In many ways it was important to see the near media monopoly of the big two parties being challenged by Nick Clegg in the leaders' debate. It is an important voice for people to hear, and a different face from Brown and Cameron. But it is far from the only 'different' voice. And many voters are crying out for a real alternative. Green Party Leader, Caroline Lucas, would have provided both a fresh voice and a very different perspective. Fresh from her latest triumph on Question Time, Caroline would have taken all three of them to task - and provided a real alternative. On safeguarding our public services, on tackling climate change and on creating new jobs.

What these leader debates fail to illustrate is the large consensus amongst the main parties. Caroline would not have shared any 'I agree with Nick' moments over his views on staying in Afghanistan, privatisation or 'savage' cuts to the public sector. The democratic debate has definitely widened by including the Lib Dems in the leader debates, but on issues like Afghanistan, the three Westminster parties completely fail to represent the majority voice of ordinary people who want us to withdraw. It is amazing that the media play along with this farce, despite the daily casualties on both sides of the conflict and the lack of any political strategy to get us out of this mess. Commentators like Johan Hari have complained about the bloody silence at the heart of this election, just as transport commentators have lamented the failure to discuss road pricing and campaigners in London have found their concerns over air pollution being ignored. The Friends of the Earth reaction to the leaders debate was to worry about the lack of any mention of the environment, not even the creation of a green economy based upon investment in free insulation schemes and renewable energy.

A long list of issues has been sidelined as a result of the two horse race electoral system. Many NGOs, trade unions and small business groups have struggled to raise the concerns of their members, as the big two tell them that things will be worse if the other lot get in. I think that a real opportunity is now opening up for people to vote for who they want to, rather than settling for the least worst option. NGOs are providing online tracking the views of the candidates and you can even find websites which enable you to do a simple policy comparison test. All these tools will help you make a decision about which party's policies match your own opinions, but only if the electorate is prepared to vote for a party they like, rather than against a party they don't like.

It is becoming clear to a large section of the population that a hung Parliament is the best solution. The electorate are fed up with being taken for a ride by the main Westminster parties and a hung Parliament seems to reflect a desire for reform. It allows a space for a public debate on real constitutional reform: proportional representation, electing a second chamber, voter recall for MPs and more devolved powers for Scotland, Wales and local authorities. Even a small group of Green Party MPs would make a big impact on a hung Parliament and the debate about reforming our failed system of government. I hope that many of you will seize that opportunity.

"Darren was the first elected politician to support the cross-party Campaign for Clean Air in London and give it credibility. Without question, Darren's vision for a better London and his willingness to lead on challenging issues like air pollution, continue to make a real difference to the lives of Londoners. Darren's green credentials and leadership skills are impeccable."

Simon Birkett, founder of the Campaign for Clean Air in London

I described the ongoing fight to take action on London's appalling air pollution in this week's Independent on Sunday:

London's air pollution is the worst in the country and among the worst in the EU. Since being elected to the London Assembly a decade ago, I have been warning about the prospect of massive EU fines if we did not get to grips with air pollution in the capital. Ten years on, the EU Commission is pursuing legal action because of London's failure to reach targets on air quality. It is not just a matter of a £300m fine. Leading health experts believe there are 3,000 premature deaths in London each year as a result of air pollution.

Why was our capital city allowed to get into this mess? The previous mayor, Ken Livingstone, did not act quickly enough. But, to be fair to him, we did at least see measures being introduced: congestion charging, a London-wide Low Emissions Zone which set more stringent emissions standards for buses, taxis and lorries, and a traffic reduction policy.

However, even Transport for London's own calculations showed that these would not be enough to bring London's air quality in line with EU targets. One would have assumed, therefore, that the new mayor, Boris Johnson, would have spent the past two years looking at what was needed. Instead, the opposite has happened. He has cancelled or delayed measures that the previous administration introduced. The western zone of the congestion charge is about to be scrapped. The third phase of the Low Emission Zone, which was to apply to vans, has been delayed by two years. The six-monthly pollution checks on black cabs has been scrapped.

The mayor made some rash policy commitments during his election campaign but he now needs to start thinking about the realities of air pollution. It is a matter of life or death.

On Friday morning I was at the Waldron Health Centre in New Cross for the launch of our policy for health and the NHS.

We invited members of Lewisham Pensioners' Forum and Deptford Action Group for the Elderly to join us, since both these groups share the Green Party's opposition to the way Labour has opened up the NHS, our most vital and cherished public service, to profit-seeking private companies.

Harry from Deptford Action Group, wearing his trademark DAGE baseball cap, is a familiar figure in Deptford and he got familiar with me pretty quickly: "Never mind holding up bloody signs, taking bloody photos - we need action!"

I couldn't agree more - as I said to Harry, (who did join us for a photo, like the good sport he is) the best way to get some action on the state of local health services is to vote Green, naturally!

Like DAGE and the LPF, I believe in the founding principles of the NHS: a universal health service, free at the point of use, that is publicly owned and run.

It's not that the NHS doesn't need to change, however. After a photocall outside the building, I was shown round the walk-in GP centre that has recently opened at the Waldron, and was impressed with the service they offer.

The manager, Stella Wifa, explained that anyone, whether or not they are registered as a patient, can turn up and ask to see a GP, without an appointment. The centre is open from 8am to 8pm, and being situated across the road from New Cross station, it's convenient for people who want to drop in on the way to or from work.

This kind of flexibility is clearly what people need, so it's good to see services offered which meet that need; what I find less convincing is the argument that only the private sector can deliver this kind of service.

The walk-in centre is run by Hurley Group, a GP-led company with several practices across south London, under contract to the NHS. A representative from Lewisham Primary Care Trust was quick to point out that the service provided by the group under this contract is rigorously monitored. I'm sure it is. But as I see it, that's exactly the problem - experienced health professionals are spending their time, and our money, on contract monitoring and assessment, on legal advisors and bureaucratic supervision, rather than on frontline services. One GP I've talked to reckons that NHS managers would have spent up to a year on the tendering process for the walk-in centre contract.

If medical professionals are spending their valuable time on admin, and NHS money is being spent on the managers and administrators needed to oversee contracts, I can't see how private-sector involvement in NHS services can be good for patients in the long run.

What we need in Lewisham, as in the UK as a whole, is an NHS that puts patients first - a truly public service, not a private business.

The decision by a planning inspector overturns an earlier five-to-one vote by the Council's planning committee to turn down Big Yellow's plan. This is the wrong facility in the wrong place, and this decision to overrule elected councillors is bad news for Brockley. Lewisham Way should be a vibrant high street for the area, not a location for warehousing and storage. Local people say they don't need another storage facility and want to protect the existing local jobs on the site.

I was joined on the panel by Rys Farthing from the Child Poverty Action Group and Neil Jameson of London Citizens, in what turned out to be a very interesting and productive session.

Rys discussed the reductive philosophy of the "work first" movement, which means many people are forced off benefits and into inappropriate jobs with unsociable hours, which leave them no better off financially and often unable to care properly for their children. Neil focussed on the way in which ever-widening gap between rich and poor causes "a destruction of civic virtue."

I went on to discuss the importance of implementing a carefully calculated Living Wage for all workers and that paying workers higher wages reaps its rewards for employers as well as employees. Unsurprisingly, research shows that people who are paid a reasonable wage are more motivated and thus work harder and are less likely to leave their jobs.

A more equal society really is a happier, more productive society. Greens are campaigning wherever they can to secure a Living Wage for as many workers as possible. In the longer term, a Green government would also bring with it 1 million green jobs.

Air pollution disappeared off the priority list of most political parties and campaign groups around the time when the European standards were agreed and the target dates set, in 1998.

The government's approach since the late 1990s has been to reassure the public that things can only get better and everything is going to be okay. That complacency has carried through to 2010, despite the fact that Londoners have been breathing illegal air for the last five years, with a failure to reduce particulate pollution (PM10) below the European limit values.

The only hope for a rapid improvement in London's environment seems to be the European Commission taking the UK government to court. A major step towards that happening occurred when the Commission turned down the UK government's application for a time extension to 2011.

The previous London mayor, Ken Livingstone, should have acted earlier to introduce the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) and near-zero emission black cabs. However, his successor, Boris Johnson, is proposing to delay action against thousands of the most polluting white vans (LEZ stage 3), and he has already scrapped the six-monthly inspections of black cabs which had previously resulted in over 2,000 being temporarily taken off the road for failing to meet minimum standards.

Ken Livingstone did at least reduce traffic in London and make us the only major city in the world to achieve such a significant shift from the car to public transport. Boris Johnson is putting that success at risk with a massive hike in bus fares, fewer buses and the proposed abolition of the western extension of the congestion charge.

Whilst the new mayor has taken several backwards steps in tackling traffic and pollution, he has got some good ideas in his much-delayed air quality strategy. The key proposal to ensure compliance with European standards is simply closing ‘hotspot' major roads during episodes of high pollution.

The mayor is currently consulting the boroughs on this, but there are some very busy roads in central and inner London which exceed the PM10 limit values and could be closed at a day's notice.

If the European Commission refuses the time extension for PM10, then road closures in London will probably be needed this summer. The government will also have to consider overturning the mayor's decision to delay stage 3 of the LEZ and to stick to the existing November 2010 start date.

Even if the government and mayor avoid the estimated £300m in fines for the failure on PM10, they face the even bigger problem of NO2 pollution. Millions of Londoners live in areas which do not comply with European limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which begin this year. The assumption made by both the mayor and government is that they will be granted a time extension to 2015 to fix the problem.

That assumption is clear folly. The mayor estimates that his draft air quality strategy needs an additional £70m to £90m of government money, but even that won't achieve compliance by 2015.

The complacency has got to end, and there must be a much more transparent debate about the scale of the problem.

For example, it appears that the health impacts have been understated throughout the last decade. The previous London mayor calculated that there were around 1,000 premature deaths as a result of air pollution. This is currently being revised upwards, with an emerging consensus that it is more like 3,000 premature deaths a year, and as high as 6,000 if we apply the precautionary principle.

We need technology solutions, such as all buses being hybrids from 2012 onwards - a measure which I pushed through as part of the Greens' budget deal with the previous mayor.

However, the best way to reduce air pollution and to reduce CO2 emissions is simply to reduce traffic, and that will take the kind of political bravery that we saw when the congestion charge was first introduced.

The impact of this on Londoners will be immediate. Many of the poorest are paying more, whilst the environment suffers as traffic and pollution rise. The real tragedy of this fare rise is that it could have been avoided if Boris had made the right environmental choices, such as keeping the planned £25 emissions charge on gas guzzlers and retaining the western extension of the congestion charge. By putting car drivers before bus passengers he could wreck one of London's green success stories.

You lose local democratic control of your curriculum, teacher numbers, salaries and building programmes in return for a very small amount of funding.

If you want £800k from the Mayor to regenerate your community, call loud and clear for it to be spent on something that will really help young people find work. Why not new apprenticeships or jobs in much-needed areas like insulation?

Parents, teachers and young people have recently lost control of a local school in Enfield. Don't let it happen to you.

The fare increase raises around a £125m, but Transport for London own estimates are that the Mayor's cancellation of the western extension of the congestion charge will lose them £50m to £70m in revenue. The Mayor's decision to cancel the extra congestion charge for gas guzzlers means another £30m lost. The bulk of the fare rise therefore appears to be a straight forward switch from car drivers paying, to public transport users paying.

Loading the bulk of the increases onto bus users also discriminates against the less well off. The only thing that bus users get in return for paying extra is a big cut in bus services and the wasteful policy of replacing perfectly good bendy buses with a lot of smaller ones.

The attitudes that lead to such violence, harassment and verbal abuse are learned young, so we all have a responsibility to teach young people to respect others and celebrate difference.

But I have discovered that not one school in Lewisham held events this year to mark LGBT History Month, an annual celebration of the valuable contribution gay people make to society and of their long struggle for civil rights. If schools and teachers shy away from celebrating gay people through events which bust myths and honour the gay rights story, how can we expect those disturbing crime figures to fall in future?

Next February's council plans for LGBT History Month look more promising, but it is still not clear that a single local school will host its own event for students which sends the clear message that gay is okay and homophobia is as stupid and unacceptable as any other prejudice.

But Boris Johnson loathes them and pledged to get rid of them. That election pledge looks more and more rash as time goes on. Latest to criticise Boris is the RAC Foundation  which points out that bendies can carry more people more quickly than double deckers ever can.

Getting rid of bendy buses is proving hugely expensive and will also mean more congestion, more pollution and more c02 emissions. I've been very annoyed so far but I'll be furious when he tries to remove the Lewisham to Paddington 436 bendy bus at the end of my road. What a brilliant improvement it has been having bendy buses on this route, compared to the days of the old routemaster when we had to put up with freezing cold, overcrowded juddery old bangers.

I want bendy buses to be cleaner but let's run them on used vegetable oil like Stockholm City Council and numerous other cities do.

Life under Ken

Of course, we spent the first eight years with Ken Livingstone as Mayor. And over some issues the Greens did have some furious rows with Ken. But there was quite a lot we were able to agree on, particularly in Ken's second term where he relied on the votes of the two Green Members to get his budget through. We drove a hard bargain with Ken Livingstone over that period and succeeded in getting a package of measures through - tripling the London cycling budget, for example; setting up a Living Wage unit to tackle low pay; and securing millions of pounds for a new green homes service.

Life under Boris

Ken Livingstone was swept from power in the 2008 elections, however. Although the Green vote held firm, we thus found ourselves with Boris Johnson as Mayor, who clearly came from a very different political direction than Ken Livingstone.

While it is true to say that City Hall has not collapsed in total chaos, if we look at Boris Johnson's actual record over the past eighteen months there is little to suggest he will be leaving behind a healthy legacy. There have been some welcome adhoc initiatives like tree planting and campaigning for a migrants' amnesty. But we have not seen anything that remotely resembles a clear and coherent vision for London. Moreover, the list of projects that have been scrapped or cut back has given real cause for alarm. In his first year the Mayor abandoned the next phase of the Low Emission Zone, scrapped the higher congestion charge for the most polluting vehicles, cut funding for the London Cycle Network, frozen the bus expansion programme, put up fares and cancelled work on a whole swathe of new public transport projects.

Holding the Mayor to account

All this has certainly given the Assembly a lot to scrutinise. And although Boris Johnson won a clear majority as Mayor, the Conservatives did not win a majority of seats on the 25-member London Assembly. Last year, therefore the Assembly voted to have a Labour Chair and a Green Deputy. And this year the position was reversed so that I am now Chair with a Labour Deputy. One of my key roles in this position is chairing the monthly Mayor's Question Time, where Assembly members get to grill the Mayor. It's a bit like Prime Minister's Question Time in the Commons, but whereas that lasts half an hour each week, Mayor's Question Time runs for two and a half hours every month and allows for more in-depth questioning on a wider range of issues. The Mayor has recently had to face a barrage of critical questions from Labour, Lib-Dem and Green members, for example, over his decision to scrap bendy buses and replace them with twice as many ordinary buses, leading to extra costs and extra pollution. It is often the case that one political group will begin questioning him on an issue and the others will come in behind. Even a number of the Conservative Members have been giving him a hard time lately - unhappy that he's not being right-wing enough!

I also chair any other full plenary sessions of the Assembly, too. Although much of the Assembly's work is done in individual committees we do have sessions for the whole Assembly on transport, policing and the Olympics for example, where again AMs get the chance to question the relevant commissioners.

An unwelcome presence
Since 2008 we have also had one BNP member of the Assembly to contend with. Thankfully, there is virtually unanimous agreement that he has made virtually no impact whatsoever and a number of commentators have contrasted how little the BNP have achieved on the Assembly compared to how much influence the Greens have had. I was certainly pleased to see them dip below 5% in London at the European elections as that will mean they will lose their representation on the Assembly if they repeat this performance at the next GLA elections.

Making a difference
The Assembly has been criticised for being a toothless talking shop. I would certainly like it to have more powers. It should have the power to amend the Mayor's strategies, for example, just as it can amend the Mayor's budget by a two-thirds majority. But although the Assembly's formal powers are limited, as a body it has had a major influence in a number of areas. The Assembly was first to look at smoking in public places, for example, paving the way for national legislation. The Government changed planning legislation to combat the flooding problems caused by people paving over their front gardens, directly as a result of an investigation I chaired. And there is a long list of other successes. The Assembly is having a positive impact on life in the capital - and Greens have been playing a key part in that.

Firstly, its really good exercise especially for someone like me who needs to lose a bit of weight. And secondly, it's a really good way of getting out and about around the local area and chatting to people. So if you see me hovering about your street don't hesitate to grab me if you've got any ideas, concerns or suggestions!

Finally, if you can help us to deliver some contact Sue Luxton.

But this was completely different. In a packed public meeting at the Leander Community Centre in Ship Street, local people got to vote on what projects they wanted funded in Brockley Ward from the Mayor's Fund. Those presenting the proposals got to say how their project would benefit the area, people got to ask questions and afterwards everyone got to vote in a secret ballot. Ten projects were approved last night. These include a youth music studio for the Leander Community Centre, two projects for older people, planting in a flytipping hotspot in St Donnatt's Road, more litter bins around Brockley and St Johns, a community recycling site in Tanners Hill, film equipment for the Vulcan Youth Club, planting of ornamental beds next to Brockley station and refurbishing a meeting room for tenants and residents at Alder House/ Lilac House on Breakspears Road.

The agreed projects now go to a meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet to be formally signed off but it has been local people coming up with the ideas and local people deciding how the money should be spent.

As a London Assembly Member I chaired an investigation last year that showed that at the current rate of progress it would take 65 years to insulate London's homes. We drastically need to speed things up with a national programme and this bill would achieve just that.

In Lewisham it is estimated that over 9,000 pensioners are forced to spend the winter in just one room because they can't afford to pay their heating bills. 3,000 have to make an unbelievable choice between heating their homes properly or eating properly. And 80 pensioners are estimated to die in our borough each year because of fuel poverty. The Fuel Poverty Bill could help prevent all of this as well as drastically reducing CO2 emissions. But Joan Ruddock as Energy Minister led the Government's attempts to wreck the bill when it was first put before the Commons back in March.

In the current climate when people are feeling so disillusioned with the political process it was good to see around 80 people at this meeting. Proof that people are passionate about the issues but feel so let down by their current crop of MPs.

The Bill comes back before the House on 12 June. Certainly the mood in Lewisham Deptford last night was that Joan Ruddock should back the bill not wreck it.

With elections to the European Parliament coming up on June 4th I am sure many people are wondering whether it's worth bothering to vote at all. But that worries me. If the turnout is really low it makes it easier for the BNP to win a seat. So to decent people who cannot bear the thought of voting Labour, Conservative or Lib-Dem this time, I urge them to think about voting Green. Not only will this help Jean Lambert, London's Green Party MEP, get re-elected it is also a positive vote for the future.

As we said in our election broadcast the other night if you don't want things to continue as they are, if you think fairness, integrity and the environment belong in politics...then think about voting for us.

If you missed the broadcast you can watch it here.

Don't stay at home - vote Green!

The story began back in 2001. When confronted with the problem of a failing secondary school at Telegraph Hill, the Labour-run council decided to close it down and demolish it. Surprise, surprise, when the school was closed down there was then a shortage of secondary school places. Few disputed that the school was not performing well but closing it down and deliberately creating a shortage of places must count as one of the most monumentally stupid decisions in the history of local government. A strong community campaign rapidly took off and, under pressure from this, Labour did a U-turn and went into the 2002 local elections promising a new school.

The search for a site, however, proved somewhat more complicated. The original site chosen, at Ladywell Playtower and the old police station next door, fell through. The Labour Mayor, Steve Bullock, then made the unbelievable decision to knock down Ladywell Leisure Centre and build a school on that site. This would have left central Lewisham without a swimming pool for several years and opposition councillors and the local community were furious. We campaigned hard to call for a rethink and urged the Mayor to consider alternatives. One of the alternative sites that opposition councillors urged the Mayor to look at was the Lewisham Bridge Primary school site, on the basis that this was large enough to accommodate both primary and secondary school provision. For two years the Mayor refused to budge and stuck doggedly to the Ladywell Leisure Centre site, even after Labour had lost a swathe of council seats in the 2006 elections. However, given Labour had lost their overall majority we opposition councillors (now the majority) re-presented our motion urging the Mayor to examine alternative sites and save the swimming pool - and this time we were successful. Independent consultants were brought in and recommended Lewisham Bridge Primary school as the site for the new school. The Mayor accepted this. Opposition councillors, the New School Campaign and the Save Ladywell Pool campaign were overjoyed. The leisure centre was saved and a new school was finally set to happen.

It is therefore why I find it curious that the Socialist Party councillors are now campaigning so vociferously against Lewisham Bridge as the site for the new school. As opposition councillors we worked together on joint motions urging the Mayor to consider Lewisham Bridge as a site for a new school. Before the 2006 local elections Socialist Party councillors joined myself, other opposition councillors and local campaigners in a photo opportunity outside Lewisham Bridge Primary - urging the Mayor to make this the site for the new secondary school, not Ladywell Leisure Centre. I would be the first to admit that Lewisham Bridge may not be the perfect site for a new school. But, as the last decade has shown, finding a site has never been easy. The choice was not between Lewisham Bridge and the perfect site. The choice was between the Ladywell Leisure Centre site and the Lewisham Bridge site and the right choice has been made. That is why all councillors unanimously passed the following motion at full council in 2006.

"This Council wholeheartedly endorses the decision by Mayor and Cabinet to select Lewisham Bridge as its preferred site for the new school to create an all-through 3-16 integrated school. This Council therefore agrees to work constructively with Mayor and Cabinet to minimise the risks associated with this project and overcome any potential obstacles in order to ensure the new school is delivered by the target date of 2010.

This Council also wishes to congratulate the long-standing and vigorous campaign run by the Save Ladywell Campaign and The School for New Cross/Local Education by Parents groups. In particular this council commends the significant roles played by both Max Calo and former Councillor Helen Le Fevre".

Normally, I am in favour of protecting old buildings and preserving our heritage but I do think English Heritage's recent decision to list Lewisham Bridge Primary School is a mistake. We have already spent almost a decade trying to find a site for new secondary school provision in Lewisham. If we cannot have Lewisham Bridge as a site for a new all-through school we could be waiting many more years for the new secondary school places that are desperately needed.

Like others I am dismayed that the Government blocked plans to make the new school a local authority-run school. It will therefore be run as a federation with the long-running Prendergast but at least it won't be one of those awful academies and at least Prendergast conforms to the borough's admissions policy. While I fully expect a future Green government to ensure every publicly funded school anywhere in the country is taken into local authority control, as my Green colleague Cllr Sue Luxton has already explained  we cannot just sit back and wait for this to happen. We need to ensure this new school is built. We have waited far, far too long.