This House

by James Graham

This country doesn't need a constitution, never has, never will. We have History as our guide. In tough times, the British do what we have always done. We muddle through.

This House is a timely and relevant political comedy, exploring Westminster and the 1974 hung parliament.

In the run-up to the General Election pressure mounts as squabbling whips attempt to attract key regional votes. As it becomes clear the results will be closely balanced, the play tracks the formation, perils and consequences of a coalition government, including the compromises, conflicts and power games all in the interest of gaining control of Parliament.

With well-paced, witty and waspish dialogue, This House playfully explores the childish digs and chauvinistic attitudes that riddle political life. Award-winning playwright James Graham combines comedy with comment in this portrayal of the strain between the thinking individual, the pressure to toe the part line and the end goal of winning government.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Politics, Fiction, Theatre, Historical Fiction

136 pages, Paperback

First published October 25, 2012

About the author

James Graham is a multi award-winning playwright and screenwriter.

His play This House gained critical acclaim, enjoyed a sell-out run at the National Theatre's Olivier in 2013 and its 2017 West End revival was Olivier-nominated. It was chosen by popular vote as the best play of the 2010's by Methuen Drama.

James created theatre history when his two plays Ink, about the early days of Rupert Murdoch, and Labour of Love, a romantic political comedy, played in theatres next to each other in the West End in 2017. James won an Olivier award in 2018 for Labour of Love and Ink transferred to Broadway in 2019, receiving six Tony award nominations.

James' play The Vote (Donmar Warehouse) aired in real time on TV in the final 90 minutes of the 2015 polling day and was BAFTA-nominated. His most recent television film, Brexit: An Uncivil War (Channel 4/HBO) is nominated for a 2019 Emmy Award.

Reviews

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5, rounded down.

Of all Graham's political fact-based plays that I've read so far, this was probably my least favorite. It's still quite erudite, witty in places, and I'm sure plays like gangbusters - it's just I found it NOT quite as accessible, nor even comprehensible, being a Yank that didn't know anything about the subject matter (i.e., the No Confidence vote against the Labour Party in 1979). To add to the difficulties, there are nearly a dozen major roles and then 40 slightly less developed speaking characters; it helped that every time someone new arrived, they were 'announced' by the Speaker of the House - but I still had a mite difficult time keeping things straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biWLq...
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/201...

[amina]

Entertaining quick read, certainly funny even if there are some tragic deaths.

[Rytas Sakas · Rating 4 out of 5]

You know those plays where evil wins?
There, the Devil Herself (Thatcher) spoke the last words. Mm, majestic.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Graham captures the hectic craziness of Westminster. He notes some of Parliament’s flaws but is clearly fond of it.

[Russio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magnificent comedy on the Labour governments from 1974-1979, as the hung/nearly-hung nature of the Parliament is depicted through the constant battles between whips offices as the two main parties spar. Depending on your political view, you will either side with one or the other office as they fight, but the comedy from both will cause mirth. Your view of the conclusion also will either seem depressing or wonderful, dependent on the same. The key moment in the action reflects marvellously on both sides and even evinces a moment of nostalgia for this politically turbulent and frozen time.

The NT production is marvellous too, with incredible acting and staging.

[Jason Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a play cantering around two 1970s elections which gave Labours Harold Wilson first a hung parliament then a bare majority. Like Yes Minister and The Thick of It, it’s a product of parliament and the civil service that have both changed massively since, but nonetheless offers timeless political insight.

While the infighting and bickering is a tad dull at points, there are sharp reminders for both Labour and the Tories about attitudes that neither of them have really moved on from.

[Jonathan Daley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Graham is rightly seen as the fictional chronicler of recent history, especially political history. His writing is engaging and incredibly detailed. There’s a real skill with handling the macro landscape of such a momentous period of modern political history in the United Kingdom. His ability to meld this with the micro landscape and the incredibly human elements of events give the play a real emotional centre. The rise of Thatcher is a dark cloud that stalks the play and, knowing how she destroyed the UK, gives the play a wonderfully tragic ending which really made me quite emotional.

[Colin Mak · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5. Watched the performance on National Theatre Live. I really enjoyed the narrative focus on Westminister and it prompted me to delve deeper into UK politics and the parliamentary system. The acting was great, the way the set was manipulated was wonderful (i.e. the clear divide between Labour and Tory; moving set; actors sitting with the audience), and the overall execution was really well done (04/06/2020).

[SuedePuzzler · Rating 3 out of 5]

In honor of the UK election day I read this play by James Graham. It depicts the UK parliament 1974-1979, specifically the work of the Whips' offices.

The play is quite funny and recommended for anyone with an interest in the political game. The play is quite nonpartisan, perhaps to attract the broadest possible audience.

It is no spoiler to say that it ends dramatically with the government losing a vote of no confidence, paving the way for Margaret Thatcher to come to power. Whether this means the play has a happy or sad ending is I suppose up to the reader.

[Rick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find myself largely immune to the brilliance of James Graham and find it difficult to know where to start with this limp offering - which was rescued, in part, by some solid performances and diverting staging at the National Theatre, some years ago. The political points are hardly novel, there is probably a drama to be had - but without the real jeopardy exposed, it just becomes a bit of infighting between the chaps who have posh accents and those who do not...

[Tobi ﾄﾋﾞ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought this would be appropriate to try out with the upcoming election in the Uk, but I found the play incredibly disappointing. The dialogue was in a weird grey area between comedy and seriousness that I often don’t like very much.

I gave it 3 stars because it’s based on a true story and I genuinely learned quite a lot about politics from the 70s. With the way the election is supposed to end up here in a few weeks, it was quite interesting to learn about the 1974 general election where Labour only won through 4 more seats than the Conservatives. This year they’re set to win with a majority of 200 seats (to whatever party comes second, which might not even be the Conservatives). But in 1974 they had no majority and you can feel the tension that the real politicians would’ve had during this time knowing that the next few years could be incredibly challenging and slow.

I think the play did a bad job at explaining what politics was like before the general election was called. You see them all annoyed that an election was called, and you see that they dislike certain people and make certain decisions but there’s minimal talks of what happened to lead up to this moment.

Maybe if I knew more about politics from the 60s and early 70s I’d be able to put it into context and then I’d be more able to appreciate the play, however I think it is a bit bold to assume that the modern watcher would know enough about politics from this time. Even if they generally know what was happening in the world or the country at that time, I don’t think many people would know about the specific politicians or scandals that occurred then, because we have enough of those going on now that it’s difficult to keep up with. I think to have that context you either need to be the sort of person who studies these really niche things, or you need to have been alive at this time. Most people are neither, even if they are followers of politics and have an interest in local history like myself. That’s just me being honest and a bit picky though

The music and the choreography was one of the least impressive that I’ve seen in a play so far. It felt embarrassing

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to read this because I watched a flawed but enjoyable police/historical mystery (Sherwood) by the same author.

This play, which depicts the tumultuous shift in the 1970s from a Labour government in the UK with a razor thin majority to its eventual replacement by the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, takes place almost entirely in Parliament, in the offices of the majority and minority whips, the legislative leaders responsible for lining up votes and enforcing party discipline.

Graham more than succeeds in making the play dramatic and packed with emotion by concentrating on the relationships between the men and one woman in the whips' offices.

Much of the tension comes when there is a breakdown in the custom of "pairing," which meant that if an MP in one party was sick or away, a corresponding MP from the other party would be held out of the vote. When the Conservatives stopped the practice, it suddenly meant that Labour needed everyone to show up for votes, even if they were on their deathbeds, as several were.

There is also one small but brilliant scene where a woman Labour MP has to keep the sergeant at arms from arresting her because she needs to breastfeed her child in order to show up for floor votes.

A symbolic set piece of the play is the breakdown of Big Ben, which was out of commission for repairs in the mid-70s. It's where one Labour leader goes to ponder events at a moment when time itself seemed to stop.

Even for those unfamiliar with British politics, this is a gripping read well worth your time.

[Bobby Sullivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just a horrible little story about horrible little politicians. Everybody's awful, except Batley. And an unhappy ending. Yes, the votes provide suspense, but I didn't need to see how the sausage was made.

[Dion · Rating 4 out of 5]

Way more enjoyable than it perhaps sounds. Funny and sharp.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good play - interesting era that I didn't know much about. Think it is gripping and human, although there are a lot of names to follow and I wonder if this would be confusing on stage.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant and accessible play about the Labour party whips of the 1970s. Smartly written and very funny

[zb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great play. Would highly recommend watching it if you get the chance. 4.5/5 stars, rounded up (because of Bowie).

[Shana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worth the read

[Jill Meyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I saw "This House" in London's West End a couple of weeks ago. It was a marvelously presented stage play, but if you see it, you should read the play, either before you see it, or after. (Or both!) The play, written by British playwright James Graham, is set in the years 1975 to 1979, during the years of Labour's slim majority in the House of Commons. The party and government were led by Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, but the play isn't about the leaders; it's about those indispensable "whips", whose jobs it is to "whip" the party members into line during the voting. With the slim Labour majority, the whips of both main parties - Labour and Conservative - were busy with their own party members as well as with the "odds and sods", those few minority parties whose votes were needed by the two major parties.

James Graham's play is not an absolute history of those years of a "hung Parliament", but rather an over-view of the times. Real people are sometimes used, but most are referred to by their constituencies. Margaret Thatcher is never referred to by name, but rather as "the member from Finchley". The play is a serious look at the way Parliament "works", or doesn't work, as the case may be. "Pairing" - a situation where members from both parties are "paired" if one party has a member who can't vote - is shown as both a workable feature, and one that doesn't work too well. The whips from both parties are shown as friendly enemies, both knowing that even though Labour is in power right then, the Tory's time will come.

I would like to see the play again, because I think it will make even more sense. But reading the play is good, too.

[Diana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant! I saw this play earlier in the year at the Garrick Theatre and I was blown away. The pacing, the dialogue, and the staging were incredible. I enjoyed it so much that I decided to read it , which allowed me to catch some of the lines I didn't hear and see how James Graham structured the play.

This House is the story of the hung parliament of the late 70s and the relationship between the government and opposition whips of the time. The play is at once hilarious and touching. I found myself tearing up during the climactic scene where Weatherill offers to sit out the crucial no-confidence vote and Harrison turns him down.

Graham has written a fascinating and funny play that reveals the inner workings of the British government at an exciting time in history, but what makes the play truly special are the ways the relationships between the whips are written. It's not often that I finish a book in awe, buts that how I felt upon closing this one.

[Steve Mayer · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful, sad and funny play about the goings-on in Parliament during the 1970s, when Labor first had a minority government and then a very slim majority. In the wings, Margaret Thatcher, unseen, waits to grab power from the ragtag collection of politicians that made up Labor. We see it all through the eyes of the whips, the members whose duty it is to corral the troops of their respective parties. While not a partisan play, it is clear that Labor is in decline, torn between militant anarchists in various constituencies, members who voted their conscience instead of the party line, opportunists who defected to the opposition and members who held diametrically opposed views upon hot button issues such as devolution. Somehow, the fact that Labor lost 17 members to death during the Parliament while the Tories lost none is a powerful symbol of the respective strength and vitality of the two parties.