This is a story about four very driven characters competing in the British political environment from 1964 - 1991, all aspiring to be Prime Minister one day:Charles Seymour (Viscount)- an Eton/Oxford graduate born to money and banking - obviously a Tory (Conservative) but also an aristocratic, arrogant snob. Doesn't have much luck with wives, nor the board of his family business.Simon Kerslake - another Conservative, but also a devoted family man who makes some risky investment choices in his personal life, due to his association with Ronnie Nethercote. Simon's a nice guy, who tries to do everything right (whom some say Archer based on himself - obviously while wearing rose coloured glasses).Raymond Gould - Labour Party intellectual from working class background, the son of a butcher, who went on to become the youngest Queen's Counsel in the country. Blackmailed by a prostitute and later spends most of his political career with a mistress. Eventually rediscovers his love for his wife.Andrew Fraser - Chooses to be a Labour man and later leader of the Social Democratic Party, despite the fact his father, Sir Duncan, is a strong Conservative politician. Andrew suffers a number of personal tragedies, but has the strength to pull through and continue his political career.These four very different personalities are developed against the real life PMs - Wilson, Callaghan, Heath and Thatcher. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Lady Di also get a look in, and it's interesting that given this book was written in 1984, Archer chose to have Charles king by 1991. Considering "a week is a long time in politics", Archer has to cover a lot of ground quickly in this novel, and he does it well. He doesn't always explain the outcomes or spell things out, leaving the reader to figure it out for themselves, or, draw their own conclusions. In the race to lead the country, there is plenty of backstabbing, blackmailing and controversy. Archer has obviously drawn on a lot of his own life experiences to create this insight into the inner workings of the machinery of government, but he adds a dramatic flair that makes electioneering, party factions and the passing of legislation an exciting battle. There are some great support characters in the novel too, but my particular favourite is Alec Pimkin: "My darling, the only Etonians who have been seen in Hammersmith pass through it as quickly as possible on a boat, representing either Oxford or Cambridge." And on the subject of the whereabouts of Charles's second wife: "In Switzerland producing a baby, which we can but hope will bear sufficient resemblance to a white Caucasian to convince one of Charles's limited imagination that he is the father." And on inserting himself in the leadership ballot: "Dear simple creature...there are some members of our party who do not care to be led either by a middle-class pushy minor public schoolboy or an aristocratic, arrogant snob. By voting for me they can lodge their protest clearly...Irresponsible it may be, but you can't imagine the invitations I have been receiving during the last few days. They should continue for at least a year after the election is over."
Certainly one of the best books I have ever read. It is true that Jeffrey Archer gives us an example of the pure art of storytelling. But what I most admired - as in every other book of J. Archer - was his incomparable use of the language and the structure of an original story. A very good idea finds a very good way of embodiment. However, what went wrong? I found the book a rather slow page turner at some points, and it was a little difficult to come to the end. Perhaps because of its 450 pages. Anyway, the book is not as fast paced as I would like it to be. This does not mean though that anyone should avoid it. On the contrary, this is a book I would definitely recommend, although "primus inter pares" comes second in favor of J. Archer's "The Fourth Estate".A first-class effort by Archer. Of the four primary characters, three were compelling men whom the reader pulled for up until the very end. As a man of the right, I found the two Labour men to be the most sympathetic figures in the book. Politicians, even the best of 'em, have their secrets. Archer serves to bring that out in spades. But, in the end, most of them -- at their core (we hope) -- have some spark of idealism.Would that, in real life, both sides were as more or less honorable as Archer would have it . . . we'd all be okay. In any event, a first class effort, even if one knows little or nothing about politics in the UK. Even though it was written in 1984, it's still worth one's time in the 21st Century.
What do You think about First Among Equals (2004)?
Fortunately I love politics, as I worked in the Australian Federal and State political scene for a number of years, so this book grabbed me by the throat.It is a great story and reveals how earlier actions by people in public life, no matter how covert, can rebound and have major consequences down the track – even 20 years later.Archer also captures the fickleness of human nature, how ambition can undermine integrity and how personal jealousies can knock a good man down – no matter how good he is.I thought it was a great read. No eloquent phrases or salient and profound messages, but a very real portrayal of the Machiavellian rough and tumble in the political arena. I enjoyed it immensely and I will definitely go on to read more of Archer’s books.
—Maggie
Thoroughly enjoyed this older novel (1984) that follows 3 men and their personal lives & careers in British politics. Archer served in Parliament himself and is able to vividly paint a picture of the ups & downs of those who are part of the British political process. His first chapter put a smile on my face as Archer obviously thought that by 1991 Charles would be on the throne! His interesting & twisty storyline in this book is vintage Archer & why I have liked every book I have read by this author.
—Chris
In this book, Archer gives the reader an insider's view of the parlimentary form of government. Four candiates each vying to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Canavasing votes, a coin toss, scrambling for coalitions to get the the required absolute majority, a minority party getting to play the king maker ..... like I said earlier, it shows most of the ins and outs of the parlimentary form of government. A well written political drama.And a titbit, I read somewhere that different characters became the Prime Minister in different editions of the book.
—Onlooker
