I remember when young there were these milestones - it seems legally one hits various parts of being an adult at 16, 18 and 21, rather than in one fell swoop.
And it's 9 years till I can take part in some over-50s things. In 19 years I can get a senior railcard. Under the Pensions Act 2011, I have to wait 26 years for my state pension.
It says something that I am now at the stage of life where old age feels closer than childhood.
I was feeling ill while in the West Quay centre last Friday morning - I had been on my way to catch the ferry over to Hythe - and made my way into Waterstones.
The staff were helpful, sitting me down in the erotic fiction section and getting me a glass water, then calling first aiders. What surprised me was that they wouldn't call for paramedics, on the grounds paramedics wouldn't come out for something like this. Er, previously paramedics have treated this as urgent. So, I had to sit and wait till I felt I could walk around again without a sense of being about to fall over.
And yesterday was the moment-of-truth visit to the doctors. And the conclusion is....
Nothing.
No diabetes. No anaemia. No thyroid gland problems.
Normally this would be good news. But it means there is still no name to my health problems of this year - except one, which I am unsure of.
The doctor didn't ask me about symptoms, but believes I have something she called SVT. The problem with resorting to doc-speak is that the patient cannot respond. So, when I got home and did some searching online, I came across Supraventricular Tachycardia, which sounds like something that Mary Poppins might say.
The problem is that I have a low heartrate anyway (50-55 per minute is normal for me) and when I have been taken to A&E the issue has not been tachycardia, but the opposite, bradycardia, i.e. my heart rate falls below what it normally is.
So, by not asking about my symptoms, the doctor was barking up the wrong tree. Good thing she didn't prescribe me any medicine to deal with a fast heartrate.
Still no furher forward.
Capaldi was born in April 1958. When he makes his debut in the Christmas special, he will be 55 years 8 months old. How does that compare?
| Actor | Born | First appearance | Age at first appearance |
| William Hartnell | January 1908 | November 1963 | 55 years 10 months |
| Patrick Troughton | March 1920 | October 1966 | 46 years 7 months |
| Jon Pertwee | July 1919 | January 1970 | 50 years 6 months |
| Tom Baker | January 1934 | June 1974 | 40 years 5 months |
| Peter Davison | April 1951 | March 1981 | 29 years 11 months |
| Colin Baker | June 1943 | March 1984 | 40 years 9 months |
| Sylvester McCoy | August 1943 | September 1987 | 44 years 1 month |
| Paul McGann | November 1959 | May 1996 | 36 years 6 months |
| Christopher Eccleston | February 1964 | March 2005 | 41 years 1 month |
| David Tennant | April 1971 | June 2005 | 34 years 3 months |
| Matt Smith | October 1982 | January 2010 | 27 years 3 months |
So, both Troughton and Davison have handed over to actors born before them. In addition Colin Baker and McGann have handed over to actors who take on the role at an older age.
Hence, out of the 10 regenerations we have had, 4 have seen the Doctor get older, and 6 younger.
There is also the anomalous position of John Hurt, who in the Season 33 finale, The Name of the Doctor in June 2013, was revealed to be the Doctor. Hurt was born in January 1940, making him 73 years 5 months when first appearing. If we take him to be a missing Doctor between McGann and Eccleston, then we are looking at him being between 56 years 4 months and 65 years 2 months when "debuting". Whether Hurt is the Doctor is something we will have to wait and see.
Interestingly, Capaldi was born before all the actors who have played the Doctor from McGann onwards, and he is the first actor to play the Doctor since McGann to have been born before the opening adventure, An Unearthly Child, was shown. Eccleston was born between the final episode of The Edge of Destruction and the first episode of Marco Polo; Tennant was born between the second and third episodes of Colony In Space; and Smith was born between the final episode of Time Flight and the first episode of Arc of Infinity
At 55, Capaldi is the second oldest actor to play the Doctor. I don't think this matters. Ultimately, the question is whether he does a good job of it.
Interesting that Hartnell's portrayal is that of an old man, but Capaldi doesn't strike me as old. Middle-aged perhaps, but not old. And if he manages 4 years, he could be the oldest actor to leave the role.
With this, I want to have a look at a spin-off, The Sarah Jane Adventures, which began in January 2007, with Elisabeth Sladen reprising the role of former companion Sarah Jane Smith. Sladen was born in February 1946, so was 60 years 10 months when this began. Did anyone complain that she was too old for the role? Not as far as I'm aware. Doctor Who can work with an older lead.
And when we look at the companions, Catherine Tate was born in May 1968, so was 38 years 7 months when she first appeared as Donna Noble in The Runaway Bride and 39 years 11 months when Donna became a regular companion in Partners In Crime. John Barrowman was born in March 1967, so was 38 years 2 months when he first appeared as Jack Harkness in The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances in May 2005, and 40 years 3 months when his name first appeared in the opening credits in Utopia. Tennant is in the unusual position of having had two companions played by people older than him.
Also born before Tennant is Alex Kingston, born in March 1963 - I guess that the Doctor finally being played by someone older than her could cause changes to the dynamics of the Doctor/River Song relationship.
No, Capaldi is not too old. He will be fantastic, absolutely fantastic. Yes, it'll be a change to the show, and not a moment too soon.
Why is this? The Moon lies near the ecliptic - the Sun's path with regards to the stars - and when it's at its greatest northern declination (the equivalent of latitude on the Earth) it'll be in Taurus, or in Gemini (where there are currently 3 planets in the dawn sky - Mercury, Mars and Jupiter):
If the Moon is some way north of the ecliptic (it doesn't follow the ecliptic exactly), then it might be in Auriga:
While if it is some way south of the ecliptic then it can be in Orion (as it will be on Saturday):
But when does it reach this point?:
| Time of Year | Moon highest |
| Vernal equinox | First Quarter |
| Summer solstice | New Moon |
| Autumnal equinox | Lsst Quarter |
| Winter solstice | Full Moon |
Now, of course, you're rarely going to get the full Moon exactly at a solstice, or anything like that, but we can see that between the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox (i.e. at this time of year), the Moon will be highest when it is between last quarter and new Moon - so when it is a waning crescent.
This summer has 4 full Moons - the next one (21 August) is a Blue Moon and the one after that is the Harvest Moon. About a week or so after those go and look for the Moon in the sky after sunrise.
This autumn there are 3 full Moons:
In the week or so after that, go out in the morning and look for the waning gibbous high in the sky.
One principle is that (from the House of Lords own website:
No one party has overall control in the House of Lords. Since 1999 Peers have been appointed roughly in proportion to the share of votes cast in the most recent General Election. Coalitions must be built across party groups and ‘cross-benchers’ in order to avoid or inflict defeats.
In an earlier post I dealt with the issue of whether the House of Lords will ultimately grow too much. If we look at the current composition (and remember this list gets updated):
As we see, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition Government has 297 of the 755 members of the House of Lords. That is a "majority" of minus 161, with the Government having just 39.34% of the seats in the Lords.
Here Labour is becoming disingenious. Labour peer Oona King tweets:
The thing is, it doesn't have this "de facto majority".
The list of working peers includes 14 Conservative, 10 Liberal Democrat, 5 Labour and 1 Green. This expands the House of Lords by 30, to bring it up to 785. And the new composition is:
This gives the Government 321 of the 785 members. Put it another way, a "majority" of minus 143, with the Government increasing to just 40.89% of the seats.
And then we get this tweet from Labour peer Steve Bassam:
One thing to note is that, in all the years I have followed British politics, I have never, until today, come across these terms "de facto majority" and "political majority". They have been drawn up to enable Labour peers to stamp their feet, say it's unfair and to accuse Prime Minister David Cameron of packing the House of Lords.
Do their claims stack up? Well, no is the simple answer.
Look at what the House of Lords website says again. We should aim for the number of peers to reflect the share of the vote at the May 2010 general election. And if we have 542 peers from the 3 main parties, we should expect them to be this:
So, the Conservatives have the same number of peers as they are entitled to, Labour has 43 too many, and the Liberal Democrats have 43 too few.
Rather than packing the Lords with Government peers, Cameron has chosen to limit the number so that Labour is over-represented.
If Cameron made the decision to allow Labour to have no more working peers when the next list is drawn up, and to abide by the principle that party strength in the House of Lords should reflect general election votes, then we would be looking at 1 peer per 38,597 votes. That would mean the Conservatives would be entitled to 275 peers (an increase of 53) and the Liberal Democrats 175 (an increase of 76).
What about the Labour complaint that when they formed a Government they didn't have a "political majority" in the House of Lords? Well, when they were in power, they faced 2 Oppsition parties.
We are now in the world of hung Parliaments and coalitions. And, unless a fourth party appears on the scene (hi, UK Independence Party), then there will be a Government of 2 parties and one Opposition party. And simple maths tells you that if you only consider the Governmet and Opposition, then one of these will have over half the combined Government and Opposition seats.
So, what do Labour want when they put their toys back in the pram? To have party strengths proportional to the share of the vote - in which case they either need to say whether they will ask 43 of their peers to take a leave of absence or urge Cameron to create 129 new Government peers asap. Or do they want to have a "political majority" in the House of Lords? What's it gonna be?
