When Will The Church Of England Consecrate Ms Priest?

2015 has been a year of change for the Church of England, with Libby Lane becoming the Suffragan Bishop of Stockport, and the announcements that Alison White will become Suffragan Bishop of Hull and Rachel Treweek is going to be the Church of England's first female diocesan bishop - as Bishop of Gloucester.

Due to the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, Treweek will take the first available vacancy among the Lords Spiritual, which is likely to be when Tim Stevens retires as Bishop of Leicester in July, with Christopher Lowson, the Bishop of Lincoln, having to wait until Jonathan Gledhill, former Suffragan Bishop of Southampton, retires as Bishop of Lichfield in September.

If you follow my blog, then you will know that I do not approve of the ordination of women to the presbyterate, i.e. women becoming "priests" in the Church of England, or "elders" in free churches. I find the arguments put forward in favour to be lacking.

In the New Testament, there are clearly two orders of ministry:

• The elder or presbyter - in the Church of England this is the bishop (as the King James Version translates the term) or the priest
• The deacon(ess) - in the Church of England this is the deacon

Between 1992 and 2014, the Church of England's position on whether women could be presbyters was loud and clear, unequivocally declaring:

Er, dunno mate.

Women could be a lower type of presbyter, but not one of the ones wearing a pointy hat, with spiritual authority over other presbyters. The Church of England has at least resolved the issue.

I have noticed that there are churches - normally on the charismatic end of the spectrum - that have husband and wife pastors/ministers/elders. At one level, this formalises the expectation in churches that Mrs Vicar will play a pastoral role, or that Mrs Curate better keep Friday evenings free as the previous Mrs Curate was Bagheera, as was the Mrs Curate before her....

Yet, is there a Biblical basis for this? We can argue that the Apostle Paul was culture-bound and that there were special reasons why he forbid women from being elders. But surely this would apply to all suitably spiritually mature women. Why believe that these restrictions apply today - but only for women who are not married to elders?

Lane, White and Treweek share one thing in common - being clergy wives.

This could be coincidence. On the other hand, is the Church of England going down this husband-and-wife line, i.e. as a concession for those who are only OK with a woman being an elder as long as her husband is as well? If Sheila Watson, the Archdeacon of Canterbury, is announced as the next bishop of somewhere then my suspicions will be concerned.

When will the Church of England consecrate a woman presbyter who is either unmarried or married to a layman?

Lisbon - Not The Amazing Self-Amending Treaty

Often in the local paper I have to lock horns with a group I refer to as the UKIP Letter Writing Society, whom I find long on rhetoric and short on facts.

And the latest is the dire warning that "they" can move the goalposts however they want, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon being "self-amending".

Interesting phrase. But Treaties and Constitutions are "self-amending". Take, for example Article V of American Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

The American Constitution is "self-amending". The rules for how it can be amended are contained in it, rather than in an external document.

Article 48 of the Treaty of Lisbon reiterates the traditional process for amendment (the "Ordinary revision procedure") and introduces a new process (the "Simplified revision procedure"), which is:

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

The important one here is Article 48 (6). The "Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union" is the section "Union Policies & Internal Actions", covering:

1. The Internal Market
2. The Free Movement of Goods
3. Agriculture & Fisheries
4. Free Movement of Persons, Services & Capital
5. Area of Freedom, Security & Justice
6. Transport
7. Common Rules on Competition, Taxation & Approximation of Laws
8. Economic & Monetary Policy
9. Employment
10. Social Policy
11. The European Social Fund
12. Education, Vocational Training, Youth & Sport
13. Culture
14. Public Health
15. Consumer Protection
16. Trans-European Network
17. Industry
18. Economic, Social & Territorial Cohesion
19. Research & Technological Development & Space
20. Environment
21. Energy
22. Tourism
23. Civil Protection
24. Administrative Co-operation

While a lengthy list, it does not cover everything. There are significant parts of the Treaty that cannot be amended by the process outlined in Article 48 (6). Also, this Article cannot be used to increase the European Union's powers.

There are also a couple of unanimity requirements:

• There has to be unanimity in the European Council
• A Treaty amendment cannot come into force unless it is ratified by every member state

Note the significance of the last. The American Constitution can be amended by the approval of three quarters of the State legislatures (as there are 50 US States, this means 38 States). The 38 smallest States comprise just over 40% of the American population, yet can force a constitutional amendment against the wishes of the 60%.

In the European Union, no nation can have a Treaty amendment imposed on it against its wishes.

Amendment is carried out via each nations' constitutional requirements. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, this is the European Union Act 2011, with the relevant section covering amendments under this method, and a further section outlining when a referendum is needed.

Hence, a proposed amendment can be blocked by one of two or three ways:

• The Prime Minister in the European Council
• Parliament, by not passing the necessary legislation
• The people, if a referendum in required

The member of the UKIP Letter Writing Society replied to say that the "they" he said could move the goalposts were the European Commission, who could do what they like without regard to anyone else. And then a diatribe about how the EU is a tyranny, the "EU project" has an aim to destroy democracy, yadda, yadda, yadda.

However, the European Commission has only two rights when it comes to Treaty amendments - the right to propose (where it is just one of several bodies that can), and the right to be consulted. The idea that it can unilaterally amend the Treaty does not reflect reality.

There is a case where the Treaty has been amended - and this was to set up the European Stability Mechanism, which didn't affect us, as we do not use the €.

In March 2011, the European Council met and decided that an amendment needed to be made:

The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality

This did not get ratified by an ex cathedra decision of the European Commission. The UK Parliament passed the European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Act 2012, which ratified the Council decision.

If Parliament had chosen not to, then it would not have been ratified, and hence the amendment would not be added to the Treaty.

While I enjoy debating with the UKIP Letter Writing Society, the frustrating thing is that they do not get their facts right, and when you do point out the facts you get the whole "the EU is undemocratic" (without any actual evidence provided) rant.

How Much Does Brussels Give The BBC?

One thing you'll hear is that the European Union gives money to the British Broadcasting Corporation - and therefore the BBC is going to pursue an agenda to please its paymasters.

The European Commission's budget section includes the Financial Transparency System, where you can look at the funding that is given.

Selecting the most recent year for which data is available (2013), selecting "United Kingdom" from the dropdown menu and typing in BBC gives the headline figure of €6,744,151 - but it's more complicated than that, as we can look at the individual projects it goes on:

How Long Would A Labour/Liberal Democrat Government Have Lasted In 2010?

There is an interesting article on post-election scenarios on the London School of Economics general election blog, where the following is noted:

The first is the crucial distinction between entering Downing Street and being able to govern. This was one of the big, under-discussed issues in 2010. It was certainly possible to come up with scenarios then under which the Lib Dems could do deals with either Labour or the Conservatives. Both would have generated a majority and enough, therefore, to form a government. But only one (Con-Lib) generated a majority large enough to govern, day-in, day-out, on the run-of-the-mill legislation that is the stuff of government. The other (Lab-Lib and others) generated a bare majority, and had far too many moving parts.

And, as MPs have become increasingly independent-minded, so the size of a majority required to govern increases. Even with a majority of 80-plus, this government has been defeated in the Commons. This applies to a majority government too; you don’t have to be Mystic Meg to see the problems either a Conservative or Labour administration with a majority of 10 would face. But it could be a crucial factor in post-election negotiation.

We all assume the finishing line is around 323 seats (if Sinn Fein do as well as last time, and then don’t take their seats). But there’s little point in crossing the finishing line first if you soon fall back over it. Any deal that can guarantee significantly more than 323 on a regular basis will be prioritised over razor-thin deals.

We can look at the strengths of the parties to tell us how majorities can decrease during a Parliament (beginning from the first meeting to the dissolution):

General election	Starting majority	Ending majority	Change
May 1955	59	51	Down 8
October 1959	98	82	Down 16
October 1964	5	3	Down 2
March 1966	97	63	Down 34
June 1970	31	13	Down 18
February 1974	-32	-36	Down 4
October 1974	4	-17	Down 21
May 1979	44	35	Down 9
June 1983	143	138	Down 5
June 1987	101	86	Down 15
April 1992	22	-3	Down 25
May 1997	178	179	Up 1
June 2001	166	161	Down 5
May 2005	66	51	Down 15

Note that two out of the three largest falls in majority have been after elections which returned a Government with a tiny majority.

Now consider the result of the May 2010 general election. We would have Labour (on 258 seats) and the Liberal Democrats (on 57 seats) having a combined total of 315.

Although there are 650 MPs, there are only 641 voting ones. The Speaker and 3 Deputy Speakers don't vote, and the 5 Sinn Féin MPs choose not to vote. 2 of the Deputy Speakers would come from the Labour/Liberal Democrat benches, giving them 313 of the 641 voting MPs (compared to 305 Conservatives). To get a majority of 1, a grouping would need 321 MPs.

Support from the Greens, Plaid Cymru and all the 13 voting Northern Ireland MPs would bring in 17 additional MPs. There would have to be a lot of juggling to ensure these are kept onside, but assume that a solid deal is made with all of them - the most optimistic outcome for Labour. That gives 330 of the voting MPs, an effective majority of 19.

Majorities decrease over time. One method is via an MP losing/resigning the whip, but there is no law saying that a whipless MP has to vote against their former party. An MP doing a direct defection to another party is another matter - but again, it depends on the losing and receiving party. A Conservative MP who defects to the UK Independence Party might vote with Conservative MPs in a division - one who defects to Labour is much less likely to do so.

The crucial majority-decreasing is via by-elections. So, which by-elections would there have been under a Labour/Liberal Democrat government?

We can say which by-elections would not have happened - those from MPs resigning to stand for Police & Crime Commissioners. Under a Labour/Liberal Democrat government there would not have been the Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011 and therefore no PCCs.

When considering the by-elections I will look at the worst feasible outcome for a Labour/Liberal Democrat government. If I think Labour will hold a seat, then I will say so.

Although Labour won the Corby by-election from the Conservatives in November 2012, I will work on the assumption that - as Governments tend not to gain seats at by-elections - this would be a Conservative hold.

First up is Oldham East & Saddleworth in January 2011. This was a a close marginal in 2010, and the Conservatives last won part of the seat (Littleborough & Saddleworth) at the 1992 general election - the last Conservative victory in Oldham East was the 1955 election. But it is possible that the Conservatives win this (Conservative 306, Labour/Liberal Democrat 310 - by this stage, Barnsley Central's Eric Illsley and Rotherham's Denis MacShane have lost the Labour whip, but let's assume they would generally vote with the Government).

Next up is Barnsley Central in March 2011. Safe Labour - no way they would lose this, even if they were in Government. Conservative 306, Labour/Liberal Democrat 311.

This is followed by Leicester South in May 2011. Again, not one you would expect Labour to lose.

Then there is Inverclyde in June 2011. When I projected the May 2011 Scottish election results onto the Westminster constituencies this came out as a narrow Labour hold. So, we can assume that Labour would still have won this by-election under a Labour/Liberal Democrat government.

Next is Feltham & Heston in December 2011. Yes, this was a Labour hold - but during the Thatcher/Major era this was a marginal, with the Conservatives winning it at the 1983 and 1987 elections. In 2010, it was marginal. So assume that the Conservatives win this (Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 310).

If Labour couldn't hold Bradford West in March 2012 when in Opposition, there is no way they would hold it in Government. Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 308 - by this point Falkirk's Eric Joyce has lost the Labour whip.

In July 2012 Labour gives MacShane the whip back, but the following months see a couple of deaths of Labour MPs - Croydon North's Malcolm Wicks in September and Middlesbrough's Stuart Bell the following month.

With the assumptions that the Conservatives win the Oldham East & Saddleworth and Feltham & Heston by-elections, then Bell's death would see the Conservatives and Labour/Liberal Democrats tie on 307 MPs each.

Guy Fawkes Night 2012 sees MacShane resign, and with it the Conservatives overtake the Labour/Liberal Democrat government. In this parallel world, there would have been editorials in Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph saying that the Government has lost its right to govern, and there would need to be an election by Christmas. However, Bedfordshire Mid's Nadine Dorries losing the Conservative whip the following day would see the Conservatives and Labour/Liberal Democrats tie again - this time on 306 MPs each.

This shows one of the features of modern politics - as a Parliament continues, it gets more fragmented. Minor parties pick up more seats, MPs lose and resign whips. The Labour/Liberal Democrat government's loss of 7 seats since the Deputy Speakers were chosen does not mean that the Conservatives would have gained 7.

We now come to the end of November 2012, with Labour winning by-elections in Croydon North, Middlesbrough and Rotherham. But what if Labour had been leading the Government at the time and had to worry about an anti-government vote? Well, to be honest, these were quite safe seats, and I expect Labour would have held them if in Government. Conservative 306, Labour/Liberal Democrat 309.

The next by-election is Eastleigh in February 2013, caused by the resignation of the Liberal Democrats' former Energy & Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne. In reality the Liberal Democrats would have held this, but what would have been the worse result for a Labour/Liberal Democrat Government?

On one hand, it would have been the UK Independence Party gaining the seat, showing that they can win by-elections which do not involve a sitting MP defecting. Nothing succeeds like success, and a UKIP that was winning by-elections would be a long-term threat to Labour. However, in the short-term, the worse result for a Labour/Liberal Democrat Government would be the Conservatives' Maria Hutchings winning. Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 308.

Next up is a resignation that might not have happened under a Labour/Liberal Democrat Government - that of David Miliband as MP for South Shields. In the parallel world, he could have been Prime Minister of the Labour/Liberal Democrat Government! The May 2013 by-election was comfortably won by Labour.

In May, the Conservatives give Dorries the whip back (Conservative 308, Labour/Liberal Democrat 308), but this is followed by Patrick Mercer, the MP for Newark, resigning the whip. Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 308.

This is followed, a few days later, by Mike Hancock, the MP for Portsmouth South, resigned the Liberal Democrat whip (Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307), and in July 2013, David Ward, MP for Bradford East, lost the Liberal Democrat whip (Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 306), but had the whip restored in September. Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307.

In October, Eleanor Laing, the Conservative MP for Epping Forest was elected Deputy Speaker. Conservative 306, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307.

This brings us to the start of 2014, with the death of Paul Goggins, Labour MP for Wythenshawe & Sale East - which would see the Conservatives and Labour/Liberal Democrats tie on 306 MPs. The by-election the following month was a comfortable hold for Labour, and there is no reason to assume they would lose it if in Government. Conservative 306, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307.

Following his acquittal, April sees Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley (and Laing's predecessor as Deputy Speaker), having the Conservative whip restored. Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307.

In June, the Conservatives win the Newark by-election, caused by Mercer's resignation. Conservative 308, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307.

In August, Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP for Clacton, defects to UKIP. Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 307.

In September, Jim Dobbin, Labour MP for Heywood & Middleton, dies (Conservative 307, Labour/Liberal Democrat 306), with later that month Mark Reckless, Conservative MP for Rochester & Strood, defecting to UKIP. Conservative 306, Labour/Liberal Democrat 306.

In October, Labour won the Heywood & Middleton by-election, but it was close. The worst outcome for them would have been UKIP winning it.

So, where would we be if there had been a Labour/Liberal Democrat Government after the 2010 election, and the worst case scenario had happened for them in by-elections? For the past 5 months, since Reckless's defection, the Government and the Conservatives would have tied on 306 MPs each. Among the voting MPs, there would now be 29 Others:

• Democratic Unionist Party - 8
• Scottish National Party - 6
• Plaid Cymru - 3
• Social Democratic & Labour Party - 3
• UK Independence Party - 3
• Greens - 1
• Alliance Party of Northern Ireland - 1
• Respect - 1
• Independent Unionist - 1
• Independent Labour - 1
• Independent Liberal Democrat - 1

To have an overall majority of 1, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would need the support of 15 of these 29 (as would the Conservatives). Plaid Cymru, the SDLP, Greens and the 2 Independent ex-Government MPs would provide 9 of these. By this stage, such a Government would have to turn to the DUP or SNP to get a majority.

The most optimistic Conservative could only hope for the backing of 11 MPs (DUP and UKIP).

Although there would have been brief periods (November 2012, June - August 2013, September 2013) where the Conservatives would have more seats than Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, there does not seem to be any point where the Conservatives - without the Liberal Democrats - would have had enough support to govern.

It seems that a minority Labour/Liberal Democrat Government could have lasted the whole 5 years.

Proportional Representation Day 2016

While attention is focussed on the general election on 7 May this year, there is an interesting set of elections coming up in May 2016 across the United Kingdom:

Area	Election for	Voting system
Greater London	Mayor of London	Supplementary Vote
	Greater London Assembly	Additional Members System
England (outside of Greater London)	Police & Crime Commissioners	Supplementary Vote
Wales	Police & Crime Commissioners	Supplementary Vote
	Welsh Assembly	Additional Members System
Scotland	Scottish Parliament	Additional Members System
Northern Ireland	Northern Ireland Assembly	Single Transferable Vote

This will be an unprecedented situation - every voter in the UK will be eligible to vote using a system that is not Single Member Plurality. 86% will be using Supplementary Vote and 25% Additional Members System.

Looking at any recent opinion poll, by 8 May this year we will see that SMP no longer provides the USP that is promoted by its supporters - that of giving a Parliament where one party has over half the seats and forms a Government on its own. To fail to do this once can be explained away as a fluke result, a transitional period, just as if the April 1992 general election had (as polls suggested) given a hung Parliament we would have said that the people were rejecting the Conservatives, but not yet ready to trust Labour.

After this May, it will be clear that the system we have used since the February 1950 general election is broken, and a year later everyone will have experience of using other systems, which will inform the inevitable debate on whether to change the system and what to.

What's Sauce For The Stormont Goose....

With little over 3 months to the general election, the Conservatives have come up with an interesting poster:

The prospect of Sinn Féin suddenly deciding to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen and taking their seats in the House of Commons to support Labour is a bit far-fetched, and it appears that recent Labour/Sinn Féin talks were simply over the peace process.

Surely Sinn Féin have other aims - the Irish general election has to be held within the next 14 months, and from the latest poll it appears that the only way the current Fine Gael/Labour coalition can remain in power would be to bring in Sinn Féin. In May 2016 there is the Northern Ireland Assembly election, where Sinn Féin would be aiming to become the largest party.

I would assume that Sinn Féin's intention would be to produce the Tánaiste (in the Republic of Ireland) and First Minister (in Northern Ireland) as well as there being meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council where a Sinn Féin minister from Dublin discusses a matter with their party colleague holding the equivalent Belfast post.

However, after seeing this poster, I wonder why shouldn't Sinn Féin be allowed to enter the Government if they take their seats? Or just come to a confidence-and-supply deal?

With a close election, things might come down to the Northern Ireland parties. Conservative member of the House of Lords (and former Ulster Unionist Party First Minister) David Trimble has suggested the Democratic Unionist Party may back Labour, while the Social Democratic & Labour Party leader Alasdair McDonnell has said:

If I was to make a prediction today, I would be predicting a Labour/SDLP - and remember SDLP, you heard it here first - Scottish Nationalist government,"

How Scottish Labour MPs who have lost their seat to the SNP would feel about a Labour/SDLP/SNP coalition is another matter!

Before anyone from a major party starts saying they wouldn't touch Sinn Féin with a bargepole, just remember in a hung Parliament there are two choices when it comes to Sinn Féin:

1. Enter Government with them
2. Don't enter Government with them

For the parties at Stormont, when a Northern Ireland Executive is formed, there are also two choices when it comes to Sinn Féin:

1. Enter Government with them
2. Don't enter Government

Sorry, but all major London-based parties have supported mandatory coalition in Stormont. You can't say you won't come to a deal with Sinn Féin when you have decided that the Northern Ireland parties have to if they want to sit in the Northern Ireland Executive.

As Clara Becomes One Of The Longest Serving Doctor Who Companions

A couple of years back I looked at who the longest serving Doctor Who companions had been. We know that Clara Oswald will be in all of Season 35, which will have 13 episodes.

So, time to update my list of the longest-serving companions.

First thing to note is that it depends what you mean by Clara Oswald. Do we count Asylum of the Daleks's Oswin Oswald, or The Snowmen's Clara Oswin Oswald? One of my rules is that I count episodes where a past or future companion appears, as long as it is not a cameo. Although Jenna Coleman's name did not appear in the opening credits of Asylum of the Daleks (to avoid spoiling the surprise), Oswin is a form of Clara from when she entered the Doctor's timestream in The Name of the Doctor.

If you saw my last post, you will see that I have a rule for counting the number of episodes:

By number of episodes, I count a traditional 20th century episode as a single episode. The 21st century one (except for the specials, Last of the Time Lords, Journey's End and The Eleventh Hour) and the ones from Attack of the Cybermen to Revelation of the Daleks I count as 2 episodes each. Due to their length I count the specials, Last of the Time Lords, Journey's End and The Eleventh Hour as 3 episodes each. The Five Doctors counts as 4 episodes.

So, following this, I count The Snowmen, The Day of the Doctor, The Time of the Doctor, Deep Breath, Death in Heaven and Last Christmas as equivalent to 3 episodes each, and the others as equivalent to 2 episodes each.

Season 33 saw Clara in 10 adventures - Asylum of the Daleks and then from The Snowmen through to The Name of the Doctor. That is equivalent to 21 episodes. When we add in the final Matt Smith adventures - The Day of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor - we are at 27.

Season 34 is equivalent to 26 episodes (remember that Deep Breath and Death in Heaven are each equivalent to 3 episodes), so this put Clara at 53. Last Christmas brings her to 56.

This puts her in tenth place in our list of longest-serving companions, having overtaken Susan Foreman while at the North Pole.

We know Season 35 has 13 episodes, which I will assume are the normal 45 minutes one. This counts as 26 episodes in the system I am using. So, by the end of the next season, Clara will be at 82 episodes - in third place behind Jamie McCrimmon and Sarah Jane Smith.