h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: UPDATE A4197440 Are you Statistically Prepared to Become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? - A87804372
Author: SashaQ - U9936370

Update of A4197440 to include analysis of PMs after 2005, plus tidying up of formatting and adding other details mentioned in the Comments under the Entry.

A very good article, a lot of which has already been approved through Peer Review.

Only a couple of points. The article mentions 'Idiot' and 'Lunatics'. I think a definition would be useful. The definition used in workhouses in the 18th Century was:
'Idiot' - someone with a mental age of under 3.
'Imbecile' - someone considered to have below average mental development
'Lunatic' - meaning insane
Do these definitions apply to MPs?

Where you've written Ethelred, you could link to A526187 and change the name to Æthelred (For the Æ use &AElig

<BB<

Something I just noticed in the Career section - Cameron has an (a) and a (b), but Brown just has a (b). Should there be an (a) on his Lecturer job?


Geggs

Thanks Geggs - well spotted

Thanks Bluebottle

Link added

I also found the official information about who is eligible to stand for election, so I amended the list...

The original Entry mentioned "in common law..." so it wasn't an official criterion. The system potentially indirectly discriminates against people with learning disabilities, though, as the electoral documentation is not easy to read at all

Also mental health conditions aren't necessarily a barrier to becoming an MP, although there used to be provision to force a by-election if an MP were sectioned for more than 6 months (amended by the new Mental Health (Discrimination) Act)

Minor tweak to the conclusion to correct the accidental suggestion that 2010 was in the 20th Century

I was just looking at the Careers section again.

Churchill appears in both Military and Journalism, neither of which I can disagree with, but should be have an (a) and a (b) like Brown and Cameron?


Geggs

Well spotted again



Letters added

Looks interesting will try to read later but quick comment

"The position has changed hands on 74 occasions."

If you want to keep the article accurate with time then you need to date this, e.g. "Up to 2012 the position has changed on ..." or "The position has changed hands on 74 occasions (xxx - 2012)."

Good thinking

I've added some information, but will think about this a bit more to help it be less prone to dating...

Tweaked again

For some reason I thought that Wellington was PM at least twice . I have his biography around here but I can't be bothered checking (sorry) - Wikipeadia says twice anyway.

Given that Cabinet is a subcommittee of the Privy Council, is there something to be noted about being a PC before being PM or has that been true 100% of the time (probably "yes" since you have to be in the PC to be appointed to its executive committee).

Lastly does David Cameron need his full name? He hasn't really had a name change, he merely omits the middle bits the same way as many of his predecessors.

Good points

1834 added to Wellington

Link to Privy Council added

David Cameron's name + middle names removed from the middle column of the table

Comments on A87804372:

Only five comments ... everything else seemed good although I didn't check the verity of the dates in office etc

Something not right in state of Denmark:
a) “The position came into existence in the 17th Century” + “It became the predominant role in government when Sir Robert Walpole held the post from 1721 to 1742” + “The position has changed hands on 74 occasions so far”.

So I assume the position came into existence in the 17th Century but your analysis starts from 1721 (18th century) when it became the prominent role and the 74 changes of hands is from 1721 rather than when the position came into existence in the 17th Century?

b) The Important Pre-requisites
Anyone wishing to become President of the USA has to meet a series of criteria regarding nationality, age and so on.
… the above sentence seems like a complete non-sequitor.

c) Eldest versus Elder sons … is there a difference ... shouldn't these be combined?

Suggested changes:
Many have also retained the position following a successful election victory.
--> Many have also retained the position following a successful re-election campaign.

To date (2013) 52 men and one woman have held the post since Walpole …
--> To date (2013) 52 men and one woman have held the post since and including Walpole …
[maybe my usage of since is quirky but I usually use it in the sense of following]

i love this article

Thanks Stone Aart

Changes made.

I've added a footnote to hopefully clarify that the post of First Lord predated Walpole, but he was the first First Lord to be First Minister.

I've tweaked the paragraph about pre-requisites so hopefully it is more logical.

I've added a footnote to distinguish Elder sons from Eldest sons (that confused me at first as well when I started updating the Entry).

Tweaks made to those sentences.

Thanks fluffykerfuffle! I think this Entry is great, too, and I enjoyed updating it - super statistical satisfaction

Nice article

A minor bit of pedantry - since there were two William Pitts should not the total number of Williams be 9 and not 8?

And two Anthonys (Anthonies?) Blair and Eden...

Sorry no, missed him included in the Roberts

Thanks Orcus

William Pitt the Elder is listed in the table as Lord Chatham, so he is already counted in the list of Williams