Only the british ones?  Isn't that why every politcian is one?

 Right...

Winston Churchill
Margeret Thatcher
David Lloyd George
Nick Clegg
Edmond Burke
Ramsay MacDonald
Nye Bevan
John Stuart Mill
George Lansbury
Tony Benn
Tony Blair
Caroline Lucas

I would say Gordon Brown, but I'd probably get booed for that. Anyways, those are the ones I can think of with my limited knowledge.

EDIT: I'd like to point out that some of those politicians wouldn't be my favourite ones (ie - all the right wing ones), but, amongst all the shit they did to our country, they did some good, too.

Pitt and Liverpool were pretty good, there was a reason why they held office for so long

BBC...that explains it then.

1) I'd kill 1 random person to save 5 random people when I had to choose between the 1 dying or the 5 dying, because it's already established that somebody has to die and I'd choose to minimize the amount of murders. But in the case of Bill I'd be going out of my way to murder 1 person to save 5 deaths that aren't murder. I don't know any of these people and I don't care about them.

2) Physically, I am not the same person. I have the same memories though. If you put my brain into 2 other bodies they would both be me, but I would not be both at once. We would not have a magic psychic connection, or one hivemind between the 2 of us. We would be different people that both shared memories up until this point in time, and then would immediately have different experiences, based on their new bodies, new locations, new jobs, and they would grow different from that point onward.

3) Yes it is a computer screen in front of me. I could be dreaming, hallucinating, or programmed or otherwise manipulated into seeing things that aren't there, but until I wake up, stop hallucinating, or get out of the Matrix, doubting all my senses at every moment would be a very inefficient way to live, and might even drive me insane. So yes, it is a computer screen because I say it is.

4) Yes I chose to read it. Social predestination would say my choice was decided in advance by my environment, upbringing, and everything that caused them. I think those influences are very important, but I don't think they invalidate free will.

1) i would kill the kidnapper
2) i would use the breaks to stop the train
3) yes, because it's the same me typing this
4) yes because i live in a freed country, no dictator forced me to read this

the answer to all is : maybe

Wow, that was like, the furthest thing from making my brain hurt

1) No, it's not right. As for the hostage scenario, I would agree to shoot one person. That person would be the guy holding everyone hostage. If bob were the one making this decision, then he could decide to sacrifice himself to save the others, but only he has the right to decide on the continuation of his life, provided he is not directly interfering with someone else's right to live.

2) I am not the me I was 7 years ago, but I am still the me that remembers what that me was. Some parts I have discarded, some parts i have not, but it was the parts I had that allowed me to obtain the parts I have. It is not only our brains that contain identity, but also our bodies. Blood also stores memory, and ev ery action we make creates paths through the neurons of our body to create muscle memory, which is also part of who we are. If any of these things are lost, then yes, we would lose a piece of who we are, but provided we can still remember who we were, we can still rebuild and retain our identity.
If someone else were to have all of my thoughts and experiences, but in someone else's body, I would still be me. That new person would be like me, and depending on how complete teh memory and experience and such would be, could possibly even exist as what I would be in a different body, but If I still had all my memories, I would remember what my body was capable of and how it did not match up with the body I was in. In essence, I would have lost a piece of myself, but the question is if I would requild myself to fill in the pieces that I lost.

3) yes it's really a computer screen in front of me. Saying that it might be an illusion that I exist within is as silly as the question of "what if the color you see as red is actually the color I see as blue, but I think it's red because that's what everyone else has always called it" well, duh, that's always how we determine what things are. Sure, there's the whole philosophical end to explore, but it serves no purpose other than to create doubt.
I am. You are. It is. Little more needs said on the subject.

4) Yes. I chose to read it. Free will exists, but so do fate and destiny to a limited extent. There is always a natural cause and effect that will always result from any decision made, but every effect hinges on those various causes that are the decisions everyone makes. sometimes it is easier to make certain decisions than others, and indeed, predisposed factors such as genetics and history will have influence on those decisions, but it still is ultimately up to the individual.
Even if there actually is NO such thing as free will, knowing destiny is beyond the ability of anyone (and always will be), thus our actions should always be decided as if we do have free will. The only reason this concept has managed to gain any traction at all is due to the recent trend towards avoiding responsibility,cause as long as it's all up to fate, then you can claim it's not really your fault when you screw up.