 Harry Perkins, steel worker and trade unionist from Sheffield, becomes Prime Minister of the UK by an overwhelming majority, partly because of corruption and public disillusionment with the Conservative Party and financial institutions of the City of London. The IMF and the military and secret services of the UK (and USA) are unhappy with the non-nuclear and neutral aspirations of his party and are supported in their fears by nationalistic media moguls. Quietly, the protagonist Harry is driven by an underlying desire to compensate for the corporate manslaughter of his granddad, "who were killed at work" when he was splashed by molten steel. Harry inherited his shaving mug, nothing more, and was originally determined to see workers participate in decision making for safety on the job. As his national-political consciousness grew he formed a wider agenda for a reinvestment in health and education as well as public ownership of public utilities. Not surprisingly this is in direct opposition to Thatcher s "there is no such thing as society" that meant, as Harry puts it, that "Thousands are forced to live in hell-holes so that a tiny bunch of fat-cats could lick the cream". It is important to remember the political climate in which the story was written. Harry maintains his drive despite sex scandals and suicide involving his colleagues and the assassination of his trusted military advisor Monty Kowalski. Harry says that "the dead [read: his grandfather, Annette Newson and Monty] ask the best questions, and we are answerable". He finds some personal support in his ex-lover Helen, a passionate advocate for alternate economic strategies, and Harry s spy in the corridors of power; Thompson, an investigative journalist. But ultimately this is a story about one man s convictions. The anti-Americanism is tempered by the idea of a loyal friend at the White House, Markus, who won t stand by while a friend is shafted. The PM s witty comments are easily misunderstood as politically simplistic by those without an appreciation of sarcasm, or indeed irony, given the political context in which the film was produced. There is limited blood (refreshingly) and a distinct lack of violence in the over-throw of an elected government in this story; thus the idea of "a very [polite] British coup". The finale is chilling and yet ambiguous. What is the constitutional situation? There is a degree of pathos for the PM in the excellent book by Chris Mullen MP. But in the film there is a final twist (cinema magic I tell you) which seems to deny there is futility in challenging the status quo and questions our morality. Throw in a bit of Mozart and it is hard to argue that this is anything but the best television program ever produced.