Which Classic Doctor Who Adventures Would Fail The RTD Test?

Last Saturday saw Doctor Who's golden anniversary, and with it the adventure The Day of the Doctor. When the programme returned in 2005, I remember reading that the then-showrunner, Russell Davies, had a simple rule - namely that adventures had to be about humans.

In the programme, we do get a broad sweep of human future history. Some point in the mid third millennium, humans expand across the Milky Way, form colonies and then there are solar flares - and we see the consequences in The Ark in Space and The Beast Below. Humans evacuate Earth, and prepare to return, but in The Sontaran Experiment we see that humans have already returned - these are colonists, for whom Earth is simply where their ancestors came from, in the same way an Australian isn't going to get all that nostalgic about "Mother England" and doesn't see independence from the United Kingdom as a temporary measure.

We then get the interesting Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways at the end of Season 27 - a season from which one thing becomes clear. Well two things, which are the flip side of each other. Humans abandon Earth and Earth abandons humanity.

What we see in that story is that by the year 200,100, most humans are living off Earth, and so using the delta wave would only kill the humans still living on Earth. Earth, by that point, had become simply one planet with humans on it.

And earlier that season we have The End of the World - and it seems that humanity are not the only civilisation to come from Earth. After all, Jabe could trace her ancestry back to the Amazon rain forest. In this we are simply a species which existed on Earth for a couple of million years, tops, a blink of an eye in the long story of our planet.

So, what adventures from the classic era would fail the RTD Test?

In Season 1, we have The Daleks, The Edge of Destruction (maybe) and The Keys of Marinus. To misquote the Master from The Five Doctors, a Doctor Who without the Daleks scarcely bears thinking about.

But I am sure if the RTD Test had been in place then, there would be a workaround. Skaro as a human colony planet, with two groups that slowly diverged and ended up at nuclear war with each other? The Thals being human colonists oppressing the native Kaleds (not yet named) who chose to fight back? - well, imagine what the third Doctor would make of that, considering his stories like The Mutants.

The Edge of Destruction - well, I suppose in the RTD Test there is an emphasis on humanity, and this is the one with the Doctor learning that Ian Chesterton and Barbara Wright are useful to have around.

Near the end of Season 1, we have The Sensorites - the first one featuring humans to be based off-Earth and the first one featuring humans to be based in the future. This is actually the seventh story, while these days we are used to new companions having present-day (Rose, Smith & Jones, Partners In Crime, The Eleventh Hour), historical Earth (The Unquiet Dead, The Shakespeare Code, The Fires of Pompeii, Victory of the Daleks), and future humanity (The End of the World, Gridlock, Planet of the Ood, The Beast Below) as their first 3 adventures - interesting to note that both Martha Jones and Donna Noble have their first future adventure as a sequel to one of Rose Tyler's (New Earth and The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit) respectively. Interesting that by the time we get to Clara Oswald and Season 33, this pattern is broken as Clara's third and fourth adventures - Cold War and Hide - are in the recent past, her sixth (The Crimson Horror) is also in the past, and she has to wait until her seventh adventure (Nightmare in Silver) before travelling to see future humans. The RTD Test is also being broken by this point.

In Season 2, we have The Web Planet (one where the TARDIS crew are the only humanoids) and The Space Museum.

Season 3 gives us Galaxy Four and (potentially) The Celestial Toymaker - although the characters whom Steven Taylor and Dodo Chaplet encounter would be familiar to viewers, including the character who was not based on Billy Bunter. While not one about Earth or humans, it draws from British culture such as clowns, playing cards and Billy Bunter.

Season 4 is the one where Patrick Troughton takes over as the Doctor, and this is an all-human series. Even ones set off-Earth (Power of the Daleks and The Macra Terror) are human colonists, and Season 5 is the same, with the off-Earth ones being The Tomb of the Cybermen and The Wheel in Space - again, both featuring human explorers or scientists.

Season 6 sees a return to alien races on alien planets, with The Dominators (on Dulkis) and The Krotons (on the Gonds' home planet) being ones where Jamie McCrimmon and Zoe Heriot are the only humans. There is also the weird The Mind Robber, which - like The Celestial Toymaker - is in a fantasy world with figures from British culture.

Seasons 7 to 9 are Jon Pertwee's, with the Doctor exiled to Earth by the Time Lords. Despite this, in Season 8 (Colony in Space) and Season 9 (The Mutants), the Doctor and Jo Grant are sent by the Time Lords to Earth colony planets. Season 9's The Curse of Peladon has a more tenuous link, with Peladon preparing to join the Galactic Federation, and the Doctor being mistaken for the Earth ambassador. Easy mistake to make - after all, sometimes a Spanish ambassador will be mistaken for a Time Lord.

Season 10 sees the Doctor able to travel again. While Carnival of Monsters is not Earth-based, there are humans (namely, those on board the SS Bernice) trapped in the Miniscope. Planet of the Daleks is the first human-free one (apart from Jo) since The Krotons - even The Curse of Peladon had a cameo by the real Earth ambassador - although it does carry on directly from Frontier in Space which covered Earth's dealings with the Draconians.

Season 11 has The Monster of Peladon - although Sarah Jane Smith is the only human, we can put it in the same league as Planet of the Daleks in being a sequel to a Season 10 adventure.

Season 12 brings us to the Tom Baker era, where everything changes again. Genesis of the Daleks fails the RTD Test spectacularly, but it's such a great adventure, we can overlook it.

Season 13 has Planet of Evil, with a Morestran expedition in a story where Sarah is the only human. But it's The Brain of Morbius which introduces a change, with the character of Solon. Up till now, future human stories had been groups - colonists, explorers, scientists. But here is a human with no other humans around him.

Season 14 sees Sarah depart, ending a run of companions from Earth - we will have to wait over 4 years for the next, Tegan Jovanka. And indeed, marking the end of a run of companions, period, as we have The Deadly Assassin, set on Gallifrey and composed of Time Lords (and no Time Ladies).

After that we have the introduction of Leela, the first future human companion since Zoe. Her debut, The Face of Evil, was set on a future planet where the people were descended from an Earth expedition. Some of her adventures - The Robots of Death and Season 15's The Invisible Enemy (in the 51st century, the era of Jack Harkness and River Song, a time where cutting-edge design is robot dogs that are "disco") and The Sunmakers - involve future humans, however in Season 15 there are a couple (Underworld and The Invasion of Time) where she is the sole human.

Season 16 introduces us to Romana, the first non-human companion since Susan Foreman, and Earth and humanity play a smaller part. While The Ribos Operation has a couple of human conpersons, The Pirate Planet, The Androids of Tara and The Armageddon Factor are human-free. Things don't improve in Season 17, with Destiny of the Daleks, The Creature from the Pit and The Horns of Nimon being human-free.

Do things improve in Season 18? Well, The Leisure Hive opens on Brighton beach and did have a handful of humans on Argolis, while Meglos does have a human, we are then into the E-space trilogy of Full Circle (which could have been Earthified (??) by having the people on the Starliner believing they were from Earth originally and then learning they weren't), State of Decay and Warrior's Gate. In State of Decay, the three vampires (including Queen Camilla. Ahem) were originally from Earth. I'm not sure if Rorvik and his crew in Warrior's Gate were human or not, but the following adventure (The Keeper of Traken) is human-free, and the following one, Logopolis, is mainly set on Earth and finally sees a new human companion.

We now move on to Peter Davison's debut in Season 19. Castrovalva begins on Earth, but just ties up loose ends from Logopolis while there. The following, Four To Doomsday, at first glance appears to have humans, but they are androids. However, it is a very human-focussed adventure and deals with a threat to Earth. The rest of the season are all Earth-based, with The Visitation being the first trip to historic Earth since The Talons of Weng-Chiang 5 years earlier.

In Season 20, Arc of Infinity's action is split between Gallifrey and Amsterdam. Snakedance has no humans, other than Tegan, in it, but like Planet of the Daleks and The Monster of Peladon it is a sequel to a story (the previous season's Kinda) which does deal with humanity's future. In Terminus, I think Olvir, Kari and the Lazars are human. Enlightenment sees human sailors in space.

Davison's Season 21 adventures are almost all Earth-based. Frontios is a human colony, and Planet of Fire is one of those - like Logopolis and Castrovalva - where the action begins on Earth before going to another planet.

The final adventure of Season 21 is Colin Baker's debut The Twin Dilemma. Although mainly set on Jaconda, most of the non-Jacondan characters are human.

Now onto Season 22. Attack of the Cybermen follows what must by that stage have been a reasonably familiar pattern - the Doctor encounters something on Earth and that leads to him going to another planet. In Vengeance on Varos, Varos was a human colony. Timelash is primarily set on the non-human world of Karfel, although there is a scene in Victorian Scotland and a human (Herbert). Revelation of the Daleks was set on a human-colonised Necros.

Season 23 goes under the umbrella title of The Trial of a Time Lord. At first, The Mysterious Planet might appear to have nothing to do with humanity, but it emerges that Ravalox is a future Earth.Mindwarp is on Thoros Beta, and like The Brain of Morbius, has a rogue human scientist (Crozier). However, it falls into the same sequel category as Planet of the Daleks, The Monster of Peladon and Snakedance, featuring Sil from Vengeance on Varos.

The Ultimate Foe's action is split between the courtroom and the Matrix.

Now on to Sylvester McCoy's first season, Season 24. Time and the Rani - again a non-human world with non-human characters we cannot relate to. In Paradise Towers, the inhabitants might have been human, and it is possible that in Dragonfire, Iceworld had human customers.

Season 25 has two Earth-based stories - Remembrance of the Daleks and Silver Nemesis. The Happiness Patrol is clearly on a human colony planet and some of the members of the Psychic Circus in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy could have been human.

Season 26 - the end of the classic era - was more simple, with every adventure exclusively or primarily set on Earth.

So, we can identify a number of adventures which would definitely fail the RTD Test:

• The Daleks
• The Keys of Marinus
• The Web Planet
• The Space Museum
• Galaxy Four
• The Dominators
• The Krotons
• Planet of the Daleks
• The Monster of Peladon
• Genesis of the Daleks
• Planet of Evil
• The Deadly Assassin
• Underworld
• The Invasion of Time
• The Pirate Planet
• The Androids of Tara
• The Armageddon Factor
• Destiny of the Daleks
• The Creature from the Pit
• The Horns of Nimon
• Full Circle
• The Keeper of Traken
• Snakedance
• Timelash
• The Trial of a Time Lord: Mindwarp
• Time and the Rani

This is where I get controversial. I can think of two points of classic Doctor Who which were low periods. The first was the second half of the Tom Baker era, and the second was the end of the Colin Baker era and the early part of the McCoy era. The first of these is an era with a higher proportion of adventures breaking the RTD Test. What is the programme by that stage? A couple of aliens visiting alien planets populated by aliens and dealing with alien threats. Is it too much to suggest that Doctor Who hits its low points when it forgets - or sidelines - the human aspect?

Consider other TV programmes. Merlin had a consistent universe - set in and around Camelot. There would not be an episode in which a spell of Morgana's sees Arthur on Bowie Base One, wondering what Queen Annis is pointing at him and answering her questions with "Arthur. King. To get back to Camelot." None of the Doctor Who substitutes - Robin Hood, Merlin or Atlantis - have this potential for flitting around in space and time. They are limited to a time and a place.

Unlike these, Doctor Who has the danger of moving away from a human focus.

What about its early sci-fi rival, Star Trek? Now, Doctor Who has a positive view of humanity - described as "indominatible" in The Ark in Space and Utopia - but it isn't starry-eyed. Sorry, but Star Trek came across as having a "White Person's Burden" approach - visit an alien planet, have the events there a metaphor for a contemporary issue, and let the enlighted humans sort it out, because education and science will have made politically incorrect viewpoints an embarrassing thing of the past.

Doctor Who, meanwhile, is more realistic about humanity.

Now, a programme about aliens on an alien planet dealing with aliens could be of interest if a realistic world was created. But in Doctor Who, the Doctor moves on all the time, with no chance for us to understand Chloris or Dulkis. The 3 from Season 16 that have no human connection are at least part of a plot arc - that of the Key To Time. And from Season 17, Destiny of the Daleks can be just about Earthified by the fact that Davros is going to be taken to Earth for trial, so again this is part of a plot arc. But there is no such excuse for The Creature from the Pit or The Horns of Nimon. Now, the later part of the Pertwee era was moving the Doctor away from contemporary Earth-based adventures (normally involving UNIT), and it seems that by the later part of the Baker era this had gone too far.

Now we need to ask whether the RTD Test is still being passed, and this brings us to the Matt Smith era. In Season 32 there is The Doctor's Wife. Not set on Earth - not set in this universe - and the only humans being the companions, Amy Pond and Rory Williams.

Moving on to the most recent season, Season 33, we have Asylum of the Daleks, for which the only human connection apart from the TARDIS crew is the spaceship Alaska. In The Rings of Akhaten, this is a world with no human connections, and it is unclear if the salvage team in Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS were human (they may have been - this is the only Doctor Who recently that I have thought so bad that it's not worth watching to the end).

We shall have to see what direction Season 34 and the Peter Capaldi era takes it in.

I'm Not Bothered By Your Ps, But Please Mind Your Queues

OK, something happened today that was really annoying. I was shopping at the local Sainsbury's and was at the front of the queue. The lady in front of me had finished her shopping, and had just paid, collected her vouchers, when a man rushed up with 4 tins of soup and handed them to the cashier. After he had been served I explained to the cashier that there was a queue of people waiting and she had allowed him to queue-jump.

She was sorry that I felt that way, but he was with the woman in front of me, and therefore it was not queue-jumping.

I have a simple philosophy on shopping:

If you have started putting your shopping on the conveyor belt, you have finished shopping. If you have forgotten something you can either:

• Put the stuff back into your basket/trolley, fetch the item, and then go to the back of a queue, or
• Wait till you get to the till, pay for what you have got, and then go back for the item, joining the back of a queue and paying for it separately

It is annoying when the person in front of you abandons their shopping, rushes off to complete their shopping, and their stuff gets to the till - but the shopper isn't there. So the cashier and the people in the queue have to wait until that person has got the rest of their items...

Sometimes cashiers support queue-jumpers. I was in a WHSmith just before Christmas a few years back, and it was a system of several tills with one snaking line, with one of those automated "Please go to till number...." announcements. One young cashier, I guess a college student earning extra cash on a Saturday, allowed one of her friends to come up to the till ahead of the rest of the queue. After I had been served, I went to customer services and asked to speak to the manager. When he arrived I explained what had happened, and he asked which cashier. I pointed over and said "that woman at that till".

He explained that by saying "that woman at that till", I was verbally abusing her. Staff do not come to work to be verbally abused. The issue for him was not that she had allowed one of her mates to queue-jump but that I was verbally abusing a member of staff - whom I had not actually spoken to. To be honest it's a casual phrase - no different to "that young man at that till" or "that dark-haired woman at that till". As I had verbally abused a member of staff he had no choice but to ask me to leave the store.

When I got home, I phoned a central complaints line for WHSmith and expressed my concern, not just at the queue-jumping being allowed, but the store manager's quite OTT response to me complaining.

Another WHSmith store with long queues. I get to the front of a queue and an old lady had walked through the front door a few moments earlier. Marching to the till she beings "A Euro..." and the cashier gets on with scanning my items.

"Excuse me, I was here first", the old lady says.

The cashier tells her that she wasn't and that there is a queue. Old lady gets a manager involved, who foolishly allows her to go to the front of the other queue and buy her Euromillions lottery ticket ahead of people who had been waiting patiently. So her reward for trying to queue-jump is being allowed to queue-jump.

One of the most annoying was at the Co-op (although I tend to pronounce it monosyllabic, which is appropriate as this involves chickens).

Some shoppers get to the till and cannot make up their minds.

She had - among other things - 2 chickens. The shopping is complete and the cashier tells her the amount.

As she had 2 chickens, she felt she should be entitled to them at a discount. No she can't, so off she toddles to put a chicken back and the new amount is rung up. She spies bananas, and takes them to the till. So they are added. Then she decides she doesn't want the bananas, so takes them back and the amount is taken off her total. She sees chocolates, and goes to examine them. Wisely deciding that avoiding a riot is more important than chocolate, she goes to the till and pays. Finally.

Reasons For Thanksgiving

Now, I have to begin by saying that I am not American, although I do have relatives who moved across the Atlantic as a result of the potato famine. I have been to the USA, and really liked the place. It comes across as a nation which lives big - I don't mean the meals! And when the police call you "sir" it takes a while to realise they're not being sarky.

And there is one American tradition I have started to observe - and that is Thanksgiving, with the turkey (OK, a pack of turkey breasts) sitting in the fridge waiting to be cooked this afternoon.

And what do I have to be thankful for? I know that "count your blessings" can come across as frightfully twee, but:

I'm alive

OK, it amuses people sometimes when I reply "I'm alive" to the question "How are you?" But I will then explain that some days "I'm alive" is the best you can hope for, and while there's life there's hope. Sounds negative? Well this year has been a very odd one, with it being - on paper - a bad year for me. And there have been moments when I have been in A&E and - let's be blunt - not sure if I'd survive. The day after that is always weird and special as you notice the small things. Sometimes it can be helpful to consider what if this was the final year of your life - what would you make the most of if it was your last summer, or last birthday or last Christmas?

The NHS

Following on from this, while there have been some doctors who are total chumps - and indeed, one GP (I left the surgery after an appointment with her) who covers up her incompetence by being rude and aggressive - on the whole it has been good. I have a surgery which concentrates on patient health, and it is easy to make appointments. I can get the inhalers and tablets I am prescribed. I have a major A&E very close to me. My health is kept as good as it can be. In many countries I would not have this.

I have eyes

Don't knock it. My hobby is astronomy. I use a computer a lot. I watch TV. I love the natural world. So much enjoyment and essentials would go if I couldn't see.

I can walk

I see people in their wheelchairs and mobility scooters and think what a restriction that must be on life. There have been times - such as when I put my back out or when I have leg problems - that walking has been painful, so I am glad that most of the time it isn't.

I have family

However frustrating they can be. My childhood was very much one of family shrinkage, as we would receive yet another phone call about an elderly relative dying, and I was used to seeing older family decline. Since then it has been the reverse, as there have been marriages and a new generation being born. In addition, this has been the year of tracking down wider family that we've had no contact with for decades.

I have friends

I was the archetypal friendless swot at school. Now I have a wide circles of friends, with some really close friends.

I have a home

It's small and it's rented. But I have a roof over my head. That is more than millions of people around the world have.

I live in suburbia

Cue Terry & June music and thoughts of middle-class tweeness. But I have a good bus service (less than 10 minutes to the centre of Southampton). Less than 75 minutes walk to an aiport which could take me almost anywhere in western Europe (in response to their recent consultation, I have suggested they get Icelandair to run flights to Reykjavík on the grounds that this is a gateway to North America). I have a selection of supermarkets in walking distance - I remember discussing this with one friend who lives in a rural area and realising the amount of planning that goes into shopping for him, as he cannot nip down the road to a supermarket. I am close to a major railway station, so when jobhunting I know I have a wide range of location options. If I were at my parents', I would be restricted in where I can jobhunt. I can travel widely - if I plan it, I can go by train to many major European cities.

I live near to rural areas

New Forest, Test Valley, South Downs - all easy to get to.

I live in a climatically and geologically stable area

The United Kingdom is safe. I don't have to worry about tornadoes or tsunamis or earthquakes. Although we can get hot summers and snow in winter, we don't get the extremes in weather that there might be across much of North America. We can see disasters strike around the world and realise we don't have to face those risks.

I live in a politically stable country

I can vote. I have a democratically-elected city council and a democratically-elected House of Commons. This is a democracy. There are a few rotten apples in the police, but the forces of law and order do not oppress people - please avoid hysterical talk of need for a "British spring". Look at countries like Syria and Egypt. No government in the UK is going to gas its people.

I have freedom to worship

I can own and read a Bible. I can discuss it online without state censorship. I can attend church - the sort of freedoms many Christians would (and in many cases, do) die for.

I live in a country with a Christian heritage

A bit of a curate's egg (pun intended). The Church of England does jump on bandwagons, and although the Christian influence has declined, our laws were based on Christian values.

I do not go hungry

Supermarkets, fast food shops, department stores with customer restaurants....

I speak English as my first language

This is not the most common language but is the international lingua franca. Things are so much easier knowing it.

I have a computer and internet access

When my last computer broke down permanently, I realised just how important this is now. It is very much a lifeline to the outside world - if I need to apply for a job, order something, organise something....

Jesus Christ died for me, and I have the assurance of eternal life through Him

The Lord's Supper, instituted by Him, is where we have a Thanksgiving of Jesus Christ dying on the Cross, with the bread representing His body broken for us, and the wine His blood shed for us.

How Many UKIP Peers Should There Be?

One thing I have seen recently is that the Government's Programme for Coalition contained this commitment:

We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is re£ective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

I have already had a look at the (now aborted) plans for House of Lords reform and how it could be salvageable.

The current distribution of life peers in the House of Lords is:

• Labour - 217
• Conservative - 173
• Liberal Democrat - 95
• Democratic Unionist Party - 2
• Ulster Unionist Party - 2
• Plaid Cymru - 2
• Independent Liberal Democrat - 2
• Green Party of England & Wales - 1
• UK Independence Party - 1
• Independent Conservative - 1
• Independent Labour - 1
• Independent UUP - 1

There are in this list Independents who have lost/resigned the party whip. In addition there are non-affiliated peers, who are distinct from the Crossbenchers.

Some of these can be allocated to party groups:

• Labour - 10 (Nazir Ahmed, Jack Cunningham, Brian Mackenzie, Martin O'Neill, Swraj Paul, John Sewel, Chris Smith, Peter Truscott, Manzila Uddin, Barbara Young)
• Conservative - 4 (Jeffrey Archer, Tim Boswell, John Taylor, Paul White)
• Liberal Democrat - 1 (David Jacobs)
• UK Independence Party - 1 (Stanley Kalms*)
• Ulster Unionist Party - 1 (John Laird)

[* Kalms is a bit debatable. He was a Conservative, but was expelled after encouraging people to vote for UKIP at the June 2009 elections to the European Parliament.]

Next we have the ineligble peers. One of these, the Liberal Democrats' Sarah Ludford, is disqualified as she is a Member of the European Parliament for London.

The ones we are interested in are party peers on a Leave of Absence:

• Labour - 13 (Valerie Amos, Cathy Ashton, Richard Attenborough, Betty Lockwood, Donald Macaulay, Roy Mason, Olive Nicol, Gwilym Prys-Davies, David Sainsbury, David Simon, George Simpson, Terence Thomas, Shriti Vadera)
• Conservative - 6 (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Marcus Kimball, Robert Lindsay, Beryl Platt, Jim Prior, John Sainsbury)
• Democratic Unionist Party - 2 (Eileen Paisley, Ian Paisley)
• Liberal Democrat - 1 (George Mackie)
• Ulster Unionist Party - 1 (James Molyneaux)

With this, we can now give a number of life peers for each party (whipless and non-affiliated ones could return, as could those on Leave of Absence or disqualified):

• Labour - 241
• Conservative - 184
• Liberal Democrat - 100
• Ulster Unionist Party - 5
• Democratic Unionist Party - 4
• Plaid Cymru - 2
• UK Independence Party - 2
• Green Party of England & Wales - 1

The next stage is to look at the results of the May 2010 general election:

Party	Life peers	Votes	Votes per peer
Conservative/Ulster Unionist Party	189	10,806,115	57,175
Labour	241	8,609,527	35,724
Liberal Democrat/Alliance Party of Northern Ireland	100	6,879,586	68,786
UK Independence Party	2	919,546	459,773
British National Party	0	564,331	N/A
Scottish National Party	0	491,386	N/A
Green Party of England & Wales	1	265,247	265,247
Sinn Féin	0	171,942	N/A
Democratic Unionist Party	4	168,216	42,054
Plaid Cymru	2	165,394	82,697
Social Democratic & Labour Party	0	110,970	N/A

Now, you'll notice that the number of votes for some parties doesn't tally. In Northern Ireland, the Conservatives and UUP fought as a single party - and the UUP does have quite a high number of peers for its vote, which doesn't reflect its recent electoral collapse - and the BBC also counts John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons and MP for Buckingham in the Conservative tally.

I have combined the Liberal Democrats and APNI, noting that former APNI leader, John Alderdice, takes the Liberal Democrat whip in the House of Lords.

The BBC totals ignore the fact that there are 3 Green parties in the United Kingdom - there are separate ones in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

With this we find the lowest number of votes per peer is Labour's 35,724. If this ratio applied for all parties then we would have:

• Conservative/Ulster Unionist Party - 302
• Labour - 241
• Liberal Democrat/Alliance Party of Northern Ireland - 193
• UK Independence Party - 26
• British National Party - 16
• Scottish National Party - 14
• Green Party of England & Wales - 7
• Sinn Féin - 5
• Democratic Unionist Party - 5
• Plaid Cymru - 5
• Social Democratic & Labour Party - 3

We currently have 539 party life peers - the above would raise it to an unmanageable 817 (an increase of 278).

Now, not all of these parties would accept peers - the Scottish National Party and Sinn Féin would not - but this can be worked around. For example, the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland could be asked to nominate 14 and 5 Crossbenchers respectively. If the Social Democratic & Labour Party doesn't take its peers, then Labour should appoint 3 peers from Northern Ireland, such as Belfast-born Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall.

The thought of BNP peers turns my stomach, but that is democracy.

So, how many extra peers would each party get?

• Conservative/Ulster Unionist Party - 113
• Liberal Democrat/Alliance Party of Northern Ireland - 93
• UK Independence Party - 24
• British National Party - 16
• Scottish National Party - 14
• Green Party of England & Wales - 6
• Sinn Féin - 5
• Plaid Cymru - 3
• Social Democratic & Labour Party - 3
• Democratic Unionist Party - 1*

[* The BBC suggests that William Hay, DUP Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, might become a peer next year.]

Rose And The Bad Wolf

I have allowed myself a moment of überfandom, and am trying to buy all 12 versions of Radio Times. There is one image in it which sticks out, which is the tenth Doctor and Elizabeth I having a picnic.

Now this clearly puts it between The Waters of Mars and The End of Time.

Tenth Doctor: For once I'd like to know where I'm going

Eleventh Doctor: No, you really wouldn't

This exchange makes some sense if the tenth Doctor is at the point where he is trying to avoid Ood Sigma's summons to the Oodsphere.

Also, if The Day of the Doctor is the tenth Doctor's penultimate adventure, then this means his last two adventures are related to the Time War. If - as some as suggested - the three Doctors we see collectively use The Moment to end the Time War, then by the time of The End of Time his emotions must be in turmoil. He is running from his past, he has destroyed Gallifrey twice already (knowing he'll do it again), he is running from his future ("He will knock four times") and to cap it all, it looks like Rassilon, the Time Lords and Gallifrey are coming back. In The Beast Below, the eleventh Doctor is quite relaxed about Gallifrey - he has seen the consequences of Gallifrey not being destroyed, seen Rassilon's plan, and realises that he did the right thing.

But if, from the tenth Doctor's perspective, this is near the end, then it means one thing - Rose Tyler is not his companion.

Looking at the trailers, I don't think we see Rose alone with the tenth Doctor. If anything, she is with the missing Doctor.

In Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, Rose becomes the Bad Wolf, and what does she do? "The Time War ends" - the Bad Wolf's role is to bring it to an end by destroying the Daleks. In Turn Left, the Doctor tells Donna Noble that the "Bad Wolf" messages all over the place mean the end of everything - and this follows on to Rose's return and the Daleks undoing some of the Time War.

In Boom Town, the Doctor seems perturbed by a potential nuclear power station called Bad Wolf (in Welsh). But why? Why all this stuff about seeing it everywhere when the only earlier time he came across it was Bad Wolf TV in The Long Game? Something deeper was happening.

I will stick my neck out here - the Bad Wolf is, I suggest, a mythical figure from Time Lord legend representing destruction.

Be Careful With Water, Electricity And The Bible

One man I know is heavily into DIY, but he once told me there are two things for which he will call in a professional.

The first of these is water. One mistake, and a place can be flooded, with the possibility of an insurance company not paying out. Safer to get a plumber in.

The other is electricity. One mistake can be fatal. Safer to get an electrician in.

Water is essential to life. And in the modern Western world, electricity is a very important feature. Ever had a power cut and realised just how much we depend on it?

Water and electricity are both dangerous, and they need to be treated with respect as a result. I like swimming, but can never totally relax in the water - if anything goes wrong the consequences can be serious.

Last week I was at a course at church on How To Teach The Bible, and I realised that I actually enjoyed it - looking at a passage, seeing the main points, devising a structure, thinking about how to apply it to our lives, what examples there would be etc. And when I saw the list of indications that one might have the gift of teaching, I found myself thinking, yes, that's me.

There are two extreme poles on the idea of the gift of teaching. On one end, there is the idea that if there's any Bible teaching to do, well that's what the dog-collared Rev is there for. I remember mentioning to one clergyman about 15 years ago that I was wondering if I had this gift and making the terrible faux pas of suggesting I combine it with secular work. Very quickly I find that the two types of ministry he takes a very dim view of are Non-Stipendary Ministers and Lay Readers. It was clear that as far as he was concerned, these were the people who wanted the glamour of being up there at the front leading or in the pulpit, but were not willing to put in the hard slog of day-to-day parish work. So I left the idea.

There is another end, and for this I need some background. I love Maths, and when I was young I wanted to grow up to be a Maths teacher. And when I became a Christian as an undergraduate, quickly came across what we can call "the Four M's" approach to careers. Mission, Ministry, Medicine, Minds. Basically, you are called to become a missionary overseas, or be a vicar/rector (if a man), work as a doctor or a nurse, or a teacher.

Well, I don't like hot countries, so that rules out being a missionary. Couldn't see myself as a vicar. Am squeamish with blood. So by default that left teaching as the only career option for me. And I did start a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) but realised it wasn't me, so withdrew after the second term.

As a result I was unemployed until I started temping in the secular world of factory work. Two things would grate. The first was when well-meaning Christians would ask whether I had considered teaching as a career. The second was when this was followed up by a comment about how Christians find teaching easy. Yeah, thanks for that.

But it is easy to see where this comes from. I didn't grow up in a Christian home, so a lot of things are alien to me. But I would get the impression that helping out at Sunday School was very much a rite of passage for teenagers from Christian families - hence the idea that teaching was a gift everyone had.

And in Bible study groups it is normal for everyone to play their part in leading.

There were a few things that struck me about what we learned. The first is the benefit of teaching through a book of the Bible Sunday-by-Sunday. That way the preacher doesn't choose his favourite passages. Nor can anyone feel singled out - and I can give a practical example from yesterday.

After my PGCE I did factory work, but there were also in that 18-month period between that and starting an MSc in Astronomy times when I was unemployed or only working part-time. And there was a small group of young Christians who got very hot under the collar about "the sin of unemployment". Two passages would be shown to me:

Six days you shall labour, and do all your work, (Ex. 20:9)

and

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labour we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. (II Thess. 3:6-14.)

In their worldview, being unemployed was an deliberate lifestyle choice, not something that happens to someone, and the way it should be dealt with is via church discipline - in particular the "have nothing to do with him". This would mean an unemployed man should not be allowed to become - or remain - a church member, and that he and his wife and children should be excluded from church activities. Excluding the family would help shame him into becoming employed, as he would realise that his remaining unemployed had consequences for those who meant the most to him.

Last week I was due to have my interview about becoming a church member (this is how we do things in the free churches) and before it I decided not to go ahead as I was unemployed and had this all going through my mind, with it keeping me awake quite late the night before. The reassuring email was that it was OK, I wouldn't be barred from membership for not being able to find work.

I spent Sunday with at my parents', and went to the main morning service at the Anglican church in their village. The preacher preached on the Thessalonians passage. Now, I could have thought that it was chosen because I was there - but it was simply what was the Epistle reading in the Lectionary.

The second thing that struck me is that a preacher needs to avoid a hobby horse, with the example of a preacher who could drag baptism into every passage - we need to draw out what is in the passage, not read in. One example springs to mind, a Baptist church, where the minister and elders made the controversial decision to nominate a woman to fill the vacancy in the presbyterate. And the Sunday before the church meeting with The Vote, the sermon was from Nehemiah 3, the rebuilding of the Wall.

And the key verse was verse 12:

Next to him Shallum the son of Hallohesh, ruler of half the district of Jerusalem, repaired, he and his daughters.

There we have it, in the buidling of the Wall, there were no distinctions between roles men and women had. And so in the building of God's Kingdom, yep, you've got it. Loaded Sermon Klaxon.

I have to say the best sermons on giving are on days which are not Gift Days.

What have I taken away from the training? The thing is that if I do indeed have this gift then, however awkward it would be, I have to use it:

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies — in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To Him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (I Pet. 4:10)

Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness. (Rom. 12:6-8)

One thing I need to carefully consider is what my motivation would be. Last year, we had a school reunion, and I received an apology for one man for bullying me at school. My reply was, "I deserved it".

I was very talented academically - at secondary school at the end of year exams, I once came top in every academic subject. The other two years where we had end of year exams, one girl came top in at most three subjects (cannot remember exactly). And this made me arrogant.

This is my fear. Those who preach and teach can be put on pedestals, and I have known preachers who have done terrible things and prior to that been seen with respect. At primary school, some books we read would be quite old-fashioned (why, oh why, was "Grandmother North" insistent that just because it was wartime, there was no reason to stop having dinner in the dining room?), and in some we would come across the idea of the "Sunday best" with clothing. And sadly, there will be preachers who have their own "Sunday best" of piety and appearing spiritual.

If I have a gift, I don't want to use it in a way that puffs me up and doesn't point people towards Jesus.

If I were to teach the Bible, I would have to make sure, above all, that I was teaching responsibly. It is a dangerous book:

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb. 4:12a)

Like anything dangerous, it has to be treated with respect when being handled.

How Close Did The USA Come To Being Leaderless In January 2001 And Could A Goode Man Have Prevented It?

Anyone who follows my blog knows I have an interest in politics, and this includes American politics. One thing I was recently looking at is the November 2000 federal election.

This is famous for the then-Governor of Texas, George Bush, defeating sitting Vice-President, Al Gore, due to a controversy over hanging chads in Florida. But there was much more going on.

In the Electoral College, Bush got 271 votes to Gore's 266, with one Elector - in the District of Columbia - abstaining, despite being pledged to support Gore. Florida, with its 25 votes, would have enabled Gore to win by 291 to 246.

However, the states where Gore won by the narrowest margins - New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa - had 23 votes between them. If Bush had won these (which could be achieved with just 5,112 voters - less than 0.005% of the total voters - switching), with Gore winning Florida, then Bush would have 269 votes to Gore's 268. Before you assume that Bush could have claimed victory, remember Gore's faithless former friend. Her vote has to be taken into account, and Bush would win 269 votes out of a possible 538.

To be elected President at this stage, a candidate needs an absolute majority - so 270 or more votes. If no-one manages that, then the matter is referred to the House of Representatives that was elected at the same time. There crucial thing here is that votes at this second stage are cast by state delegation.

The House of Representatives elected in 2000 had 221 Republicans and 212 Democrats, as well as 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders, who was the sole Representative for Vermont, which he now represents in the Senate, and Virgil Goode, a Representative for Virginia who represented the area around Charlottesville, and who had been originally a Democrat but by the November 2002 election was a Republican).

But more important than the numbers is where they represent. If a state had a Republican majority in its delegation, then it would have voted for Bush. If a Democrat majority, then Gore. If evenly split, then it would have abstained.

The numbers give us:

• Bush - 28
• Gore - 18 (including Vermont)
• Abstained - 4 (Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Nevada)

Just as with the Electoral College, what matters here is getting an absolute majority, i.e. 26 votes. Given that states may have to abstain, we can see that it is possible that even with 2 candidates, there is no winner. Bush only needed to lose 3 states for this to occur.

What we need to look at are states where the Republicans had a majority of 1 or 2 Representatives. If they had a majority of 1, then the loss of their most vulnerable seat to the Democrats would flip the state delegation to voting for Gore. If a majority of 2, then (except for Virginia), this would lead to the state delegation abstaining.

The states with a majority of 1 were Alaska, Delaware, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, while those with a majority of 2 were Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia (which is the only one of these to return an odd number of Representatives).

And we find there are 3 seats in these states where the Republican lead is less than 5% over the Democrats:

• In Missouri's 6th district, Sam Graves had a majority of 11,133
• In Montana, Dennis Rehberg had a majority of 30,447
• In Virginia's 2nd district, Ed Schrock had a majority of 7,528

This situation could arise with just 24,556 voters switching.

Graves and Rehberg failing to be elected would lead to Missouri and Montana voting for Gore, bringing him to 20. If Schrock failed to be elected, Virginia would return 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 1 Independent. Goode would be in the incredibly powerful position of whether to give the state delegation vote to Bush (in which case he would have 26 states and win) or Gore (in which case the House of Representatives would have failed to elect a President).

Oh well, if there's no President, then at least the Vice-President can take over till the mess is sorted out. With the Electoral College failing to choose one, all the Senate needed to do was to decide between the Republican Dick Cheney, at the time a former Secretary of Defense, and the Democrat Joe Lieberman, at the time a Senator for Connecticut. And as a result of the election, there were 50 Republican and 50 Democrat Senators. Ah, a tie. There is an interesting article on what happens if there is a tie in the Senate.

It would not have taken many votes to change hands in 2000 for the situation of both the Electoral College and Congress failing to elect a President and a Vice-President.

What I expect the sequence of events would have been is this - Dennis Hastert of Illinois, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, would have found himself on Inauguration Day as the highest person in the line of succession, and therefore he would have taken the oath as Acting President. He could then nominate a Vice-President - logically either Bush (as a fellow Republican) or Gore (as winner of the popular vote). Once ratification was complete, there would be someone higher than Hastert in the line of succession (Vice-President is above Speaker) and whomever Hastert had chosen would complete the term of office.