Mayor of London Ken Livingstone answers questions from ePolitix.com readers.

Nick Drew, Wolverhampton - With the residents of Edinburgh having recently voted decisively against congestion charging in their city, where do you think that leaves the concept of schemes, similar to that in London, for other major cities like Birmingham or Manchester? And why do you think the people of Edinburgh were so opposed to the idea?

Ken Livingstone: Irrespective of the results of one referendum, the reality is that with rising car ownership and a limited amount of road space, cities will have to find ways to ration the use of the roads or they will face gridlock.

Cities from around the world have been monitoring the London scheme and many are considering their own versions to tackle their own congestion problems: most major cities recognise that to do nothing is no longer an option.

The success of the congestion charge in London continues to be very clear to those who live, visit and work here.

It has successfully made the city cleaner, safer and more pleasant by reducing congestion by 30 per cent in the zone and reducing traffic emissions by 12 per cent, all without causing negative traffic consequences around the zone.

Roger, London - Can you tell me why exactly you feel the need to put the congestion charge up from £5 to £8? Is it to reduce congestion in the city, or to make sure you won't get into financial difficulty if you want to expand the scheme into Kensington and Chelsea?

Ken Livingstone: The congestion charge has been an unprecedented success in dramatically reducing congestion, pollution and accidents. The reliability of bus services has been transformed by the fall in traffic. We need to maintain and build upon this.

I am proposing one large increase in this mayoral term to maintain the effectiveness of the charge in reducing congestion and to raise additional revenues to further reduce congestion as part of Transport for London's £10bn, five-year investment programme.

Peter Simpson - Why have Tube fares been increased by way over 10 per cent this year, well in excess of the inflation rate, and how is this compatible with any policy of encouraging the use of public transport?

Ken Livingstone: Tube fares were raised by four per cent, not 10 per cent, last January.

Over the last four years London has become the first major city in the world to effect a shift from the private car to public transport. Important factors driving this included the improvements in bus services and the fact that I have held down fares as much possible.

I raised fares in January in order to help fund a £10bn investment programme which will transform London's transport system.

Even after the January fare increases, bus fares in London are lower than Paris, New York and most British cities.

James Tyrrell, London Retail Consortium - What do you think is the most equitable source of private funding for Crossrail that puts the largest cost burdens on those who stand to benefit the most?

Ken Livingstone: I am confident that after years of uncertainty, Crossrail is now on course to becoming a reality.

The government reaffirmed its commitment to the project in February this year by introducing a hybrid Bill to Parliament.

Those who will benefit include the Treasury, which will receive billions of pounds in additional taxes as a result of the boost Crossrail will give to economic growth, business and passengers.

All of these should therefore contribute to the funding of the project.

Martin Curtis - In schools an incident is considered racist if the recipient takes offence. Given that you made two comments to a Jewish reporter who took offence - and indeed told you so after the first comment - do you accept it was racist, or do you feel that the standards set for school children should not apply to you?

Ken Livingstone: I do not believe the comments I made were racist and I believe the majority of Londoners share that view.

I have accepted that they may have caused offence, but I do not agree that offending someone can automatically mean that there has been a racist incident.

Daniel Golding - Crime is becoming a major problem in and around central London, especially amongst our youth. Evidently, Labour are still soft on crime despite all their promises - what would you do to convince the public that they are not?

Ken Livingstone: Overall crime is going down in London. This is in part a result of the increased number of police on our streets.

Since I became mayor the number of police in London has increased by more than 5,000 officers – with a record 30,700 serving officers in the city, and the number still growing.

Polls show that the public are beginning to see more police on the streets, and this increased visibility is providing higher levels of reassurance.

We are also seeing early evidence that the fear of crime is beginning to fall in those areas served by Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

That is why the Safer Neighbourhood Teams of dedicated local police being introduced across the city are so important.

People feel reassured when they have visible local policing, and that is exactly what I, and the Labour government, are committed to providing.

Anthony Burt - Are you worried that, in the light of the proposed new anti-terror laws and the state's ability to lock up people in their homes without producing evidence publicly, our country is on the road to becoming a police state?

Ken Livingstone: If I seriously thought that we were on the way to being a police state I wouldn't be putting large numbers of extra police on the streets!

Ultimately I believe the right of people to be safe and secure in their daily lives, free from the risk of terror attack, is fundamental.

Judicial oversight of anti-terror laws is an important factor in ensuring balance and accountability.

My human rights adviser, Yasmin Qureshi, has argued very forcefully that within the Muslim communities there is widespread concern about the possibility of miscarriages of justice, rather as we saw with the Irish community under the old Prevention of Terrorism Act, and I hope that the government will address these concerns directly with the communities most affected.

However, I do think that the sight of the Tories and Lib Dems flailing about over 'sunset' clauses is pretty embarrassing.

The 'sunset' proposal is a fairly transparent attempt to avoid taking a position one way or another, which is after all the job of the opposition.

George Morran, Campaign for the English Regions - Does the mayor agree that we need strong, devolved, democratically accountable regional government in London and the rest of England, combined with less government from Westminster and Whitehall? And if so, what lessons can we learn from London and the vote which was held in the North East in November?

Ken Livingstone: Naturally I agree that we need strong, devolved regional government.

In just short of five years London government has built up a substantial track record of delivery.

We have 1,000 additional buses on the streets of London carrying over six million passengers a day.

The Congestion Charge has cut traffic in the centre of the city by 30 per cent.

Police numbers are at record levels, with 30,700 officers and the number still rising.

Also, for the first time in a generation London has a strategic planning and development framework to shape the future of the city.

I strongly support the campaigns in the English regions for greater democratic control over key policy and investment decisions.

The London experience proves that this can only improve the lives of local people.

The result of the North East referendum was a setback but it should not be seen as the end of the move towards more devolution.

The case must continue to be made for real devolution of powers to regions. It may be argued that one of the reasons for the 'No' vote in the North East was the lack of clarity about the powers of the proposed assembly.

Specifically I would argue that the experience and achievements of devolution to London to date provide powerful evidence that any proposed devolved institutions should be furnished with genuine powers to affect the lives of the communities they would serve.