's tough on crime message and his dismissal of civil liberties?

Nicky Gavron: I'm very keen to associate myself with everything David Blunkett has said about stronger and safer communities.

Trust has to be built on the engagement of local people.

I was at a meeting of the Haringey Peace Alliance last night, where David Blunkett was speaking. They are now holding their third peace week.

The meeting recognised the great progress being made in bringing down violent crime.

But nevertheless there is a big problem with gun crime and drugs related crime.

And we have been working with a whole set of initiatives and partnerships there to make sure that everybody is working together.

Local people, ordinary people in their community, who in fact are extraordinary in many ways, and what they have all done is work for peace and non-violence in their own neighbourhoods.

And his messages there are absolutely spot-on.

I absolutely believe that you are not going to crack crime unless you can make people feel safe enough to actually report it, that you support witnesses.

These are some of the things that are now being pushed by Labour.

I would also like to say that there is a huge concern from women in London about safety.

I commissioned a poll on this and although men also feel unsafe at night, women particularly feel unsafe.

One of the strands of my campaign is really to do something about women's safety.Question: Might that be an advantage of yours in the race, that you are the only leading female candidate?

Nicky Gavron: Londoners want a choice. It's not just that I am the only woman and mother in the election, I am also very different in all sorts of other ways.

For instance, the other three have spent the best part of their lives in the Westminster village, while I cut my teeth as a community activist and only came late to elected politics.

And I've absolutely wanted to see London government restored from the minute I became a councillor and worked for that.

And worked on policies and initiatives to make London better.

Question: Might that hold you back in the sense that you haven't had the same profile that Westminster has provided Livingstone, Hughes and Norris?

Nicky Gavron: I don't dispute that Westminster has provided them with a profile that I haven't yet got. But I don't see that as a disadvantage.

I am known in London's communities, across London.

Londoners are getting pretty fed up with personality politics. This election should really be a celebration of all the different views we have about the future of London, not about personality.

My greatest challenge in the next nine months is for all of us as candidates to make this campaign about the issues that matter to Londoner's rather than pleasing our own egos.

If we can manage that, then there really would be a debate that Londoner's could get involved with.

Question: Local government minister Nick Raynsford has said he doesn't want to see any more council tax rises. How would you get Londoner's bills down?

Nicky Gavron: It's very complicated this because of course the council tax is based on property.

And because of the distortion in house prices you can people on very low incomes with actually a pretty expensive house and a very high council tax bill.

As far as the GLA is concerned, it goes back to what I was saying earlier.

Which is that London, the engine of the UK economy, is running with a ball and chain on its foot.

Because the only way it can raise money is through fares and we are trying to be redistributive.

Putting up fares would have to be a last resort because our transport is very expensive as it is.

The second thing is that the council tax puts us on a collision course with boroughs which is the last thing we need.

There have to be other ways of raising money in London, or enabling London to capitalise on the fact that there is a willingness I think, in the business community, for us to find other ways of raising money.

And I think the work on looking at the way infrastructure investment, particularly transport infrastructure, the big schemes and so on, immediately gives a windfall gain to the property developers round about and the landowners.

There is a complete acceptance that there should be some way of capturing that value in order to securities loans and add to the investment in the infrastructure.