I meet Andrew Mitchell, Conservative politician, former president of the Cambridge Union and leader of CUCA, in his Westminster headquarters. His office has a panoramic view overlooking the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Cathedral. Stained pastel yellow wallpaper aside, it is an office to make even the wealthiest person jealous. 

Mitchell first entered Parliament in 1983 after working for Lazard, a pre-eminent investment bank – a path to power adopted by many of his esteemed colleagues. He has served both as International Development Secretary and Chief Whip. The optimism one may have felt for this active politician however instantaneously faded with the Plebgate débâcle in which he was purported to have called one of the Policemen outside No.10 a “pleb”.

Only a few months after being appointed Government Chief Whip in 2012, Mitchell resigned his position despite it later emerging that the police had fabricated much of the damning evidence.

One cannot help but associate the name Andrew Mitchell with this incident but there is more to be learnt about his career than whether he did or did not employ this loaded archaism.

Indeed, the role of the Chief whip alone is enough to cause intrigue. The curiosity surrounding this position has spurred  the great success of the television dramas Yes Minister and House of Cards. In reality, what kind of mechanisms does the whip use to encourage MPs to ‘toe the party line’?

“Well, there’s an old saying. Whipping, like stripping, is best done in private”.

Despite being tantalisingly evasive, Mitchell does reject the notion inculcated by these shows that “whips can brow-beat or bully MPs into doing what they don’t want to do”. According to Mitchell, “MPs are pretty robust characters” who go into parliament ready to defend their personal beliefs.

Machiavelli surely wouldn't accept this as a genuine answer, but then again I am speaking to a cautious politician. Doesn’t the promise of a cabinet position undermine any real adherence to ideology versus party?

“Of course there are some who find that the lure of office overcomes their principles, but actually, I think you’d be surprised at the number of people in Parliament who believe things and stand by those things,” he tells me. 

Mitchell can certainly be described as being “robust” and “having a thick skin”, characteristics necessary for the world of politics. He was heavily engaged in politics at university and it “was always my plan” to go into politics after getting “a proper job” first. It is easy to understand Mitchell's plan when put in the context of his ancestry. He is the fourth Mitchell (all male, of course) in his family to be a member of parliament, two of which were “liberal democrats, so we don’t talk about them!”

Why did he think it was important to get a job before entering into politics? “I do think that the professionalisation of politics is a unsatisfactory trend in British politics… they need to be in a minority not a majority in Parliament”. He laments that the number of these professional politicians, Cameron and Osborne included, have “increased quite significantly.”

Mitchell explains that he realised this was problematic when his father told him he had seen a committee taking place which was looking at reforms to the VAT laws. Most of the MPs on the committee were making decisions which significantly impacted small businesses despite “not one having ever filled in a VAT return in their life.”

Mitchell has had an illustrious career in politics, being especially effective in the realm of international development, which he says is the “political love of my life”. He was instrumental in ring-fencing the budget for International Development because “part of the British DNA to go to the help of those caught in desperate circumstances and to do something about the grinding extremes of poverty”.

He expresses concern over the widespread public misconceptions in this area. “If you ask people in Britain how much money they think is spent on international development, they’ll say its 20% of public expenditure. And if you ask them how much they think we should spend I think the polls come out at about 7%.

“Well, actually, we’re spending just over 1%.”

Despite lounging comfortably back in his chair, swinging his foot idly back and forth, shoeless, Mitchell is far from off his guard. Can he conceive of any other government than a conservative majority? “I am constitutionally incapable of thinking that anything else will happen,” he replies in a clipped tone.

Surely it would be beneficial to be prepared for the likely situation that they don’t win a majority? “There are some very, very clever people at central office who no doubt, under the bed clothes late at night will be considering that”. But for now, his role is “to get out there and make sure we win”.

I approach the topic of Pleb-gate tentatively. What does the future hold for Mitchell in the aftermath of this scandal? How does one move on from this? Mitchell becomes visibly uncomfortable when asked about this, he alters his body position and his tone of voice looses its previous enthusiasm, “We were horrified by the judge’s decision but we have to move on and” he pauses before mechanically adding, “I intend to represent my constituents… that is the heart of my job as a member of parliament. I intend to do that to the best of my ability. I intend to put the past behind me and focus on the future”.

In truth, it seems unfair that for now, people most associate him with this affair. Mitchell is irrepressibly enthusiastic when asked about the potential for international development and aid. For now however it is undeniable that more time is needed in order for Pleb-gate to fade into the distant past, but as he says: “That’s life, and that’s politics.”

 

@EllieOlcott