What do you think?
Rate this book
First Among Equals
Playing for the highest stakes of all . . .
In the 1960s, four ambitious new MPs take their seats at Westminster. Over three decades they share the turbulent passions of the race for power with their wives and families, men and women caught up in a dramatic game for the higest stakes of all. But only one man can gain the ultimate goal - the office of Prime Minister.
In the 1960s, four ambitious new MPs take their seats at Westminster. Over three decades they share the turbulent passions of the race for power with their wives and families, men and women caught up in a dramatic game for the higest stakes of all. But only one man can gain the ultimate goal - the office of Prime Minister.
496 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
624 people are currently reading
4434 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey Archer
645 books12.2k followersJeffrey is published in 114 countries and more than 47 languages, with more than 750,000 5* reviews with international sales passing 275 million copies.
He is the only author ever to have been a number one bestseller in fiction (nineteen times), short stories (four times) and non-fiction (The Prison Diaries).
Jeffrey has been married for 53 years to Dame Mary Archer DBE. They have two sons, William and James, three grandsons and two granddaughters, and divide their time between homes in London, Cambridge and Mallorca.
He is the only author ever to have been a number one bestseller in fiction (nineteen times), short stories (four times) and non-fiction (The Prison Diaries).
Jeffrey has been married for 53 years to Dame Mary Archer DBE. They have two sons, William and James, three grandsons and two granddaughters, and divide their time between homes in London, Cambridge and Mallorca.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 486 reviews
November 21, 2020
It is the story of four ambitious politicians,each wanting to become prime minister of Britain.In typical Archer fashion,the story follows the four men for three decades.
The characters are shown to interact with real life political figures including Churchill,Thatcher,Gaddafi and Queen Elizabeth.
They go through one election after another as governments rise and fall and significant events take place on the world stage.
Archer was himself a member of the British parliament. He knows the system and at that point might have had ambitions for higher office himself.
Which of the four men would become prime minister after all the years of struggle ? The end didn't surprise me as I had guessed the winner.
I read this long ago,want to give it another read.
The characters are shown to interact with real life political figures including Churchill,Thatcher,Gaddafi and Queen Elizabeth.
They go through one election after another as governments rise and fall and significant events take place on the world stage.
Archer was himself a member of the British parliament. He knows the system and at that point might have had ambitions for higher office himself.
Which of the four men would become prime minister after all the years of struggle ? The end didn't surprise me as I had guessed the winner.
I read this long ago,want to give it another read.
July 13, 2021
Although the years are chronological, this book is all over the place. 3 of 10 stars
February 23, 2012
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.
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.
February 2, 2015
Warning: Do not read this unless you are actually interested in politics!
First Among Equals is an epic saga which follows the lives (including scandals, wives and lies) of four British MP's. The book spans more than 20 years and would be nowhere near as good were it not for Archer's superb writing style.
Charles Seymoure is the ruthless second son of a wealthy Earl and will literally stop at nothing to make No.10 his home. Simon Kerslake is an ambitious "career Conservative" with a loving wife who backs him all the way. Raymond Gould is the 'working class hero' born above his father's butcher's shop. Andrew Fraser the son of an eminent Conservative member who joins the Labour party and captures his father's former seat. The question is which one of these ambitious men will become the Prime Minister?
Although this book is about politics, Archer weaves through the book the personal stories of each of the men. This worked effectively and by the end of the book I was surprised to feel a strong connection to each of the characters. I found this book intriguing, but I am sure that most would struggle with the heavy political focus. Archer's narrative hooks worked wonders, and although the story is told in third person omniscient, the change from character to character kept me on the edge of my seat.
Although I did not back a winner right from the start (rather, I started to lean towards one or the other as their personal lives changed) I found the suspense and twist in the final chapter absolutely thrilling. I put it down, looked at the wall and said "Wow! What just happened? No, did he really do that?" And that is the feeling I love to have at the end of a book.
While this book may not be for everyone, it shows clearly Archer's ability to write a captivating tale. He will certainly be on my to-read list from now on.
First Among Equals is an epic saga which follows the lives (including scandals, wives and lies) of four British MP's. The book spans more than 20 years and would be nowhere near as good were it not for Archer's superb writing style.
Charles Seymoure is the ruthless second son of a wealthy Earl and will literally stop at nothing to make No.10 his home. Simon Kerslake is an ambitious "career Conservative" with a loving wife who backs him all the way. Raymond Gould is the 'working class hero' born above his father's butcher's shop. Andrew Fraser the son of an eminent Conservative member who joins the Labour party and captures his father's former seat. The question is which one of these ambitious men will become the Prime Minister?
Although this book is about politics, Archer weaves through the book the personal stories of each of the men. This worked effectively and by the end of the book I was surprised to feel a strong connection to each of the characters. I found this book intriguing, but I am sure that most would struggle with the heavy political focus. Archer's narrative hooks worked wonders, and although the story is told in third person omniscient, the change from character to character kept me on the edge of my seat.
Although I did not back a winner right from the start (rather, I started to lean towards one or the other as their personal lives changed) I found the suspense and twist in the final chapter absolutely thrilling. I put it down, looked at the wall and said "Wow! What just happened? No, did he really do that?" And that is the feeling I love to have at the end of a book.
While this book may not be for everyone, it shows clearly Archer's ability to write a captivating tale. He will certainly be on my to-read list from now on.
April 22, 2016
So, the full story. I first read this novel when I was about 15 or 16, and knew next to nothing about the British parliamentary system (thanks, Polish education). I'm sure a lot of the novel went over my head, and I have no idea how accurate the translation was, but I have to say what I remembered was mainly the scheming and how cool it made politics seem.
I decided on this re-read because I wanted to see how I'd feel about it now. And I started reading the book only to realise something was strangely wrong. One of the characters was missing! Turns out, I was reading the early US edition, which was bowdlerized because the publisher assumed Americans wouldn't be able to cope with the amazing complexity of a non-two party system. Meaning, one of the four characters (Andrew! The nice one!) ended up on the cutting floor.
So, I had to go back and re-read the beginning.
From my current perspective, I have several things to say. First, Archer really does so, so badly by his female characters. It's very apparent looking at historical figures: Archer predicted that Thatcher wouldn't make it to third term (she did) and that Elizabeth II But it's even worse with the wives and girlfriends. They might not necessarily fall into wives-and-whores categories, but they aren't *much* more nuanced. We have the long-suffering Joyce who . We have Amanda. I think Fiona and Elizabeth are the closest to being complex (Louise doesn't really get enough pages to have that much of a characterisation other than her fertility troubles), but even so, it seems like there's more Alec Pimkin, the flamboyantly gay stereotype, than either of the wives.
And when it comes to Clarissa... I'm not sure what the point of having the whole self-hate was. Nothing comes of it, it is just gross.
When it comes to the male characters, I have to say Charles feels like Archer had a huge grudge against his party colleagues, Simon feels like Archer's beloved character and possibly a tiny bit of a self-insertion (but not too much, I'd say, especially considering the ending). Andrew is the likeable one, even without all his tragedies. Charles's scheming is actually mostly enjoyable, aside from all his woman problems. And then there's Raymond, who is essentially the best at what he does (try to make the UK a more equal place! Save the war widows!) but... really bad at acting like a human being.
The novel is engrossing, but it's mostly on the strength of the main idea, not of the writing. The writing itself is not only terribly dry and fragmentary but also very gimmicky, relying on withholding information from the reader and telling the reader that the information is being withheld. Tune in for the next chapter if you want to know what Andrew/Simon/Raymond/Charles/Raymond's wife/King Charles III decided to do! It can work, from time to time, but when it's done a dozen times and in each case almost the same phrases are used, what it becomes is mostly annoying. And then there are some really cheap plot twists, and the occasional awfulness. The political bias (anti-socialist) is very apparent, and then there's the occasional Rule Britannia enthusiasm. Still, I found the ending quite satisfying, for all that.
It would have been so much more interesting if the novel had more developed female characters, or female protagonists, and if the writing was more sophisticated (and if Archer's editor actually added the missing commas). But the book makes for a decent beach read, at least.
I decided on this re-read because I wanted to see how I'd feel about it now. And I started reading the book only to realise something was strangely wrong. One of the characters was missing! Turns out, I was reading the early US edition, which was bowdlerized because the publisher assumed Americans wouldn't be able to cope with the amazing complexity of a non-two party system. Meaning, one of the four characters (Andrew! The nice one!) ended up on the cutting floor.
So, I had to go back and re-read the beginning.
From my current perspective, I have several things to say. First, Archer really does so, so badly by his female characters. It's very apparent looking at historical figures: Archer predicted that Thatcher wouldn't make it to third term (she did) and that Elizabeth II But it's even worse with the wives and girlfriends. They might not necessarily fall into wives-and-whores categories, but they aren't *much* more nuanced. We have the long-suffering Joyce who . We have Amanda. I think Fiona and Elizabeth are the closest to being complex (Louise doesn't really get enough pages to have that much of a characterisation other than her fertility troubles), but even so, it seems like there's more Alec Pimkin, the flamboyantly gay stereotype, than either of the wives.
And when it comes to Clarissa... I'm not sure what the point of having the whole self-hate was. Nothing comes of it, it is just gross.
When it comes to the male characters, I have to say Charles feels like Archer had a huge grudge against his party colleagues, Simon feels like Archer's beloved character and possibly a tiny bit of a self-insertion (but not too much, I'd say, especially considering the ending). Andrew is the likeable one, even without all his tragedies. Charles's scheming is actually mostly enjoyable, aside from all his woman problems. And then there's Raymond, who is essentially the best at what he does (try to make the UK a more equal place! Save the war widows!) but... really bad at acting like a human being.
The novel is engrossing, but it's mostly on the strength of the main idea, not of the writing. The writing itself is not only terribly dry and fragmentary but also very gimmicky, relying on withholding information from the reader and telling the reader that the information is being withheld. Tune in for the next chapter if you want to know what Andrew/Simon/Raymond/Charles/Raymond's wife/King Charles III decided to do! It can work, from time to time, but when it's done a dozen times and in each case almost the same phrases are used, what it becomes is mostly annoying. And then there are some really cheap plot twists, and the occasional awfulness. The political bias (anti-socialist) is very apparent, and then there's the occasional Rule Britannia enthusiasm. Still, I found the ending quite satisfying, for all that.
It would have been so much more interesting if the novel had more developed female characters, or female protagonists, and if the writing was more sophisticated (and if Archer's editor actually added the missing commas). But the book makes for a decent beach read, at least.
April 20, 2017
It's another great book of Jeffrey Archer. Recommended for those who love politics and all those who want to keep themselves occupied till the last page. It also defines how the parliament works. As a reader, you come to know in depth about the British government system. Further, it shows in detail about the life of people in political stream. What are the pressures, highs, and lows in life that politician observes. How media affect their personal lives. After this book, I have become a fan of Jeffrey Archer as he is one of the finest story makers and keeps on rotating the strike and keeps the balance. Also, the author shows very smartly about different personalities, their plan of action that would shape their career.
April 15, 2020
Review to follow.
February 12, 2020
3.5 out of 5 stars
It turns out that I read the original American edition, which left out every single part about the 4th main character. One reviewer said they thought that the American publisher left out the 4th main character because the publisher felt that American readers couldn't deal with too much complexity and too many main characters. I don't know if that's the reason, but because I really only read 3/4 of the original book - a book that only has three main characters - it may not be fair for me to rate it. I will now have to re-read a version of the book with all 4 main characters intact. But that won't be for a while, as this is a lengthy book, and densely packed story, and I need some time off.
I think Archer is a superior story teller, certainly writes extremely well, and his male characters are very skillfully drawn. The three main male characters here certainly were. However, his female characters are nothing more than stereotyped adjuncts to the men - devoted and unappreciated wife, equal partner help mate, slut with a low IQ, etc. - without much of any female character development. Also, one of the main male characters acted totally out of character at a crucial decision point, and there wasn't any explanation for why that character acted, well, against character. Perhaps that missing explanation was cut by the American publisher along with the story line about the 4th main character. That said, I would still probably have given this well written book at least 4 stars had it been the complete book.
One other point. I love politics. And even though this book depicts politics in Great Britain, and not my country the U.S., Archer does an excellent job of explaining the British political system for an outsider. Since Archer has been in Parliament for decades, I really enjoyed the insider perspective that he brought to the book.
It turns out that I read the original American edition, which left out every single part about the 4th main character. One reviewer said they thought that the American publisher left out the 4th main character because the publisher felt that American readers couldn't deal with too much complexity and too many main characters. I don't know if that's the reason, but because I really only read 3/4 of the original book - a book that only has three main characters - it may not be fair for me to rate it. I will now have to re-read a version of the book with all 4 main characters intact. But that won't be for a while, as this is a lengthy book, and densely packed story, and I need some time off.
I think Archer is a superior story teller, certainly writes extremely well, and his male characters are very skillfully drawn. The three main male characters here certainly were. However, his female characters are nothing more than stereotyped adjuncts to the men - devoted and unappreciated wife, equal partner help mate, slut with a low IQ, etc. - without much of any female character development. Also, one of the main male characters acted totally out of character at a crucial decision point, and there wasn't any explanation for why that character acted, well, against character. Perhaps that missing explanation was cut by the American publisher along with the story line about the 4th main character. That said, I would still probably have given this well written book at least 4 stars had it been the complete book.
One other point. I love politics. And even though this book depicts politics in Great Britain, and not my country the U.S., Archer does an excellent job of explaining the British political system for an outsider. Since Archer has been in Parliament for decades, I really enjoyed the insider perspective that he brought to the book.
July 29, 2011
I rather liked this slightly soapy tale of political life. Because Archer has been there and done it, the story has a certain authenticity, though I'm sure it has been greatly simplified. I thought the characters were well drawn, avoiding too much stereotyping. The only thing I didn't particularly like was the ending, and the convenient personality transplant of one of the main characters
June 5, 2019
Hot damn I loved this book. I've read it before, when I was less grey and weathered, and I loved it as much then as now. It was even funnier to find out I'd picked the wrong person to win second read!
July 20, 2016
AUTHOR...
Jeffrey Archer..
CHARACTERS..
Charles Seymour and Simon Kerslake ( both Conservative members), Raymond Gould and Andrew Fraser(both Labour Party members) Fiona, Joyce, Lousie, Elizabeth and Margret Thatcher (Prime Minister UK) and others..
LOCATION..
House of commons (English Parliament LONDON),
GENRE...
Political Thriller...
ABOUT THE BOOK...
Four men from different family backgrounds, all of them strangers, embark a journey for the highest post in their life- Becoming the Prime Minister of England. All of them are equal in every aspects. In Qualification, Experience, campaign and public charisma they have equal scores. But for qualifying for the highest post, there should be a FIRST among equals. This ultimate goal becomes their passion and obsession. For achieving this goal they outsmart each other in every possibly way. Unfolding over three decades their honor tested, loyalties betrayed and the love of family and country challenged. But in this passionate, obsessive game among the equals..only one can triumph.....
PLOT...
CHARLES SEYMOUR..second born son in the prestigious earl family.. inherits nothing from his father but courage and strength, from his mother. During his first month at the Oxford prep school, Charles excelled everybody in reading, debating and progressed with the air of a man who found university something of an anticlimax. It was assumed once Charles had left Oxford that he would succeed his fathers Seymour bank first as a director and then in time as its chairman. But the 'best laid plan' was changed when Charles listened to the motion " I would be a commoner than a lord" proposed by the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. From then on his ambition changed from Banking to Politics.
He was elected as MP in the House of Commons from the Sussex constituency for more than thirty years as the Right Member of The Conservative Party. Starting as the Back bencher of the House, From the year 1964 he gradually climbed the ladder whenever the Conservative Party formed the Government , as the Under Secretary of the Junior office (1966-74), Minister of State (during 1974-77), The Cabinet Member (during 1977-1989) and finally finishing long career as the Speaker of the Parliament in 1991. When his party was in the opposition he was invited as a junior spokesman in the Housing and Local Government Shadow team as a junior spokesman.
Right from the beginning of his political career, Charles considered his fellow party man Simon Kerslake as his adversary. The rift between them started in the election process of the leader for the Conservative party, when they backed different men during 1965,Charles mentioning Simon as "Pushy and self made man" in public. Because of Charles's personal wish to ruin Simon, he goes extremes to put Simon out of the House of Commons in every possible way. When Simon loses his Coventry Central Constituency on the basis of Boundary Commission's report, Charles by making secret and out of the way dealings with his fellow party man, makes it impossible for Simon to contest in the 1974 General Elections. When British Navy destroyer HMS BROADSWORD was captured by Colonel Gaddafi's men, Charles takes an entirely opposite stand of recapturing Ship by gaining diplomatic victory.
Charles Marriage with disloyal Fiona fails miserably. He remarries Amanda, but after Harry was born, they go for a divorce.
SIMON KERSLAKE..... although first born, he had otherwise very few of Charles Seymour's advantages. Being the only son of a family solicitor, he had appreciated his father's effort in sacrificing everything to make sure his son's dream come true. Simon's father died during his son's last year at College, leaving his widow a small annuity and a magnificent grandfather clock. His mother sold the clock for the sake of Simon's studies. From his first days in the school and at college, he always outdistanced his rivals. He showed every signs of an ambitious " achiever",. while many of his contemporaries thought of him as pushy, or even arrogant according to their aptitude of jealously.
He was elected as the MP as the Right member of Conservative Party in the House of Commons, first from the Coventry central Constituency, later from the Pucklebridge constituency due to reallocation of constituencies on the basis of Boundary Commission's report. Staring as the back bencher he served in the House of Commons starting from 1964 to 1991 for three decades. When his Conservative party sat in the Opposition , he always surprised the ruling Labour members with his sensible and intelligent questions. He emerged victorious when his adversary and fellow party man Charles, went to the extremes to put Simon out of the House of Summons in every possible way. Charles in his personal wish to ruin Simon, makes him bankrupt, makes a fellow party man to ask a question regarding Simon's investment by making him disgraceful in the House. Simon with his calm and gentle attitude overcomes all the hurdles and obstacles created by Charles.
Simon was appointed as the Minister of State for Ireland after Conservative's win in the General Elections during 1979. Simon makes a genuine attempt in peace negotiations, by preparing a peace charter, in an effort to unite Catholics of North and Protestants of South Ireland. After a terrible bomb blast, targeting his life, he takes our charge as the Defense Minister of State moving from the Northern Ireland Office.
During his tenure, one of the English Navy destroyers HMS BROADSWORD, was took over by Colonel Gaddafi's mercenaries posing them as coast guard officials . Simon's stand of immediate joint military action with the Defense officials code named "shoplifter" was highly appreciated in House of Commons, against Charles's stand of gaining victory through negotiations in a diplomatic way. Finally in a neck to neck fight for the Leadership of the Conservative Party, Simon defeats Charles in a comfortable margin.
Simon's marriage with gynaecologist Dr.Elizabeth turns out to be a successful one for the couples. Elizabeth with her loyal support to her husband Simon at the times of crises, makes Simon's climb in the political ladder easy and successful. The couple had two children, Micheal and Peter.
RAYMOND GOULD...was born in a tiny windowless room above his father's butcher's shop in Leeds. For the first nine years of his life he shared that room with his ailing grandmother until she died at the age of sixty-one. His grandmother's stories filled Ray with sadness, as he became aware that she had been a widow for nearly thirty years. All she possessed was yellowed envelope containing 500 irredeemable war bonds. After her death, Ray converted the room into his study, full of ever changing library books. Ray won the top Scholarship to Roundhay School. At the age of twelve the title of the essay he won at the school competition was : "The First changes I will make When I become the Prime Minister.
Raymond Gould served the House of Commons as MP as the Right Member of the Labour Party for three decades from 1964-1991 from the Leeds constituency. Whether his Labour party was in power or in the opposition, his main obsession was to decrease the unemployment prevailing all over England and to raise the pensions of the war widows. Starting in the Back Benches of the House of Commons he climbed in the political ladders to become the deputy leader Chairing the Cabinet meetings in the Prime ministers absence. After his win in the General Elections in 1989., his first budget presented as the Chancellor of Exchequer (( a cabinet minister level position)) turned out to be a great success. The budget reflected Raymond's sole purpose of not robbing the rich and giving the poor, but rather to make those who live in comparative ease pay taxes that will ease the sufferings of the poor. Raymond's visit to Washington, to receive loans for his country from International Monetary Funds and the speeches he made at the Chamber of Commerce was highly appreciated. During this period he had a brief affair with an American Banker Kate, but ended in a very short period.
Assisted and well supported by his wife Joyce he went on to become the Leader of the Labour Party, at the end of the year 1989.
ANDREW FRASER..was raised by a soccer hero turned politician. His father Duncan Fraser was a staunch Conservative, hailing from Edinburgh, Scotland. Duncan was able to win his place only as a City Councilor, not as an MP for his party. By the age of thirteen Andrew learned enough about local politics to help his father organize a campaign in the Edinburgh Carlton constituency. At the Edinburgh Academy and in the University he read politics and by his third year he was elected President of the Union and Captain of Rugby.
He surprised everybody by representing Edinburgh constituency as the Labour Party candidate and won by huge margin. He served as Labour Party MP for some time in the House of Commons, later due to misunderstandings with the Party leadership, he left the party to join SDP/ Liberal alliance.
After two miscarriages and his son Robert's tragic accidental death, Andrew and Louise adopted a balck girl named Clarissa from the orphanage.
FIRST AMONG THE EQUALS..WHO...??
The General Election, held during 1989 resulted in a "hung parliament" with no clear majority to any party. Both Conservative and Labour parties were to depend on Andrew's SDP/Liberal alliance for forming a Government. Simon and Raymond were called by His Majesty at the Palace for making the final decision regarding who to be the future Prime Minister. Finally His Majesty King Charles III, invites Raymond Gould to be his Prime Minister.
THUMBS UP PARTS...
Actually ...this fiction is just a compilation of events in the form short stories involving the four major characters. This Novel has no ordinary elements such as murder, suspense and adventure that other fictions have, yet the author makes this novel a gripping page turner with his innovative theme of "England's political Scenario", unfolding over three decades from 1964-1991. He narrates the story in such a way that the reader is made to travel with the characters to the English Parliament, The House of Commons and watch the proceedings with awe. The Parliamentary procedures, the role of MPs, ministers, cabinet ministers, the Whip's office are all explained in a wonderful way, so that even an ordinary man can easily visualize the happenings from the author's flawless narration.
THUMBS DOWN FACTORS...
Though the four characters are credited "as equals", there is no strong part in the plot to prove their worth. In many parts the novel looks like a mere description of the tussle and challenges between Simon and Charles, while the other two characters Raymond and Andrew were pushed to backseat with out any depth in their characterization.
MY COMMENT...
As an Indian, I find very close resemblance between the British and Indian Parliamentary system, though the office bearers in England are mentioned in different wordings...for example..
England--------------- India
House of Commons-------- Lok Saba..
House of Lords ---------- Rajya Sabha..
His Majesty King---------- The President..
Chief Whip ---------------Minister of Parliamentary affairs..
FIRST AMONG EQUALS....THE BEST ..!!!
Jeffrey Archer..
CHARACTERS..
Charles Seymour and Simon Kerslake ( both Conservative members), Raymond Gould and Andrew Fraser(both Labour Party members) Fiona, Joyce, Lousie, Elizabeth and Margret Thatcher (Prime Minister UK) and others..
LOCATION..
House of commons (English Parliament LONDON),
GENRE...
Political Thriller...
ABOUT THE BOOK...
Four men from different family backgrounds, all of them strangers, embark a journey for the highest post in their life- Becoming the Prime Minister of England. All of them are equal in every aspects. In Qualification, Experience, campaign and public charisma they have equal scores. But for qualifying for the highest post, there should be a FIRST among equals. This ultimate goal becomes their passion and obsession. For achieving this goal they outsmart each other in every possibly way. Unfolding over three decades their honor tested, loyalties betrayed and the love of family and country challenged. But in this passionate, obsessive game among the equals..only one can triumph.....
PLOT...
CHARLES SEYMOUR..second born son in the prestigious earl family.. inherits nothing from his father but courage and strength, from his mother. During his first month at the Oxford prep school, Charles excelled everybody in reading, debating and progressed with the air of a man who found university something of an anticlimax. It was assumed once Charles had left Oxford that he would succeed his fathers Seymour bank first as a director and then in time as its chairman. But the 'best laid plan' was changed when Charles listened to the motion " I would be a commoner than a lord" proposed by the Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. From then on his ambition changed from Banking to Politics.
He was elected as MP in the House of Commons from the Sussex constituency for more than thirty years as the Right Member of The Conservative Party. Starting as the Back bencher of the House, From the year 1964 he gradually climbed the ladder whenever the Conservative Party formed the Government , as the Under Secretary of the Junior office (1966-74), Minister of State (during 1974-77), The Cabinet Member (during 1977-1989) and finally finishing long career as the Speaker of the Parliament in 1991. When his party was in the opposition he was invited as a junior spokesman in the Housing and Local Government Shadow team as a junior spokesman.
Right from the beginning of his political career, Charles considered his fellow party man Simon Kerslake as his adversary. The rift between them started in the election process of the leader for the Conservative party, when they backed different men during 1965,Charles mentioning Simon as "Pushy and self made man" in public. Because of Charles's personal wish to ruin Simon, he goes extremes to put Simon out of the House of Commons in every possible way. When Simon loses his Coventry Central Constituency on the basis of Boundary Commission's report, Charles by making secret and out of the way dealings with his fellow party man, makes it impossible for Simon to contest in the 1974 General Elections. When British Navy destroyer HMS BROADSWORD was captured by Colonel Gaddafi's men, Charles takes an entirely opposite stand of recapturing Ship by gaining diplomatic victory.
Charles Marriage with disloyal Fiona fails miserably. He remarries Amanda, but after Harry was born, they go for a divorce.
SIMON KERSLAKE..... although first born, he had otherwise very few of Charles Seymour's advantages. Being the only son of a family solicitor, he had appreciated his father's effort in sacrificing everything to make sure his son's dream come true. Simon's father died during his son's last year at College, leaving his widow a small annuity and a magnificent grandfather clock. His mother sold the clock for the sake of Simon's studies. From his first days in the school and at college, he always outdistanced his rivals. He showed every signs of an ambitious " achiever",. while many of his contemporaries thought of him as pushy, or even arrogant according to their aptitude of jealously.
He was elected as the MP as the Right member of Conservative Party in the House of Commons, first from the Coventry central Constituency, later from the Pucklebridge constituency due to reallocation of constituencies on the basis of Boundary Commission's report. Staring as the back bencher he served in the House of Commons starting from 1964 to 1991 for three decades. When his Conservative party sat in the Opposition , he always surprised the ruling Labour members with his sensible and intelligent questions. He emerged victorious when his adversary and fellow party man Charles, went to the extremes to put Simon out of the House of Summons in every possible way. Charles in his personal wish to ruin Simon, makes him bankrupt, makes a fellow party man to ask a question regarding Simon's investment by making him disgraceful in the House. Simon with his calm and gentle attitude overcomes all the hurdles and obstacles created by Charles.
Simon was appointed as the Minister of State for Ireland after Conservative's win in the General Elections during 1979. Simon makes a genuine attempt in peace negotiations, by preparing a peace charter, in an effort to unite Catholics of North and Protestants of South Ireland. After a terrible bomb blast, targeting his life, he takes our charge as the Defense Minister of State moving from the Northern Ireland Office.
During his tenure, one of the English Navy destroyers HMS BROADSWORD, was took over by Colonel Gaddafi's mercenaries posing them as coast guard officials . Simon's stand of immediate joint military action with the Defense officials code named "shoplifter" was highly appreciated in House of Commons, against Charles's stand of gaining victory through negotiations in a diplomatic way. Finally in a neck to neck fight for the Leadership of the Conservative Party, Simon defeats Charles in a comfortable margin.
Simon's marriage with gynaecologist Dr.Elizabeth turns out to be a successful one for the couples. Elizabeth with her loyal support to her husband Simon at the times of crises, makes Simon's climb in the political ladder easy and successful. The couple had two children, Micheal and Peter.
RAYMOND GOULD...was born in a tiny windowless room above his father's butcher's shop in Leeds. For the first nine years of his life he shared that room with his ailing grandmother until she died at the age of sixty-one. His grandmother's stories filled Ray with sadness, as he became aware that she had been a widow for nearly thirty years. All she possessed was yellowed envelope containing 500 irredeemable war bonds. After her death, Ray converted the room into his study, full of ever changing library books. Ray won the top Scholarship to Roundhay School. At the age of twelve the title of the essay he won at the school competition was : "The First changes I will make When I become the Prime Minister.
Raymond Gould served the House of Commons as MP as the Right Member of the Labour Party for three decades from 1964-1991 from the Leeds constituency. Whether his Labour party was in power or in the opposition, his main obsession was to decrease the unemployment prevailing all over England and to raise the pensions of the war widows. Starting in the Back Benches of the House of Commons he climbed in the political ladders to become the deputy leader Chairing the Cabinet meetings in the Prime ministers absence. After his win in the General Elections in 1989., his first budget presented as the Chancellor of Exchequer (( a cabinet minister level position)) turned out to be a great success. The budget reflected Raymond's sole purpose of not robbing the rich and giving the poor, but rather to make those who live in comparative ease pay taxes that will ease the sufferings of the poor. Raymond's visit to Washington, to receive loans for his country from International Monetary Funds and the speeches he made at the Chamber of Commerce was highly appreciated. During this period he had a brief affair with an American Banker Kate, but ended in a very short period.
Assisted and well supported by his wife Joyce he went on to become the Leader of the Labour Party, at the end of the year 1989.
ANDREW FRASER..was raised by a soccer hero turned politician. His father Duncan Fraser was a staunch Conservative, hailing from Edinburgh, Scotland. Duncan was able to win his place only as a City Councilor, not as an MP for his party. By the age of thirteen Andrew learned enough about local politics to help his father organize a campaign in the Edinburgh Carlton constituency. At the Edinburgh Academy and in the University he read politics and by his third year he was elected President of the Union and Captain of Rugby.
He surprised everybody by representing Edinburgh constituency as the Labour Party candidate and won by huge margin. He served as Labour Party MP for some time in the House of Commons, later due to misunderstandings with the Party leadership, he left the party to join SDP/ Liberal alliance.
After two miscarriages and his son Robert's tragic accidental death, Andrew and Louise adopted a balck girl named Clarissa from the orphanage.
FIRST AMONG THE EQUALS..WHO...??
The General Election, held during 1989 resulted in a "hung parliament" with no clear majority to any party. Both Conservative and Labour parties were to depend on Andrew's SDP/Liberal alliance for forming a Government. Simon and Raymond were called by His Majesty at the Palace for making the final decision regarding who to be the future Prime Minister. Finally His Majesty King Charles III, invites Raymond Gould to be his Prime Minister.
THUMBS UP PARTS...
Actually ...this fiction is just a compilation of events in the form short stories involving the four major characters. This Novel has no ordinary elements such as murder, suspense and adventure that other fictions have, yet the author makes this novel a gripping page turner with his innovative theme of "England's political Scenario", unfolding over three decades from 1964-1991. He narrates the story in such a way that the reader is made to travel with the characters to the English Parliament, The House of Commons and watch the proceedings with awe. The Parliamentary procedures, the role of MPs, ministers, cabinet ministers, the Whip's office are all explained in a wonderful way, so that even an ordinary man can easily visualize the happenings from the author's flawless narration.
THUMBS DOWN FACTORS...
Though the four characters are credited "as equals", there is no strong part in the plot to prove their worth. In many parts the novel looks like a mere description of the tussle and challenges between Simon and Charles, while the other two characters Raymond and Andrew were pushed to backseat with out any depth in their characterization.
MY COMMENT...
As an Indian, I find very close resemblance between the British and Indian Parliamentary system, though the office bearers in England are mentioned in different wordings...for example..
England--------------- India
House of Commons-------- Lok Saba..
House of Lords ---------- Rajya Sabha..
His Majesty King---------- The President..
Chief Whip ---------------Minister of Parliamentary affairs..
FIRST AMONG EQUALS....THE BEST ..!!!
July 21, 2009
Having been sure I'd read all of JAs books, I was surprised to find this one at a vacation house we rented on the Mediterannean. Well, they say to write what you know and Archer knows the British Parliament. I never would have cared to learn all the ins and outs but Jeffey makes learning fun! ;)
March 4, 2017
NO LO PUEDO CREER!!!! invertir tanto para que no gane mi candidato :(
No estoy de acuerdo con el final porque mi corazón estaba con Simon, pero la verdad que Raymond se lo merecía, como político, como persona me quedo con Simon (o Andrew).
Muy buen libro, súper entretenido. Me reí, llore y me mantuvo al vilo siempre. Excelente.
No estoy de acuerdo con el final porque mi corazón estaba con Simon, pero la verdad que Raymond se lo merecía, como político, como persona me quedo con Simon (o Andrew).
Muy buen libro, súper entretenido. Me reí, llore y me mantuvo al vilo siempre. Excelente.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 4, 2021
Politics is not my thing!!!
September 28, 2024
quién hubiese pensado que si se ponía interesante!!
June 15, 2025
Archer makes following the story lines of four individual protagonists a breeze. Despite the plot being about four white privileged men who aim to become Prime Minister of the UK, there were subplots that were heartwarming and compelling. For political nerds and for those who couldn’t give a damn, give this a read!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 28, 2023
Dieses Buch hat eindeutig 5 Sterne verdient. Aber der letzte Satz macht mir dies unmöglich.
June 6, 2014
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."
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."
September 18, 2014
'First Among Equals' is quite a different tale. Some of my friends told me that they found the initial part boring. Well, I didn't find that assessment to be true. This novel makes a very interesting reading, and like many other Archer novels, it picks up action as you reach 200-odd pages.
This is a tale of four aspiring gentlemen: Fraser, Gould, Kerslake and Seymour who enter the House of Commons in the 1960s, each aspiring to win the highest office - and to reach 10 Downing Street. But only one man can do it. Archer, the master storyteller that he is, narrates in detail the lives of each men - the ups and downs each must face - and winds it up with the final battle.
The suspense is gripping and the man who becomes the Prime Minister is revealed only in the very last paragraph of the novel.
Overall a great story... hats off.
This is a tale of four aspiring gentlemen: Fraser, Gould, Kerslake and Seymour who enter the House of Commons in the 1960s, each aspiring to win the highest office - and to reach 10 Downing Street. But only one man can do it. Archer, the master storyteller that he is, narrates in detail the lives of each men - the ups and downs each must face - and winds it up with the final battle.
The suspense is gripping and the man who becomes the Prime Minister is revealed only in the very last paragraph of the novel.
Overall a great story... hats off.
November 28, 2010
It took me almost four months to finish this book. FOUR MONTHS! Even then, I skipped a couple of chapters near the end to finally finish it. Don't get me wrong. This book is actually pretty good. But politics? NOT my thing. So it was a mistake just to pick it up. Besides that, Archer's storytelling is top-notch, but the slow pace of this entire-career-of-four-different-men-documenting novel really grated on my nerves. I was skipping lots of pages at times, more interested in the personal lives of the charaters than their careers, which, despite trying pretty hard, I failed to really understand.
Bottom line: If you like political sagas, then this one's for you.
Bottom line: If you like political sagas, then this one's for you.
June 22, 2020
Four men are elected to Parliament in the same election. All four have aspirations of one day becoming Prime Minister. This book traces the political careers & personal lives of these four men. I generally love Jeffrey Archers books. This one was very slow in the beginning but picked up as I became more familiar with the characters.part of my problem was my unfamiliarity with Britain's parliamentary system & such things as two & three line whips & the political beliefs of their political parties. The historical information was very well researched & presented.
April 15, 2025
In 1964, four young MPs enter the House of Commons for the first time. Over the next twenty seven years they all work towards the same goal, reaching what Benjamin Disraeli described as ‘the top of the greasy pole’ that is, becoming Prime Minister. They are four very different men, two coming from privileged backgrounds and the other two relatively humble ones, and with varying degrees of ruthlessness, with one of them not scrupling to descend to dishonest tactics at times. Over the years we see their various ups and downs, as their fortunes fluctuate. We also see something of their personal lives, some more successful than others. Since the book was published in 1984, the last 25% of the story which takes us from 1984 to 1991, is pure fiction, whereas the first 75% contains many references to real events. Real people appear (in the kindle edition I read) under their own names. The way the story works out is very clever, and the ending somewhat surprised me. Jeffrey Archer certainly knows how to tell a story that keeps you wanting to know what happens next. However, the issue that caused me most anxiety and desire to know the outcome wasn’t, in the end, actually a political one at all.
May 4, 2018
Time has made me more aware of both the parliamentary process and the role that personalities plays in politics. This reread of this book has that added dimension to the previous thoughts I had below.
~~~
This was one of the greatest insights into the British Parliamentary system that I have read. Archer manages to weave the lives of four individuals together as they travel through politics with a skill that does not crassly portray simplistic good or bad characters, but fleshes them out as fully fledged characters. Archer’s experience evidently aided in constructing this novel, and his respectful insights into the work of parliamentarians should be made compulsory understanding to those who mock and decry all who serve in parliament. I also somehow found the story strangely inspiring.
~~~
This was one of the greatest insights into the British Parliamentary system that I have read. Archer manages to weave the lives of four individuals together as they travel through politics with a skill that does not crassly portray simplistic good or bad characters, but fleshes them out as fully fledged characters. Archer’s experience evidently aided in constructing this novel, and his respectful insights into the work of parliamentarians should be made compulsory understanding to those who mock and decry all who serve in parliament. I also somehow found the story strangely inspiring.
November 11, 2024
Slow and confusing to the start but just after half way the pages start turning faster and faster.
Archers classic trope of different points of view tangled together can get messy but overall works to build a true suspense. There’s some truly emotional storylines and shocks, but it culminates with a satisfying endings.
I’m glad in this book, as not with all Archer books, women are given more character and do not exist just to serve men- although they don’t have any real storylines.
A keen interest in politics is necessary as I imagine his in depth knowledge, almost to the point of showboating, would get tedious and boring.
Archers classic trope of different points of view tangled together can get messy but overall works to build a true suspense. There’s some truly emotional storylines and shocks, but it culminates with a satisfying endings.
I’m glad in this book, as not with all Archer books, women are given more character and do not exist just to serve men- although they don’t have any real storylines.
A keen interest in politics is necessary as I imagine his in depth knowledge, almost to the point of showboating, would get tedious and boring.
November 30, 2021
The pacing is mental. Sick book all in all!
September 25, 2022
OH WOW
November 24, 2024
I really enjoyed this story of 4 men from differing backgrounds who become embrioled in British politics over the latter half of the 20th century. I found the characters to be interesting and their stories to be riviting. If you are looking for a good political story, I would recommend this one.
December 6, 2024
Fast paced,full of drama and a great read if you political power plays
December 3, 2019
Although I know little about England’s government, and much of the time I was clueless about the strategies of the characters, nonetheless I thoroughly enjoyed getting some sense for the politics and historic people and events. I also thought the three main characters were very well drawn and believable. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is not put off by reading the intricacies of a foreign government, which was actually a plus for me. One note: if reading summaries online the reader will find that four characters were described instead of the three in the edition I read. This is because when the original four-character version was released to an American audience, the content was re-written for three characters. This was later released as four characters in the U.S. as well.
June 29, 2017
The first thing to be said about this book is the array of incredible characters - the ruthless and ambitious Charles Seymour, tenacious and gritty Simon Kerslake, lovable and heroic Andrew Fraser, brilliant Raymond Gould. The four characters start off as newly elected MPs to the House of Commons, and one thing that seems to be in common among them is their desire to become the Prime Minister. Throughout the novel, battles are fought, governments rise and fall, along with the individual character's fortunes. The actions of the characters have consequences, while at the same time, the uncertainty of the political system is brought to the fore, showing that nothing can ever be taken for granted in the world of politics.
While the narration is excellent and the plot well balanced without becoming dull, a few points must be raised. For one, as several other reviewers have pointed out, this book goes really, really deep into politics. It's the main premise of the novel, after all - we have elections, lobbying, campaigns, House procedures, government affairs, and all the stuff politicians do. If you don't have an inclination for these things, it's better to leave the book alone. Additionally, for some people, it can take a while to "get into" the story - that's normal, and things do pick up eventually.
This book could have gotten a greater rating, but for the ending. The funny part in my case was that my paperback was missing the last couple pages (!). I soon discovered there were two different editions - one US and another UK edition, and both had different endings, which was annoying to say the least. The foundation for a great ending to a novel is usually laid down well in advance and not sprung on the reader at the last moment (like in this case). The author should have planned the sequence of events out such that the ending could only have gone one way - that would have made for a more well-rounded story.
While the narration is excellent and the plot well balanced without becoming dull, a few points must be raised. For one, as several other reviewers have pointed out, this book goes really, really deep into politics. It's the main premise of the novel, after all - we have elections, lobbying, campaigns, House procedures, government affairs, and all the stuff politicians do. If you don't have an inclination for these things, it's better to leave the book alone. Additionally, for some people, it can take a while to "get into" the story - that's normal, and things do pick up eventually.
This book could have gotten a greater rating, but for the ending. The funny part in my case was that my paperback was missing the last couple pages (!). I soon discovered there were two different editions - one US and another UK edition, and both had different endings, which was annoying to say the least. The foundation for a great ending to a novel is usually laid down well in advance and not sprung on the reader at the last moment (like in this case). The author should have planned the sequence of events out such that the ending could only have gone one way - that would have made for a more well-rounded story.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 486 reviews