Is this the end for Andrew Mitchell?

Cabinet ministers tell Chief Whip that he should resign "for the good of his party".

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.

Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell did not attend this week's Conservative conference for fear of becoming a "distraction". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.