By the time you read this, the results of the US election will be in (or perhaps not...) and we will all know which astrologers were successful in their predictions. Sometimes I wonder why we astrologers feel the need to predict everything, down to every last detail. The other week, I read an article by US astrologer Anthony Peña that provided me with a possible answer. He asked if astrologers were, by calculating every last minor transit and progression for a person or event, unconsciously trying to gain control over events. Certainly, I myself have spent the anxious hours of more than one family crisis poring over charts and graphs; I have to admit that I could not endure the alternative of simply waiting for events that were utterly beyond my control to take their course. Trying to predict likely outcomes did indeed give me the illusion of not being helpless (i.e. "I knew things would start improving - the Moon has just passed his Sun/Pluto midpoint!").

Many people, and not just in America, regard this Presidential election as one of the most important in history. They have a huge emotional investment in the outcome; so, unable to sit back and allow things to take their course, they have calculated and graphed and predicted to the nth degree. Let's hope they don't feel let down by the outcome.

This issue, we have articles on Tony Blair's health crisis; a seasonal article from Paul Newman on a Christmas classic; David Fisher's Data Dept, with the birth data of Ian Holms, Anne Mueller, the cast of long-running British TV show Steptoe and Son, Christopher Reeve, Janet Leigh and (another topical subject!) Guy Fawkes; and an examination of the astrology of the horrendous floods that hit Boscastle in August. There are also all the usual roundup of news, events and conferences.

- Val Dobson, Editor