We are quite right to aim at global leadership over climate change, but we will only get it if we earn it. And at present we’re not. We have been at great risk of covering up our failure to reach even modest targets by taking on ever more ambitious ones, while kicking them ever further into the future. At the EU Summit in Brussels on Saturday the heads of government did exactly that – ratcheting up the targets for 2020 while failing to deliver the lesser targets for 2010.

The EU is way off track to meet its 8% cut in CO2 emissions by 2010. In the UK emissions have risen in 6 of the last 7 years, when they should have fallen by 12%. Air travel and car emissions continue to rise sharply. The UK target for electricity generation from renewables was 10% by 2010. We are currently at 4% and will be lucky to reach 6%, when the average for the original EU 15 is nearly 20%. Higher targets are fine, but without serious enforcement the plaudits are vacuous.

The test for the Climate Change Bill on Tuesday is clear. Does it have an explicit strategy to deliver 60% cuts by 2050, as the scientists require? What exactly are the mechanisms proposed to deliver this? Are they all enforceable? Will the Government set binding annual targets to achieve the cuts required, monitor progress and publish the results and bring in whatever changes or new mechanisms are necessary to keep Britain on track? Anything less is a cosmetic palliative in the war on Climate Change.

As leader, I would re-open this decision. I would arrange a full and proper consultation lasting at least six months, embracing all the relevant options and making sure public opinion is properly heard, followed by at least a two day debate in Parliament, ending with a fresh and much more authoritative vote.

Getting agreement today to a binding 20% renewables target at the EU summit in Brussels is crucial. But the rhetoric has to be delivered. Britain already has a renewables target of 10% by 2010, but is failing to get anywhere near it.

While Germany, France, Italy and Spain generate 10-25% of their electricity from renewable sources of energy and Sweden and Denmark 25-35%, for Britain the figure is just 4%. This is pathetic, given that around Scotland and the North Sea, we have more wind power and wave and tidal power potential than any other country in Europe.

Kicking targets another decade into the future to conceal the failure to deliver in the shorter term is not good enough.

Tonight's vote today in favour of having an all elected chamber represents a huge step forward. It was good to see all the options where there would have been a majority appointed element being rejected so decisively.

Now we must have legislation to act on the will of the Commons – because we voted as we did to reflect the weight of public opinion, which wants a 21st century bicameral parliament, not a 19th century one. We have to see the government commit itself to a bill that will turn tonight's vote into law and give us a properly elected second chamber, where the elections are run on an open list system and places on that list are decided by party members, not by party apparatchiks and the leadership.

Labour leadership contender answers your questions, such as 'Why not sell your flats to help fight against poverty?' & 'What's your guilty pleasure?'
Published: 05 March 2007

Are you a socialist? What does that mean today? MIKE WOODBRIDGE, Brighton

Yes, I am. A socialist believes that while the market has its proper place, the fundamental principles underpinning society should be equity, social justice, equality of opportunity, and democratic accountability. Even where the market is a dominant force, socialists believe it should be regulated to ensure high environmental, social and labour standards.

Why, as a socialist, do you own so many houses? GARY BROWNE, Glasgow

As I have regularly stated in the register of Members' interests, I own four flats. I have saved throughout my life, and put my savings into property. I don't think [that] is contrary to socialism.

Given your views on poverty, why not sell some of your houses and give the money to charity? Or are you just another hypocritical politician? V AHMAD, Birmingham

I already give a significant amount to charity . I agree there is an urgent need to build much more social, affordable housing but selling my flats which are already occupied would not contribute one iota to that.

Isn't it delusional of you to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership? MAURICE BURKE, Birmingham

No. There should be a contest because only an election enables us to debate the real policy issues. I also believe that members of the Labour Party should have the right to choose their own leaders. I believe, too, that as New Labour, of which Gordon Brown is perhaps the main architect, has moved continually ever further to the right, the mainstream majority of the party has been left disenfranchised and without a voice. It is not sensible to assume the results of any election before the electors have had a chance to deliver their opinion which may sometimes come as rather a shock to the chattering classes. Not too many people I guess expected David Cameron to come from behind and win the Tory Party leadership.

Don't you think Gordon offers Labour the best hope of winning the next election? VALERIE EVANS, Cardiff

Have you seen the last two polls? Both put the Tories 11 per cent ahead, and one poll found that if Gordon was leader, the Tories would be 13 per cent ahead.

I am a Labour supporter, but I despair that Gordon Brown has been such a coward over the war, talks nonsense on 'Britishness' and seems so in love with Rupert Murdoch that he will hand the next election to Cameron. Do you agree - and if not, which bits do you disagree with and why? DAVE FISCHER, Sheffield

Cameron has certainly, at this stage at least, improved the Tories' poll ratings, but not, I think, for the reasons you give.

A majority on the Labour left support John McDonnell and see your campaign as a spoiler which will only split the vote and stop a contest. Will you stand down if John has more nominations when Blair resigns? SUSAN PRESS, Calder Valley

There is no evidence whatever that a majority of people on the Labour Party left and the affiliated trade union movement support John McDonnell for leader. I have a great deal of respect for John, but I don't believe he can get the necessary 45 nominations, whereas I believe I can. I am not splitting the vote, but rather giving the centre-left the chance, to run a candidate who can pass the nominations threshold. But I do agree that whichever of the two of us has the larger number of nominations, the other should stand down when Tony Blair resigns.

Why not use that photo of you on Blackpool beach (very Daniel Craig) for your campaign posters? CONOR MURPHY, Reading

Good try. At least it shows I'm healthy.

Do you think Blair should stand down now?STEVE HARRISON, Bolton

The sooner he stands down, the better.

Why did you vote in favour of the invasion of Iraq?DEAN PALMER, Norwich

I made the biggest mistake of my political life when I supported the war, on the grounds that the Prime Minister repeatedly gave chapter and verse about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and assured us that if only we knew all the intelligence available to him, we would have no doubts about the necessity for this action. I still find it deeply disturbing for democracy that a prime minister can so massage and fabricate the evidence in order to push through a preconceived war plan.

Do you think Blair lied to his MPs and lied to the country over Iraq?JEFF TERRY, Dundee

I think the highly selective manipulation of such evidence as there was, together with the highly prejudicial use to which it was put, was deeply dishonest.

You claim you were misled that Saddam had a WMD programme. Yet you say the West has no right to tell Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't you being rather inconsistent over Iraq and Iran?JIM ROLAND, London NW11

No, these are two quite separate arguments. Yes, we were certainly misled over Saddam's alleged WMD programme. While we should try to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons by negotiation and UN sanctions, we cannot say that nuclear weapons are indispensable for our own security, and then say Iran does not need them for their own security, especially when Iran (unlike the West) is surrounded by seven states which are nuclear-armed and some very hostile.

Do you truly believe that the US government knew about 9/11 but failed to prevent it?CHRIS QUIGLEY, by email

Clearly the US government did not know the precise time and location of the al-Qa'ida attack, but equally clearly there was a great deal of intelligence beforehand which, for whatever reason, it seems that they did not follow up.

You have suggested that the US government knew about the 9/11 attacks (which is pretty obvious I reckon, but fair play to you nonetheless). How complicit do you believe the UK Government was in 7/7? PAUL HUGHES, by email

Not at all.

Do you also believe that the FBI shot John F Kennedy, that Princess Diana was murdered and the US government has covered up the landing of aliens?BEN TROTTER, Cirencester

No. Such allegations are cheap and rather silly.

What steps will you propose to counter global warming? DR GEORGE BLAIR, by email

We should rapidly increase our use of renewable sources of energy (windpower, solar, and micro-generation in people's homes). We should require the airline industry, like every other industry, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions each year. We should increase vehicle excise duty sharply for gas-guzzling cars and use the proceeds to subsidise bus and rail, and smaller-engine cars. We should give each family a carbon entitlement which then has to be reduced each year.

How often have you flown in the past 12 months? FIONA MILLS, Edinburgh

Not at all.

You criticise the 'Westminster bubble' but said you spent the last two months talking to MPs about your campaign. Does this not show you have the same disrespect for people's views as the rest of the Westminster bubble? MARSHA JANE THOMPSON, by email

I said that when people around the country come to vote, they may well take a quite different view of things from the inward-looking Westminster scene, and should be listened to. But I also extensively canvassed my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party because they alone are the ones who make the nominations.

Why did it take you so long to announce your intention to stand for the Labour leadership when John McDonnell has been campaigning up and down the country for months?MAX MITCHELL, by email

I have been told that John McDonnell announced his candidature without consulting his colleagues. I thought it right first to consult extensively to confirm that my candidature would have the necessary range of support.

What are your guilty pleasures (apart from homeowning)?ALICE SHERWOOD, Tadworth

Wouldn't you like to know! Dropping childish comments in the waste paper basket is one of them.

You always look a bit boring. Are you? ROB JACKSON, by email

No. Why? Are you?

It is essential that House of Lords reform, being debated today and tomorrow in the Commons, ends with a clear decision to have a fully elected second chamber. Any extension of Prime Ministerial patronage, which is already far too pervasive and corrupting, over admissions to the Lords would reinforce the gross over centralisation of power which is one of the most damaging trends in Britain today. The power of the Prime Minister has grown, is still growing, and needs to be cut sharply back.

Watch Michael on tonight's edition of Dispatches where, in the light of the recent deferment of the Climate Change Bill, he is interviewed by George Monbiot on the priority given to climate change within government and the importance of addressing ourselves to the need for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

You can also watch online here but you will need to register/log in.

If you missed it, there are two ways to watch it again;
For insomniacs, the terrestrial repeat is on Channel 4 at 3.15am on Friday morning. It is also available on the Ch4 On demand serivce. Go to the 4OD website to register if you would like to rent (for 99p) the programme this way.

Perhaps if we continue as we are, we can still win the next election, although the latest Guardian opinion poll putting labour at 29% and the Tories at 42% suggests otherwise. What is incontrovertible is that we are hugely more likely to win if we now make the big changes necessary to win back the four million votes and half our membership that we have lost since 1997. That is why I am standing for the Labour Party leadership.

If elected, I would first speed up our withdrawal from Iraq, taking the advice of our own military commanders in Basra, not of the Bush Administration in Washington. We have been America’s puppet for too long; we need an independent foreign policy dictated by our own interests, not the US. We should be using whatever political clout remains to us to initiate a multilateral peace conference of all the main actors in the Middle East to negotiate a joint settlement of all the main outstanding issues together which from experience cannot be resolved one by one. That must include the future of Iraq, a Palestinian State, an international guarantee of Israel’s security along roughly its 1967 borders and a negotiated settlement with Iran not a military one . I would strongly reject, and give no support whatever to a US or Israeli attack on Iran.

Domestically, I would reverse the “new” Labour obsessions of replacing the public service ethos by the market. Equity, equal rights according to need, public accountability, a professional standard of care and integrity are being replaced by targets, cost cutting, PFI top slicing of public expenditure, a service fragmentation by private interests. This is the case of health and education housing, pensions, probation, rail, the Post Office and local government. There are even threats against public service broadcasting. Privatisation of our public services should be stopped and reversed.

Britain is now a more unequal society than under Margaret Thatcher. The average pay of chief executives of the FTSE top 100 companies, at over £46,000 a week is now 250 times the minimum wage – 500 times the state pension. Such grotesque divisions between rich and poor are known to generate much of the social pathology currently afflicting Britain –violence, worse health among poorer families, lower life expectancy, and higher teenage birth rates. I would raise the national minimum wage quickly to £6 an hour and then soon to £7 an hour. I would also establish a pay commission to advise what would be a fair ratio between top and bottom pay, bearing in mind that wealth creation is not an individual achievement but a team effort, so that any further increases in pay at the top would draw up the pay of those beneath.

I also want a government which listens to the party and the electorate, consults and does not disregard the results when they are inconvenient and respects conference decisions - or at least, if it loses the vote, sets up a joint body made up of members of the National Executive Committee and the sponsors of the resolution to flesh out a compromise. I want to see the Party chair elected by the party, not appointed by the PM and accountable exclusively to the party in conveying the opinion of the membership within the Cabinet.

I want a Government that genuinely treats planet survival as the greatest threat to human survival and the biggest challenge facing the world. That means making tackling climate change an absolute priority not only in energy policy, but in transport, industry, agriculture, building standards, public expenditure and foreign policy. Industry and power generation should be required annually to lower their greenhouse gas emissions while individual households should be allocated, according to their size and structure, an equal carbon allowance for all their activities including air and car travel.

Civil employment rights need to be strengthened. The balance of power in industry is very unfairly tilted against working people. I would want workers to have employment rights from the start of their job, to have rights in smaller companies below the current threshold of 20 employees to have a right of reinstatement where a tribunal rules for them in a dispute, to have equal rights where they are part time or agency workers, to be able to gain union recognition rights on the basis of a 50% vote, not on the basis of having also to win 40% of the eligible vote (on which criteria no post war government would ever have been elected).

There are so many other issues too where I would change the Government’s present course. But none is more important immediately than Trident. This would cost some £65 billion when even the MOD admits there is no foreseeable enemy against whom it might be needed. It is not an independent British nuclear deterrent. Getting the kit from the US would make us politically subservient to them again for the next 30-40 years, a price I would not pay. Replacing Trident would breach the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and act as a trigger to nuclear proliferation among the 40 countries (not just Iran) now technologically capable of producing nuclear weapons.

Peace, social justice, climate survival – these are the issues I am determined to put centre stage for the left.

The reasons given are, firstly the state of the public finances, which is of course the Chancellor’s responsibility, but I don’t see why nurses should have to bail him out. If there are to be stringencies I don’t think nurses should only get an increase of less than 10 pounds a week, when junior doctors are getting nearly 20 pounds a week, senior civil servants 40 pounds a week extra and judges 80 pounds a week extra.

The second reason given is the need to keep inflation under control. But the Treasury itself said the inflation increase has been a blip and inflation will fall this year anyway. I don’t see why a temporary blip should be used as an excuse to impose a real terms pay cut on some of the poorest and most needed workers in our society.

This is bound to play badly on the chancellors standing with the unions. They expect him to be fair and equitable in the way he settles public sector pay and I don’t think this increase meets that criterion. This pretty miserable settlement should be reconsidered.

I really wanted to attend tonight's rallies in support of the Trade Union Freedom Bill to be published by John McDonnell tomorrow and the Agency Workers Bill that Paul Farrelly is presenting tomorrow, but I have a speaking engagement outside London about opposing Trident renewal that makes it impossible.

Britain in the 21st century is a country where the rights of workers to fair and equal treatment - and for those workers to organise themselves to fight for fair and equal treatment - are under severe attack. It is absurd to the point of farce that we should have to demand equal rights for agency staff who doing the same or similar job for the same employer as their permanent co-workers. And it is indefensible to place multiple obstacles in the way of trades unions organising to win those rights.

So the playing field is at present tilted grossly against workers and unions and the Trade Union Freedom Bill must be supported to balance things out. It is right that workers on strike should not face the threat of sacking, right that employers should not be able to use injunctions to prevent industrial action, right that employers should have to provide relevant information to unions, just as unions go through a - currently – over complicated notification procedure when industrial action is expected.

The Trade Union Freedom Bill if enacted, as I hope it will be, simply provides for a level playing field on which workers can organise in unions to protect their jobs, their employment rights and those of their fellow union members. The government opposes restoration of trade union rights and the Agency Workers Bill too. That just underlines the importance of a change of policy direction so that workers cannot not be treated as employment fodder any longer.

We learnt today that the Trident renewal vote will take place on March 14th. There is no way a genuine consultation can take place under such an unwisely truncated timescale. Taking a decision to buikld a new generation of nuclear missile capable submarines now is, in the words of nuclear weapons expert Dr Richard Garwin, “premature ... I see no reason why they should not last 45 years.”

Dr Garwin was speaking to the Defence Select Committee in January. Forcing us into an unnecessary vote now will undermine the important work of the committee in considering the arguments and informing the public and MPs. The government is bouncing us into taking an expensive £65bn decision - to take the MOD estimate - by deliberately preventing a real debate in the country.

UPDATE: CND have called an emergency lobby of Parliament on that day - download and forward the flyer to build the lobby.

There are three reasons why there should be an election for a new leader when Tony Blair finally goes. Only an election confers democratic legitimacy on the succession. Second, party members expect to have a choice about who should lead them. They have hardly been listened to for most of the last 13 years, and have every right to demand that their voice be listened to now. And third, there are major differences of view about the government's direction of travel which need to be understood, debated and voted on within the party. There are other, better alternatives.

New Labour has over-centralised power at the top, which has undermined democratic accountability at all levels. Its economy, driven exclusively by market forces, has played down intervention to secure a stronger manufacturing industry, a more balanced regional policy, and a lift out of its low pay, low skill, low productivity base. Its authoritarian civil society has eroded civil liberties across the board. Its deregulatory philosophy plays down environmental standards and labour rights.

Its indifference to, indeed embrace of, inequality -- "New Labour is relaxed about people getting filthy rich", as Peter Mandelson told us so charmingly -- has presided over a sharp increase in the gap between rich and poor. And its obsession with privatisation is leaching away the public service ideals which lie at the heart of a caring and committed society.

Because Labour and Tory policies are now so similar, politics has increasingly focused on personalities. But that is a fundamental misapprehension. A large part of the electorate on the centre-left, perhaps even a majority, has effectively been disenfranchised for the last three decades. Old-style Toryism was discarded by the voters in 1997, and now New Labour -- the continuing moving right show -- has clearly run its course. It's time, not for old Labour , but for a new implementation of core Labour values in a modern progressive politics addressing today's profound problems.

We need a new foreign policy which is based on fundamental British interests, not subservience to the US, particularly over the middle east. If our political status is to rise across the world, it is not sustainable to continue as America's glove puppet. We need a new social policy if the growing divisions within our society are to be healed. It is not sustainable for £9 billion of city bonuses to be doled out last year while 12.5 million people, a fifth of the population, remain in poverty.

We need a new penal policy if we are going to be genuinely as tough on the causes of crime as on crime itself. It is not sustainable to go on banging people up even faster than we can build prisons without trying to deal with the underlying causes of criminality and doing more to reduce recidivism. We need a new climate change and energy policy if we are not to become over-dependent on imported fossil fuels. It is not sustainable, let alone not legal, to go on fighting wars to grab control of the remaining reserves of Middle East oil when anyway the oil will soon run out.

So what should be done? To end the continuing horrendous carnage in Iraq, to complete our troop withdrawal and break the impasse over Palestine, we should use our political clout to initiate a wider international peace conference bringing together all the relevant actors for a joint settlement of the related middle east issues of contention which from experience cannot be resolved singly. That must include not only Iraq and Palestine within such a grand bargain, but above all a negotiated, not a military, settlement over Iran. If the US were to attack Iran, I would not put at risk a single British soldier or a single RAF pilot in support of such a crazed venture.

Domestically, the Unicef report marking Britain bottom of the table for children's experience shows how urgent it is to reverse the growing rich-poor divide. Less inequality leads to less violence, stronger community life, better health, longer life expectancy, lower teenage birth rates, as well as more social mobility and higher educational attainment. We should start by raising the national minimum wage (one of Labour's best achievements) quickly to £6 an hour, and then soon to £7 an hour. And recognising that wealth creation is not an individual but a team effort, we should move towards a system where there is no more than an acceptable ratio between top pay and bottom pay, so that pay rises at the top draw up the lower paid behind them too.

Globally we are at war against climate change. Business as usual, while relying on improved technology as a get-out card, is a fool's game. We need a profound change in every aspect of government and our way of life -- not just energy, but transport, industry, building, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy, in order in every area to give absolute priority to combating climaten change. We need a crash programme, as we have done before in wartime, to develop renewable sources of energy, in which we are very well endowed, plus a massive programme to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation.

Peace, social justice, climate survival - those should be our top priorities. That is why the future lies with a centre-left agenda, and clearly there must be a centre-left candidate to lead this agenda forward who has the necessary nominations in the Parliamentary Labour Party to stand. I am fully confident I do have that necessary level of support, and that is why I am standing.

I was so pleased when I saw on the news you are running for the Labour Leadership. I sincerely hope you are successful. As a Labour supporter for 35 years I have been completely disillusioned over the past 10 years to a point where I had decided never to vote Labour again with the possibility of voting Tory just to get Tony Blair and Gordon Brown out. Never thought I would say that! If you win I will certainly vote Labour once again.

Good Luck!
Robert Smart, Ilford South CLP

I welcome your statement that you intend to stand for the leadership of the party. It will generate a democratic debate about the future direction of the party, something I believe that Members of the party will welcome. I wish you well in your campaign and hope that you may find the time to speak at one of our party meetings in the near future.

Councillor Bill Horslen, Labour Group, Chelmsford Borough Council

I admire the principled stand Michael Meacher has taken on a wide range of issues, especially those which affect our quality of life and moral standing in the world. He has been an outstanding advocate of enlightened environmental policies and the rejection of nuclear weapons. He reflects a powerful body of Labour thinking. Just as importantly, he has shown an active commitment to policy development and consultation within the Party. There are many in the Labour Party looking for leadership qualities which Michael can bring.

David Slinger, Forest of Dean CLP

I am delighted to endorse Michael Meacher as a candidate for the party leader's post. I have no doubt that his constructive and honest approach will be of benefit not only to the policy development process but to the credibility of the election process in both the eyes of party members and the wider electorate.

George McManus, NPF Rep Yorkshire & The Humber, Chair East Riding of Yorkshire Labour Party

I will be supporting Michael Meacher because this is the leadership election where climate change comes first. As Environment Minister, Michael set the standard on this issue. If we want to expose David Cameron as vacuous we need a leader with the experience and passion to deliver radical change. There is no one better at this task than Michael Meacher.

Daniel Blaney, South Basildon & East Thurrock CLP, Treasurer, Labour CND

I would like to commend Michael Meacher as a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party. I have had many dealings with Michael on various issues, he has been helpful and honest. We very much need to return to our socialist values, many of which have been pushed aside in trying to reform our services and modernise our society. I believe he will look after the hard-working middle class voter who has been ignored so much by this Government and who were always the core of Labour support. Maybe this would again allow our membership to recover.
DB Bracknell CLP

I was delighted to hear today that you are going to stand for the > leadership of the Labour Party. Could we possibly persuade you to come and speak to our local Fabian Society?
Liz Vincent, Bath CLP

I put off joining the Labour Party due to the Iraq War and arguments for renewal of Trident pushed me further away. A candidacy from Michael Meacher for the leader of the Labour Party is an ideal way of getting these issues debated in the public domain. I feel it is important that there is no automaticity in the selection of Gordon Brown as the next leader of the Labour Party. The decision by Michael Meacher to stand has led me to join the Labour Party and cast my vote in this vital leadership battle.

Phil Honour, London

I have been a Labour supporter since 15 years old. I would not want Gordon Brown as leader now if he was the last man standing.... Thank you so much for standing up for the leadership.

Lynn Grounds, Hitchin, Herts

I am so pleased that you have decided to be a candidate for the leadership election. I have not been so excited for a long time! Absolutely right that you have so that an alternative to 'New Labour' is heard and right that democracy is enacted. I am particularly pleased that you are calling for independence from America.

With best wishes and lots of support for the coming contest

Lindis Percy
CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES
www.caab.org.uk

Good luck in your challenge to Gordon Brown. I have become so upset with so many New Labour faces and their behaviour (especially regarding Iraq and their unquestioning loyalty to Tony Blair who I consider quite mad!).

But I would vote for you in heartbeat! Your stand over Blair's totally insane foreign policy is to be commended and never forgotten...

Very good luck Sir!

Chris Kyle, Brighton

I was amazed but absolutely delighted when I read this morning that you were going to stand for the Labour Leadership. I admire you greatly for having the courage to stand up and challenge the status quo in British politics. It was quite shocking to see the Blair Broadcasting Corporations' attempt to de-rail his efforts before he even got started! I suppose the good news is that if they’re trying to discredit Michael, he must be a threat... I hope that enough MP's have the sense to turn to you and to recognise that there is a great need for a change in direction, which you clearly represent. Good man.

Tony Roberts, Poole, Dorset

After following your progress over the years I am delighted that you have decided to stand in the leadership election. I shed tears of joy when Labour was returned to power ten years ago but have gradually lost my faith in the party. I was weaned on Nye Bevan, Michael Foot and true Socialists but left the Party when I thought that Neil Kinnock was taking our Party too far to the right (that was a laugh wasn't it?)

I wish you all of the best in your endeavours and will myself continue to spread support for your the Gospel of your crusade in any way that I can.

Geoffrey Marple, Wolverhampton

Was delighted that you will be taking on Mr Brown for the Labour Party Leadership. It would have been tragic for any one candidate just to slip into the top job with a bit of forelock tugging and a nod and a wink! Great that all Labour Party members will now have a say!

Best news of the year so far...

John France

I am very pleased you have decided to stand for the Labour Leadership. I truly believe the people of the UK do not want Gordon Brown to be the next Prime Minister, and wish you well.

Susan Lange

Good on you! I suspect you'll be in line for some pretty heavy fire from certain quarters, but I guess you're used to that. There are plenty of people outside Westminster who have long been thinking what you've now had the gumption to say. All the very best for the coming months.

Steve Roberts-Mee

Pleased that someone has the balls to raise his head above the parapet. Mixed metaphors I know. But I need GB to be challenged. He is saying nothing. You argue well and you could show well in a good race. I wish you all success.

Neil Woodcock

I have just heard the news on BBC Radio 4 that you will stand for the leadership of the Labour Party. This is most wonderful news! You are exactly the man this country needs to take us forwards on climate change, GM foods, Iraq... No one else could do that difficult job better than you, and I whole-heartedly wish you success!

Eva Novotny