Comparing your analysis with Mike's figures in the lead suggests that Tory MPs are an unusually healthy bunch? Which is surprising; their stress levels are probably low as most of them sit in safe seats untroubled by job insecurity, but I would have thought their lifestyles aren't particularly healthy ones for people of their age, what with all those lunches and all?
Three things are relevant.
Firstly, there were very many fewer Tory MPs 2001-5, and a fair number fewer in 2005-10. So you'd have expected a lower number of deaths than my par four.
Secondly, the whole point of using statistical tables is that there is a lot of variability when you've got quite small numbers and all individuals are at quite low risk. It is surprising, but not massively surprising, that the Tories got a below par score in the three and a bit Parliaments we're looking at.
Thirdly, being "healthy" in a general sense reduces your risk of dying (obviously!) but maybe a little less than people tend to think. Generally healthy people do, in fact, often get cancer, or drop down dead with a heart attack - less often than unhealthy ones, but not as much less often as they might like. In the not-so-very-long run, the mortality rate of everyone is 100%. Additionally, general physical condition isn't a very good predictor at all of some causes of death (vehicle accidents, murder, suicide etc).
So it might be that Tory MPs are somewhat healthier than most people their age (indeed, I've reduced the par from eight to four on that basis) but my basic point is that the exceptional survival rate 2001-2017 probably isn't a very good predictor.
On topic, I've looked up the statistical life tables. The ONS publish life expectancy tables including a figure with the probability of somebody alive at age X not being alive at age X+1.
Snip for space
Looking at a five year period, and very roughly averaging men and women, you have about a 0.25% chance of dying in any five year period in your 20s, 0.5% in your 30s, 1% in your 40s, 2.5% in your 50s, 5% in your 60s, and 15% in your 70s.
Looking at 2015 Tory MPs (as I say, I don't have the 2017 numbers):
5 were in their 20s - vanishingly unlikely not to survive the full five years. 41 were in their 30s - again unlikely, but maybe a one in four chance of one or more passing on. 122 were in their 40s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in that sort of group. 113 were in their 50s - you'd expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group. 40 were in their 60s - you'd again expect 2-3 deaths in this sort of group. 8 were in their 70s - you'd expect 1-2 deaths in this sort of group.
Overall, then, you'd be looking at around eight deaths in a group with broadly the profile of Tory MPs.
Now, I accept MPs are fairly well off, equating to lower risk. They also probably wouldn't have stood for the election if they were battling a major health problem just now (although many are likely to be managing less immediately threatening conditions). So it wouldn't be unreasonable to halve it to four. With such low numbers and low individual risk, it's entirely possible it'll be zero or one (as it has been in recent Parliaments). But it's also entirely possible it will be seven or eight.
I would contend that this - a par of around four based on millions of real lives and deaths in the UK - is a much more realistic predictor. I know it's a rather grim calculation - and let's hope I'm wrong and MPs of all parties remain healthy for the full term - but if you have to calculate it, that's broadly the way to go about it.
But these aren't people in their 70s, they are Conservative MPs in their 70s and that imports all sorts of biases (as you concede in your penultimate paragraph). And have a look at this if you aren't already aware of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study It is debatable how high-status being an MP feels, but this being the tories lots of them have ministerial office and undoubtedly *feel* high status about it, which seems to be what matters. It is all very well saying look at my millions-strong sample but that sample includes - largely consists of, indeed - the poor, mad, terminally ill and generally f*cked up. You are much better off comparing recent cohorts of other tory mps than comparing the general public. Par is 0 or 1, and I'd be happy to have a little spread bet with you, with me selling at 4, if good taste didn't prohibit such a thing.
Interesting that no Tory MPs have died since 2003, and only two since the year 2000. There used to be a culture of heavy drinking and smoking at Westminster which probably contributed to MPs passing away at a relatively early age.
Didn't David Owen famously wander round the tea room trying to work out which MPs were likely to die first ?
Moving on to matters LD, it looks increasing like a coronation for Vince so the Hustings will be a meet the Leader/Deputy Leader session which I'll try to get to if I can.
I'm fairly relaxed about an interim Cable leadership - he is essentially Roy Jenkins for the 21st Century. The problem is for the 2/3 of the LD membership who joined since 2015 he will be "that old guy off Strictly". He doesn't bring the activist enthusiasm that Tim had in spades and which was vital in regaining the seats recaptured three weeks ago.
I'm hoping for two things from a Cable leadership:
1) A wiser articulation of the Party's position on Brexit. I've no issue with a referendum on a final Treaty but we can't say a NO vote implies staying in the EU. It would be nice to have "hard" and "soft" Brexit treaties prepared and for both to be put to the public along with the "no treaty" option. The Party has to recognise we are leaving the EU and even if the Party adopts a BINO stance, that will be progress.
2) Cable needs to prepare the ground for Jo Swinson and she needs to prepare to take on the leadership in good time for a 2022 election. The Party will need (but not now) to make its position clear relative to Labour and the Conservatives in terms of potential post-election haggling.
We are realistically a long way from the next GE - there is a Niagara falls worth of water to flow under the bridge and given where we were six weeks ago to where we are now should make anyone cautious in prognostication. As with the other parties, the Party needs to be thinking about the shape of 2020s post-EU Britain - what kind of country it will be and what kind we want it to be. An open, liberal, outward-looking, global society and economy is all very desirable but it has to work for everyone not just the wealthy and the entrepreneurs.
What kind of place will that Britain be like for someone who is old or disabled or struggling with mental health issues ?
Comparing your analysis with Mike's figures in the lead suggests that Tory MPs are an unusually healthy bunch? Which is surprising; their stress levels are probably low as most of them sit in safe seats untroubled by job insecurity, but I would have thought their lifestyles aren't particularly healthy ones for people of their age, what with all those lunches and all?
Three things are relevant.
Firstly, there were very many fewer Tory MPs 2001-5, and a fair number fewer in 2005-10. So you'd have expected a lower number of deaths than my par four.
Secondly, the whole point of using statistical tables is that there is a lot of variability when you've got quite small numbers and all individuals are at quite low risk. It is surprising, but not massively surprising, that the Tories got a below par score in the three and a bit Parliaments we're looking at.
Thirdly, being "healthy" in a general sense reduces your risk of dying (obviously!) but maybe a little less than people tend to think. Generally healthy people do, in fact, often get cancer, or drop down dead with a heart attack - less often than unhealthy ones, but not as much less often as they might like. In the not-so-very-long run, the mortality rate of everyone is 100%. Additionally, general physical condition isn't a very good predictor at all of some causes of death (vehicle accidents, murder, suicide etc).
So it might be that Tory MPs are somewhat healthier than most people their age (indeed, I've reduced the par from eight to four on that basis) but my basic point is that the exceptional survival rate 2001-2017 probably isn't a very good predictor.
"exceptional survival rate" assumes what you seek to prove.
Perhaps the Standard should mention that the Chancellor from 2010 to 2016 preferred to spend endless billions on Expense Account Rail rather than on improving broadband speeds.
But these aren't people in their 70s, they are Conservative MPs in their 70s and that imports all sorts of biases (as you concede in your penultimate paragraph). And have a look at this if you aren't already aware of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study It is debatable how high-status being an MP feels, but this being the tories lots of them have ministerial office and undoubtedly *feel* high status about it, which seems to be what matters. It is all very well saying look at my millions-strong sample but that sample includes - largely consists of, indeed - the poor, mad, terminally ill and generally f*cked up. You are much better off comparing recent cohorts of other tory mps than comparing the general public. Par is 0 or 1, and I'd be happy to have a little spread bet with you, with me selling at 4, if good taste didn't prohibit such a thing.
Yes, I think good taste does preclude it (and also, if you say par is 0.5 and I say it's 4, surely the fair thing to do would be to sell at 2.25 - otherwise what's the point in me doing it as I've said I think it's more or less equally likely to be above or below four?)
Obviously, Labour MPs are at or somewhat above my par (I'd expect around 12-13 over 16 years rather than the 16 there have been, although it may be that the age groups were a little different and there were certainly more Labour MPs for 9 of the years).
All the status points you make would apply to them. Are they wildly more unhealthy than Tory MPs? Maybe a little. If you look at the actual deaths, one was very much drink related, some were smokers and/or obese. But a lot weren't - they were just unlucky. And, in any event, there very obviously are a fair number of Tory MPs with quite unhealthy lifestyles - maybe less than Labour, but it isn't necessarily obvious.
Didn't David Owen famously wander round the tea room trying to work out which MPs were likely to die first ?
Moving on to matters LD, it looks increasing like a coronation for Vince so the Hustings will be a meet the Leader/Deputy Leader session which I'll try to get to if I can.
I'm fairly relaxed about an interim Cable leadership - he is essentially Roy Jenkins for the 21st Century. The problem is for the 2/3 of the LD membership who joined since 2015 he will be "that old guy off Strictly". He doesn't bring the activist enthusiasm that Tim had in spades and which was vital in regaining the seats recaptured three weeks ago.
I'm hoping for two things from a Cable leadership:
1) A wiser articulation of the Party's position on Brexit. I've no issue with a referendum on a final Treaty but we can't say a NO vote implies staying in the EU. It would be nice to have "hard" and "soft" Brexit treaties prepared and for both to be put to the public along with the "no treaty" option. The Party has to recognise we are leaving the EU and even if the Party adopts a BINO stance, that will be progress.
2) Cable needs to prepare the ground for Jo Swinson and she needs to prepare to take on the leadership in good time for a 2022 election. The Party will need (but not now) to make its position clear relative to Labour and the Conservatives in terms of potential post-election haggling.
We are realistically a long way from the next GE - there is a Niagara falls worth of water to flow under the bridge and given where we were six weeks ago to where we are now should make anyone cautious in prognostication. As with the other parties, the Party needs to be thinking about the shape of 2020s post-EU Britain - what kind of country it will be and what kind we want it to be. An open, liberal, outward-looking, global society and economy is all very desirable but it has to work for everyone not just the wealthy and the entrepreneurs.
What kind of place will that Britain be like for someone who is old or disabled or struggling with mental health issues ?
Hi stodge , I pretty much agree with your analysis except that I think come the moment Jo Swinson will possibly see a contest with Layla Moran for the succession .
Didn't David Owen famously wander round the tea room trying to work out which MPs were likely to die first ?
Moving on to matters LD, it looks increasing like a coronation for Vince so the Hustings will be a meet the Leader/Deputy Leader session which I'll try to get to if I can.
I'm fairly relaxed about an interim Cable leadership - he is essentially Roy Jenkins for the 21st Century. The problem is for the 2/3 of the LD membership who joined since 2015 he will be "that old guy off Strictly". He doesn't bring the activist enthusiasm that Tim had in spades and which was vital in regaining the seats recaptured three weeks ago.
I'm hoping for two things from a Cable leadership:
1) A wiser articulation of the Party's position on Brexit. I've no issue with a referendum on a final Treaty but we can't say a NO vote implies staying in the EU. It would be nice to have "hard" and "soft" Brexit treaties prepared and for both to be put to the public along with the "no treaty" option. The Party has to recognise we are leaving the EU and even if the Party adopts a BINO stance, that will be progress.
2) Cable needs to prepare the ground for Jo Swinson and she needs to prepare to take on the leadership in good time for a 2022 election. The Party will need (but not now) to make its position clear relative to Labour and the Conservatives in terms of potential post-election haggling.
We are realistically a long way from the next GE - there is a Niagara falls worth of water to flow under the bridge and given where we were six weeks ago to where we are now should make anyone cautious in prognostication. As with the other parties, the Party needs to be thinking about the shape of 2020s post-EU Britain - what kind of country it will be and what kind we want it to be. An open, liberal, outward-looking, global society and economy is all very desirable but it has to work for everyone not just the wealthy and the entrepreneurs.
What kind of place will that Britain be like for someone who is old or disabled or struggling with mental health issues ?
Hi stodge , I pretty much agree with your analysis except that I think come the moment Jo Swinson will possibly see a contest with Layla Moran for the succession .
Comparing your analysis with Mike's figures in the lead suggests that Tory MPs are an unusually healthy bunch? Which is surprising; their stress levels are probably low as most of them sit in safe seats untroubled by job insecurity, but I would have thought their lifestyles aren't particularly healthy ones for people of their age, what with all those lunches and all?
Three things are relevant.
Firstly, there were very many fewer Tory MPs 2001-5, and a fair number fewer in 2005-10. So you'd have expected a lower number of deaths than my par four.
Secondly, the whole point of using statistical tables is that there is a lot of variability when you've got quite small numbers and all individuals are at quite low risk. It is surprising, but not massively surprising, that the Tories got a below par score in the three and a bit Parliaments we're looking at.
Thirdly, being "healthy" in a general sense reduces your risk of dying (obviously!) but maybe a little less than people tend to think. Generally healthy people do, in fact, often get cancer, or drop down dead with a heart attack - less often than unhealthy ones, but not as much less often as they might like. In the not-so-very-long run, the mortality rate of everyone is 100%. Additionally, general physical condition isn't a very good predictor at all of some causes of death (vehicle accidents, murder, suicide etc).
So it might be that Tory MPs are somewhat healthier than most people their age (indeed, I've reduced the par from eight to four on that basis) but my basic point is that the exceptional survival rate 2001-2017 probably isn't a very good predictor.
"exceptional survival rate" assumes what you seek to prove.
It's "exceptional" in comparison with MPs as a whole, compared with other 16 year periods you might choose to cut, compared with individuals of broadly the age and most probably compared with other advanced countries (a rough tally indicates seven special elections due to Republican deaths in the House of Representatives in the period - noting slightly lower numbers and the fact that people have the opportunity to retire every two years).
So I think that's a fair word to use. Is it exceptional enough to be vanishingly unlikely to be down to chance? Not really - small numbers, low individual probabilities.
But these aren't people in their 70s, they are Conservative MPs in their 70s and that imports all sorts of biases (as you concede in your penultimate paragraph). And have a look at this if you aren't already aware of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study It is debatable how high-status being an MP feels, but this being the tories lots of them have ministerial office and undoubtedly *feel* high status about it, which seems to be what matters. It is all very well saying look at my millions-strong sample but that sample includes - largely consists of, indeed - the poor, mad, terminally ill and generally f*cked up. You are much better off comparing recent cohorts of other tory mps than comparing the general public. Par is 0 or 1, and I'd be happy to have a little spread bet with you, with me selling at 4, if good taste didn't prohibit such a thing.
Yes, I think good taste does preclude it (and also, if you say par is 0.5 and I say it's 4, surely the fair thing to do would be to sell at 2.25 - otherwise what's the point in me doing it as I've said I think it's more or less equally likely to be above or below four?)
Obviously, Labour MPs are at or somewhat above my par (I'd expect around 12-13 over 16 years rather than the 16 there have been, although it may be that the age groups were a little different and there were certainly more Labour MPs for 9 of the years).
All the status points you make would apply to them. Are they wildly more unhealthy than Tory MPs? Maybe a little. If you look at the actual deaths, one was very much drink related, some were smokers and/or obese. But a lot weren't - they were just unlucky. And, in any event, there very obviously are a fair number of Tory MPs with quite unhealthy lifestyles - maybe less than Labour, but it isn't necessarily obvious.
Didn't David Owen famously wander round the tea room trying to work out which MPs were likely to die first ?
Moving on to matters LD, it looks increasing like a coronation for Vince so the Hustings will be a meet the Leader/Deputy Leader session which I'll try to get to if I can.
I'm fairly relaxed about an interim Cable leadership - he is essentially Roy Jenkins for the 21st Century. The problem is for the 2/3 of the LD membership who joined since 2015 he will be "that old guy off Strictly". He doesn't bring the activist enthusiasm that Tim had in spades and which was vital in regaining the seats recaptured three weeks ago.
I'm hoping for two things from a Cable leadership:
1) A wiser articulation of the Party's position on Brexit. I've no issue with a referendum on a final Treaty but we can't say a NO vote implies staying in the EU. It would be nice to have "hard" and "soft" Brexit treaties prepared and for both to be put to the public along with the "no treaty" option. The Party has to recognise we are leaving the EU and even if the Party adopts a BINO stance, that will be progress.
2) Cable needs to prepare the ground for Jo Swinson and she needs to prepare to take on the leadership in good time for a 2022 election. The Party will need (but not now) to make its position clear relative to Labour and the Conservatives in terms of potential post-election haggling.
We are realistically a long way from the next GE - there is a Niagara falls worth of water to flow under the bridge and given where we were six weeks ago to where we are now should make anyone cautious in prognostication. As with the other parties, the Party needs to be thinking about the shape of 2020s post-EU Britain - what kind of country it will be and what kind we want it to be. An open, liberal, outward-looking, global society and economy is all very desirable but it has to work for everyone not just the wealthy and the entrepreneurs.
What kind of place will that Britain be like for someone who is old or disabled or struggling with mental health issues ?
I will be disappointed if there is a coronation. We need a proper hustings with differing visions of future party direction. I hope Lamb reconsiders, but if not then someone else needs to stand.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Lamb, Alexander and Webb achieved lots.
Cable spent more time leaking and briefing against the Tories, and then ballsed up the Royal Mail sell off. And little to no progress on stuff like business regulation.
Didn't Cable initiate the Green Investment bank, now to be sold off at a profit by the Gov't?
Yes. Always suspected he had serious problems with Osborne, too.
I agree with you about Cable on both counts, - but I think he will get media attention, talk authoritatively on Brexit and the economy and won't be bullied or conned by the opposition. He's a wily old codger. So I am going to hold my nose and vote for him. Not that there's going to be any choice!
Cable is brilliant at doing the media rounds and making lots of reasonable sounding suggestions of where the government is going wrong. Obviously when he actually had the power to make some of these decisions he was bloody useless.
How much power did the Lib Dems have in government, when the larger party could block them so easily? I think their strength was in preventing the Tories from doing things (which they have managed to do since 2015 gave them a majority, sadly). And this worked both ways, of course. By and large, nothing very unpleasant happened under the coalition government.
Speaking from personal experience, stopping things as the junior coalition partner is a lot easier than getting your own priorities introduced, as the latter needs the larger party to vote for them en masse. That said, the LibDems did well in getting pensions reform, the pupil premium, higher income tax personal allowances, free school meals, and the Green Deal introduced during their term of office.
The greatest strength of coalition government is that the wider consultation and dual party veto means that truly dumb proposals get vetoed by one side or the other, often before they see the light of day. Talk to former LD ministers in private, as I have, and you'll realise that the real achievement of the LibDems was in stopping some Tory proposals that, as a consequence, never got any publicity at all.
In a party political sense - stopping your opponent from making a mistake isn't so wonderful. Lib Dems should have compromised less and traded more.
"Two thirds of pensioners are still saving in retirement, putting away more than any other age group, according to new research. Rather than just spending all the money they have built up over their working lives, over-65s put away an average of £270 a month or £3,240 a year on average. Experts say this is because saving becomes a habit that is hard to break, especially when retirees want build up a pot to pass on to their loved ones."
I find it impossible to spend my [ fairly modest pension and investment income in full most of the time and actually my net worth is greater than when I retired 8 years ago]. I think by the time one gets older the desire to spend wanes.
But these aren't people in their 70s, they are Conservative MPs in their 70s and that imports all sorts of biases (as you concede in your penultimate paragraph). And have a look at this if you aren't already aware of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study It is debatable how high-status being an MP feels, but this being the tories lots of them have ministerial office and undoubtedly *feel* high status about it, which seems to be what matters. It is all very well saying look at my millions-strong sample but that sample includes - largely consists of, indeed - the poor, mad, terminally ill and generally f*cked up. You are much better off comparing recent cohorts of other tory mps than comparing the general public. Par is 0 or 1, and I'd be happy to have a little spread bet with you, with me selling at 4, if good taste didn't prohibit such a thing.
Yes, I think good taste does preclude it (and also, if you say par is 0.5 and I say it's 4, surely the fair thing to do would be to sell at 2.25 - otherwise what's the point in me doing it as I've said I think it's more or less equally likely to be above or below four?)
Obviously, Labour MPs are at or somewhat above my par (I'd expect around 12-13 over 16 years rather than the 16 there have been, although it may be that the age groups were a little different and there were certainly more Labour MPs for 9 of the years).
All the status points you make would apply to them. Are they wildly more unhealthy than Tory MPs? Maybe a little. If you look at the actual deaths, one was very much drink related, some were smokers and/or obese. But a lot weren't - they were just unlucky. And, in any event, there very obviously are a fair number of Tory MPs with quite unhealthy lifestyles - maybe less than Labour, but it isn't necessarily obvious.
Time will tell.
It won't. Even if the number is four or more, it wouldn't prove me right. The par could still easily be 0.5 as you say. Ditto, if it's zero or one it wouldn't prove you right.
Didn't David Owen famously wander round the tea room trying to work out which MPs were likely to die first ?
Moving on to matters LD, it looks increasing like a coronation for Vince so the Hustings will be a meet the Leader/Deputy Leader session which I'll try to get to if I can.
I'm fairly relaxed about an interim Cable leadership - he is essentially Roy Jenkins for the 21st Century. The problem is for the 2/3 of the LD membership who joined since 2015 he will be "that old guy off Strictly". He doesn't bring the activist enthusiasm that Tim had in spades and which was vital in regaining the seats recaptured three weeks ago.
I'm hoping for two things from a Cable leadership:
1) A wiser articulation of the Party's position on Brexit. I've no issue with a referendum on a final Treaty but we can't say a NO vote implies staying in the EU. It would be nice to have "hard" and "soft" Brexit treaties prepared and for both to be put to the public along with the "no treaty" option. The Party has to recognise we are leaving the EU and even if the Party adopts a BINO stance, that will be progress.
2) Cable needs to prepare the ground for Jo Swinson and she needs to prepare to take on the leadership in good time for a 2022 election. The Party will need (but not now) to make its position clear relative to Labour and the Conservatives in terms of potential post-election haggling.
We are realistically a long way from the next GE - there is a Niagara falls worth of water to flow under the bridge and given where we were six weeks ago to where we are now should make anyone cautious in prognostication. As with the other parties, the Party needs to be thinking about the shape of 2020s post-EU Britain - what kind of country it will be and what kind we want it to be. An open, liberal, outward-looking, global society and economy is all very desirable but it has to work for everyone not just the wealthy and the entrepreneurs.
What kind of place will that Britain be like for someone who is old or disabled or struggling with mental health issues ?
I will be disappointed if there is a coronation. We need a proper hustings with differing visions of future party direction. I hope Lamb reconsiders, but if not then someone else needs to stand.
I think Cable is easily the best choice, right now. He's high profile and competent, and the Lib Dems need to be noticed.
@SkyNewsBreak: U.S. media: fire department official says three doctors have been shot at New York's Bronx Lebanon Hospital and their condition is unknown
We need to check with HYUFD whether she is still in the lead...
As I have consistently said she did won most regions in the 1st round, fact and I doubt these charges will make the slightest difference to her supporters especially as they concern EU money
Comments
https://twitter.com/Aggerscricket/status/880838372591357952
Firstly, there were very many fewer Tory MPs 2001-5, and a fair number fewer in 2005-10. So you'd have expected a lower number of deaths than my par four.
Secondly, the whole point of using statistical tables is that there is a lot of variability when you've got quite small numbers and all individuals are at quite low risk. It is surprising, but not massively surprising, that the Tories got a below par score in the three and a bit Parliaments we're looking at.
Thirdly, being "healthy" in a general sense reduces your risk of dying (obviously!) but maybe a little less than people tend to think. Generally healthy people do, in fact, often get cancer, or drop down dead with a heart attack - less often than unhealthy ones, but not as much less often as they might like. In the not-so-very-long run, the mortality rate of everyone is 100%. Additionally, general physical condition isn't a very good predictor at all of some causes of death (vehicle accidents, murder, suicide etc).
So it might be that Tory MPs are somewhat healthier than most people their age (indeed, I've reduced the par from eight to four on that basis) but my basic point is that the exceptional survival rate 2001-2017 probably isn't a very good predictor.
It is debatable how high-status being an MP feels, but this being the tories lots of them have ministerial office and undoubtedly *feel* high status about it, which seems to be what matters. It is all very well saying look at my millions-strong sample but that sample includes - largely consists of, indeed - the poor, mad, terminally ill and generally f*cked up. You are much better off comparing recent cohorts of other tory mps than comparing the general public. Par is 0 or 1, and I'd be happy to have a little spread bet with you, with me selling at 4, if good taste didn't prohibit such a thing.
Didn't David Owen famously wander round the tea room trying to work out which MPs were likely to die first ?
Moving on to matters LD, it looks increasing like a coronation for Vince so the Hustings will be a meet the Leader/Deputy Leader session which I'll try to get to if I can.
I'm fairly relaxed about an interim Cable leadership - he is essentially Roy Jenkins for the 21st Century. The problem is for the 2/3 of the LD membership who joined since 2015 he will be "that old guy off Strictly". He doesn't bring the activist enthusiasm that Tim had in spades and which was vital in regaining the seats recaptured three weeks ago.
I'm hoping for two things from a Cable leadership:
1) A wiser articulation of the Party's position on Brexit. I've no issue with a referendum on a final Treaty but we can't say a NO vote implies staying in the EU. It would be nice to have "hard" and "soft" Brexit treaties prepared and for both to be put to the public along with the "no treaty" option. The Party has to recognise we are leaving the EU and even if the Party adopts a BINO stance, that will be progress.
2) Cable needs to prepare the ground for Jo Swinson and she needs to prepare to take on the leadership in good time for a 2022 election. The Party will need (but not now) to make its position clear relative to Labour and the Conservatives in terms of potential post-election haggling.
We are realistically a long way from the next GE - there is a Niagara falls worth of water to flow under the bridge and given where we were six weeks ago to where we are now should make anyone cautious in prognostication. As with the other parties, the Party needs to be thinking about the shape of 2020s post-EU Britain - what kind of country it will be and what kind we want it to be. An open, liberal, outward-looking, global society and economy is all very desirable but it has to work for everyone not just the wealthy and the entrepreneurs.
What kind of place will that Britain be like for someone who is old or disabled or struggling with mental health issues ?
Obviously, Labour MPs are at or somewhat above my par (I'd expect around 12-13 over 16 years rather than the 16 there have been, although it may be that the age groups were a little different and there were certainly more Labour MPs for 9 of the years).
All the status points you make would apply to them. Are they wildly more unhealthy than Tory MPs? Maybe a little. If you look at the actual deaths, one was very much drink related, some were smokers and/or obese. But a lot weren't - they were just unlucky. And, in any event, there very obviously are a fair number of Tory MPs with quite unhealthy lifestyles - maybe less than Labour, but it isn't necessarily obvious.
So I think that's a fair word to use. Is it exceptional enough to be vanishingly unlikely to be down to chance? Not really - small numbers, low individual probabilities.
1 Conservative (Eric Forth)
1 Lib Dem (Patsy Calton)
1 Independent (Peter Law)
Labour:
1. Ipswich (Jamie Cann)
2. Ogmore (Raymond Powell)
3. Brent East (Paul Daisley)
4. Leicester South (Jim Marshall)
5. Livingston (Robin Cook)
6. Dunfermline & West Fife (Rachel Squire)
7. Ealing Southall (Piara Khabra)
8. Crewe & Nantwich (Gwyneth Dunwoody)
9. Glenrothes (John MacDougall)
10. Inverclyde (David Cairns)
11. Feltham & Heston (Alan Keen)
[ 12. Bradford West (Marsha Singh) ]
13. Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks)
14. Middlesbrough (Stuart Bell)
15. Wythenshawe & Sale East (Paul Goggins)
16. Heywood & Middleton (Jim Dobbin)
17. Oldham West & Royton (Michael Meacher)
18. Sheffield Brightside & Hillsborough (Harry Harpham)
[ 19. Batley & Spen (Jo Cox) ]
Even if you disregard Jo Cox *and* Marsha Singh, it's 17 not 15.
And who is the second "Other"?
Lib Dems should have compromised less and traded more.
https://twitter.com/ruthdavidsonmsp/status/880830019253227521
Now is the right time to go.
NEW THREAD