Is this the end for Andrew Mitchell?
Cabinet ministers tell Chief Whip that he should resign "for the good of his party".
By George Eaton Published 10 October 2012 8:46
Andrew Mitchell may have chosen to stay away from the Conservative conference, but his run-in with the police has still loomed large over the gathering. The Tories acknowledge that the affair has done lasting damage to the party's reputation, with a growing number of the view that the Chief Whip should fall on his sword. One cabinet minister tells the Telegraph: "It’s still doing a lot of harm and someone needs to put an end to it. There’s a chance that Andrew will do that himself, but people may have to talk to him."
At the same time, backbench MPs have written to Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, to complain that Mitchell remains in post. Few now believe that he has the authority required to perform the role of Chief Whip. As David Davis shrewdly observed last week: "What does a Chief Whip have at his fingertips to deploy normally? Well, a mixture of charm, rewards, appeals to loyalty — all of those are diluted at the moment."
With the end of the conference season and the return of Parliament, Mitchell's future is likely to be resolved early next week. The chances of him resigning now appear at least as good as those of him surviving.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















8 comments
Does the left love the pigs? When did that happen?
He should change his name to Hunt - then he'd find himself promoted.
True that. On the other hand, he should have resigned immediately after his repellent outburst of corrosive entitlement and downright nastiness. Hunt should have been sacked : he completely ignored his quasi judicial role and principles to shill for Murdoch. His position thereafter was hopelessly compromised and the idea of his homeopathic support and blurting of extraordinary abortion thoughts is just risible -particularly as Health Minister- really couldn't imagine how he was appointed. What is this invisible cord that binds Cameron to someone of his evident flakiness and lies? Gawd knows, but there's something...
The damage is already done.
Cameron's fondness for the company of public school bully boys, liars, the incompetent and the corrupt has indelibly marked him.
Considering that marketing is all about the public perception of a product (meant to be 'good', when the product sometimes isn't), how come Cameron's (only proper?) job was in marketing?
He must have been monumentally crap.
a bit weird this, i had almost forgotten about it, except of course to throw in the occasional pleb joke when talking about the tory party.
but of course the real damage mitchell has done is to reveal what many of us already thought they were thinking. if no one thought that cameron and osborne were arrogant and looked down on people the mitchell incident would already have been forgotten.
what a mess the tory party is in,
They still don't get it do they? Never mind resignation, he should have been arrested and charged for public disorder, just like *any* of us would be had we used swear words near a copper.
Hear hear! Anyone arrested in the UK by the cops from now on for shouting abuse at them can now plead "the Andrew Mitchell precedent".
I entirely agree, though the term we normally use is 'effing copper'.