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

I'm working on the list. This was Jimster's idea and I'm geting through it slowly.

Technically the 1707 Act of Union between created a United Kingdom of England and Scotland the 1801 Act of Union only extended the territory.

OK Rocketman I think that is your correctinos carried out.

"in did" --> "indeed"

Really where!

Sorted out for you.

>>I've thought of the ideal title.
>>How to access your statistical changes of becoming...

It certainly needs changing, not least from "minster" to "minister".
Advice on becoming Prime Minister should surely include some wise words regarding being elected to parliament, standing for a popular party, generally being nice to fellow MPs.

Try Gerald Kaufmann's "How to be a minister" Faber&Faber 1997, with such chapters as "Have Red Box will travel".

Perhaps you could change the voice into something more passive, this is after all a historical review.

Was going to wait to do how to become an MP until after the general election. As it would not be allowed to be discussed on here during the election campaign.

I think that the main problem with the entry, at the moment, is that it does not always address the subject effectively. The title, 'How best to...', would imply that it is some sort of guide on what one should do to become PM, whereas the actual content reads more like the title should be 'The Statistical Make-up of Britain's PMs'.

I don't think that this necessarily means that the entry requires a change of subject. What is required is that you relate the entry's content to its topic more. For each section, I think you should include a few sentences that say something along the lines of:

"So, if you want to be Prime Minister, it has been demonstrated that Law is the career path that will work best for you. Politics would be a good choice, also"

Basically, relate each section of evidence to the subject of the entry. Try to keep this relation sustained throughout the entire entry, rather than just doing it all in your summary.

The summary needs more work. You've made good use of some of the evidence to provide a concluding argument, but I think that some of it could be a bit better written. Particularly:
- "Lord or Commoner these days" --> "Lord or Commoner, these days"
- "It may not matter in few years..." Sentence doesn't flow very well.
- "success if you are English born only 16%". Colon, perhaps: "success if you are English born: only 16%". Full stop needed at end of sentence.
- "You will have to have served in..." Sentence needs re-wording + punctation.
- Final sentence: re-word to make a bit more 'snappy'.

It would be interesting if you talked about the make up of the 'typical' Prime Minister somewhere near the end: a bullet list would be good to do this. Also, who is the most average Prime Minister?

I'd want to know who is the most average, too, if it's figurable.

Whoa dude great article! One slight technicality. The title of prime minister although in widespread use was not offical until CB came to power as you pointed out. Therefore can any predecessors of CB be considered proper P.Ms? Sorry to nit pick!

Heres an amusing fact. CB's last words as he died in his office in Number 10 were "this is not the end of me." Several of his sucessors and even more Downing street staff have claimed to have seen his ghost!

--First paragraph needs a lot of work:
-The Prime Minister is name >> ... is *a* name, or is *a title*?
-became the predominant role in government since >> It became... when, or It has been... since. Also a date here would be helpful, instead of in the next sentence.
-50 men and one woman have held the post of Prime Minister since the post of Prime Minister since Walpole served >> "since the post of Prime Minister" should be removed, also I think a number that begins a sentence should be written out (Fifty instead of 50).
--Table seems to be missing some 'N/A' fields.
--the big two gained less that 50% of the vote >> less than 50%...
--Seven had no affiliation the last being George Hamilton Gordon 4th Earl of Aberdeen >> Everyone in your table has listed a party affiliation
--The most popular name for Scottish monarch with a total of seven King James 3 only have one namesake as Prime Minster James Callaghan. >> I think I understand what you're saying, but this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense.

This is probably fascinating stuff, but honestly I couldn't trudge through all the numbers. I've read the US President one, and I had another glance at it for comparison. One thing it contains that this does not is the actual requirements for the position; could *I* become Prime Minister?

Other than that, this does seem to be just a statistical comparison of past PM's which, while very cool, doesn't do much to help me prepare myself to take over the UK (on the path of my eventual goal of ruling the world )

Before the 1801 Act of Union Ireland was (in theory) a seperate kingdom with its own Parliament which like the Scottish one had to be heavily bribed to vote itself out of existence so I'd argue both Acts of Union were equally significant.

Miloso brings up an interesting point. As an American I wouldn't know about these requirements, so they are interesting.

I understand that most of the UK constitution is not part of one document but is spread out all over the place. Does it actually say anything about any particular qualities or achievments that you absolutely MUST be? Is it OK to be Catholic? Is it OK to have a criminal record? Does age matter? Is only being the head of your party (which happens to be the current Government) the only one?

Its actually remarkably unspecific.
After an election the Queen issues an invitation to a prominant politician to try and form a government
This is almost always the leader of the largest party but doesn't have to be.
After the first of the 2 general elections in 1974 the Queen invited Ted Heath to form a government even though his party, the Conservatives had won less seats than the Labour Party. Only after Ted Heath was unable to form a government that commanded a majority in Parliament did she invite Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, to try and form a government.

OK I'm back I'll tajke your points on board and make a few ammendments today at w**k as it seems to be quiet.

Gee this is taking longer to correct than I anticipated. But I am working on it.

Good man - keep at it

Is that all on this one Jimster?

Well, I like it.
Oberon2001