"Plebgate" returns as police officer is arrested

Constable arrested on suspicion of leaking information about the incident to the press.

"You haven't heard the last of this," Andrew Mitchell told Downing Street police officers as he concluded his rant at them. It looks like the former chief whip was right. Last night it emerged that an officer with the diplomatic protection group has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct over the leak of information about the incident to the press. The constable was bailed on Sunday after his arrest the previous day and has been suspended from duty.

The Met has been investigating for months how the Sun and the Daily Telegraph obtained the official police log of the incident, which suggested that Mitchell referred to the police as "plebs". In his resignation letter, Mitchell wrote that "The offending comment and the reason for my apology to the police was my parting remark 'I thought you guys were supposed to fucking help us'. It was obviously wrong of me to use such bad language and I am very sorry about it and grateful to the police officer for accepting my apology."

Scotland Yard said that the officer arrested was not on duty at the time of the incident and that it had found "no evidence to suggest any of the officers involved in the incident were involved in the unauthorised release of information". John Tully, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, commented that it was "disappointing to say the least to see the Met take this action."

The arrest has already revived the row over what Mitchell did or did not say. He told the BBC this morning: "I reiterate once again that the contents of the alleged police logbook are false." In which case, one might ask, will or should action be taken against the officer accused of falsifying the record? And if he did not, will Mitchell ever be forced to account for what he did say?

Former Conservative chief whip Andrew Mitchell, who resigned in October after swearing at Downing Street police officers. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May defies the right by maintaining 0.7% aid pledge

The Prime Minister offers rare continuity with David Cameron but vows to re-examine how the money is spent. 

From the moment Theresa May became Prime Minister, there was speculation that she would abandon the UK's 0.7 per cent aid pledge. She appointed Priti Patel, a previous opponent of the target, as International Development Secretary and repeatedly refused to extend the commitment beyond this parliament. When an early general election was called, the assumption was that 0.7 per cent would not make the manifesto.

But at a campaign event in her Maidenhead constituency, May announced that it would. "Let’s be clear – the 0.7 per cent commitment remains, and will remain," she said in response to a question from the Daily Telegraph's Kate McCann. But she added: "What we need to do, though, is to look at how that money will be spent, and make sure that we are able to spend that money in the most effective way." May has left open the possibility that the UK could abandon the OECD definition of aid and potentially reclassify defence spending for this purpose.

Yet by maintaining the 0.7 per cent pledge, May has faced down her party's right and title such as the Sun and the Daily Mail. On grammar schools, climate change and Brexit, Tory MPs have cheered the Prime Minister's stances but she has now upheld a key component of David Cameron's legacy. George Osborne was one of the first to praise May's decision, tweeting: "Recommitment to 0.7% aid target very welcome. Morally right, strengthens UK influence & was key to creating modern compassionate Conservatives".

A Conservative aide told me that the announcement reflected May's personal commitment to international development, pointing to her recent speech to International Development staff. 

But another Cameron-era target - the state pension "triple lock" - appears less secure. Asked whether the government would continue to raise pensions every year, May pointed to the Tories' record, rather than making any future commitment. The triple lock, which ensures pensions rise in line with average earnings, CPI inflation or by 2.5 per cent (whichever is highest), has long been regarded by some Conservatives as unaffordable. 

Meanwhile, Philip Hammond has hinted that the Tories' "tax lock", which bars increases in income tax, VAT and National Insurance, could be similarly dropped. He said: "I’m a Conservative. I have no ideological desire to to raise taxes. But we need to manage the economy sensibly and sustainably. We need to get the fiscal accounts back into shape.

"It was self evidently clear that the commitments that were made in the 2015 manifesto did and do today constrain the ability to manage the economy flexibly."

May's short speech to workers at a GlaxoSmithKline factory was most notable for her emphasis that "the result is not certain" (the same message delivered by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday). As I reported on Wednesday, the Tories fear that the belief that Labour cannot win could reduce their lead as voters conclude there is no need to turn out. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496