Anyone read this lately, love it, or hate it? I first read it in college, and really enjoyed it. Recently my book club read it at my suggestion, and I liked it all over again. For all his recent legal troubles, Archer’s a great storyteller.
Archer, a former Member of Parliament, traces the careers of four (three in the American edition) MPs as they rise in the House of Commons leadership from 1964 to 1991. Each has his flaws and his strengths; each overcomes various problems and crises to become contenders for the post of Prime Minister. It’s interesting to see the ebb and flow of their careers, their somewhat soap-operaesque issues on the home front, how the House of Commons actually functions day to day, and how the protagonists fit into the broader British political picture (several actual Prime Ministers and other British politicos make cameo apperances along the way).
An interesting side note: Archer has a different character win in the British and American editions, as he found that readers in each country were cheering on different MPs.
The first book was a lot of fun and I should re-read it again to see what 20+ years experience would bring to the table. However, even then I remember TPD as being rather naive in its portrayal of how American government works.
Wasn’t the outcome of the election decided over a coin toss? That spoiled for me what up till then was a quite enjoyable book to read. I mean, c’mon!! That just made me go :rolleyes:
It has to be noted that it has been years since I last read the book and my memory of it may be flawed. If so, I apologise but I’m pretty sure there was a coin toss either to decide who becomes PM or a coin toss to decide who becomes leader of the Conservative Party
Not one of Archer’s best…but then again, Archer has always been a B-list author for me. IMO, he only wrote two good ones: Not A Penny More, Not A Penny Less and Kane and Abel
By the way, I read the UK version. Who won in the US version?
You’re slightly misremembering: it was constituency election, not the whole thing. The votes were equal and UK election law allows for deciding by lot in this case. It’s been used for real a few times.
As for which of them came out on top in the end
The head of the 3rd party held the balance of power and had to decide between the two.