Plebgate: a storm in a Westminster teacup?

Daniel Finkelstein

Inside Westminster everyone agrees that the Andrew Mitchell issue is a nightmare for the Conservatives. Is this correct?

I do have my own views on this, but let me try instead just some cool voter analysis.

Well, it is certainly a nuisance. It is a distraction for the leadership, it depresses morale in the Commons, it undermines the whips’ office and, because the Westminster lobby (who own the story) regard it as a huge political issue, it makes the tone of coverage worse. It further damages an already bad relationship with the police.

And any story that makes the Prime Minister look as if he isn’t in control of the situation is a bad story.

But beyond that?

Well, first things first. Voters don’t know who Andrew Mitchell is. And they don’t know what a chief whip does.

They also don’t follow this sort of story. They may have noticed it (although my understanding is that recall in focus groups was almost zero) but they certainly won’t be wondering what happened.

There are three issues still running, so let’s look at each of them. Assuming that voters recall it, the use of the word “pleb” is only more of a problem than swearing if it is commonly understood to have class connotations. It is by no means certain that people have a clear understanding of the word pleb.

The second question is whether the police are being accused of lying. Voters do not unquestioningly believe the police.

And finally, while people don’t believe in swearing at the police, and always think politicians should resign, voters are strongly disinclined to believe in media storms (if you can believe in a storm, but you know what I mean). They will blame the media for the whole saga as much as Mitchell and the police and will regard the whole thing as a whole bunch of people in Westminster entertaining themselves on an irrelevant issue.

When looking at the issue purely in terms of public opinion, David Cameron can ride this one out.

Daniel Finkelstein is chief leader writer and a columnist for The Times. Read his latest column on Jimmy Savile and celebrity power and contact him on Twitter @Dannythefink

Prime Minister’s Questions Live

Join The Times politics team for rolling commentary on Prime Minister’s Questions from 11.50am.

Boris Johnson is a super-smart, hard-working and ultra-ambitious politician pretending to be an upper-class buffoon. His is a reputation untested by the competing demands and multifarious pressures of national office. But, for the moment, Brand Boris is stronger than ever. The Mayor is one of the few politicians recognisable by his first name and the only one identifiable from his silhouette.

And the fervour of Boris-mania has helped highlight the flaws in David Cameron’s brand, Rachel Sylvester says today

George Osborne is so f***ing unpopular that when he went to hand out medals at the Paralympics even the mascots Wenlock and Mandeville were giving him the finger.

Malcolm Tucker of The Thick of It wonders how the Chancellor escaped the guillotine in David Cameron’s Cabinet reshuffle

Bill Clinton’s speech had, in spades, all the ingredients that in Britain too we associate with clever and successful political positioning. It had charm, apparent sincerity, affability and guile. But it also had something we’re missing in Britain today. Mr Clinton’s “better together” message to America was a big, strong idea.

Bill Clinton is no saint, says Matthew Parris, but he knows how to strike a chord - an ability that David Cameron has lost

We are so used to assuming that the private life of a public figure must be revelatory — that hidden away is the real truth, which must either shatter or explain the carefully crafted official version. Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan took his 78-year-old mother Betty on the stump to “prove” that his planned Medicare reforms will not hurt elderly Americans. But if having a mother were all it took to provide humanely for the care of the elderly, any politician could do it. In Britain, meanwhile, the most accurate pre-election guide to the future of the NHS turned out not to have been buried deep in David Cameron’s psyche but right out there in public all along — in the boring old election manifesto nobody actually read.

It’s a myth that personal stories tell us the ‘truth’ about public figures, says Gaby Hinsliff

Mitt Romney arrives at 10 Downing Street earlier today. The Republican presidential candidate ruffled a few feathers soon after arriving in England, suggesting that London might not be prepared for the Olympics. The Prime Minister and Mayor of London later rebuffed him.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney arrives in London tomorrow. He’ll meet the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and a former Prime Minister (among others) and he’ll attend the Olympics opening ceremony on Friday.

But then he’ll get down to business: Mr Romney is here primarily to boost his campaign coffers. At a cost of up to $75,000 a ticket, London-based American bankers are joining him at a series of fundraising dinners.

Some Barclays bankers will be in attendance, which has caused unease among a few MPs. They have used a parliamentary motion to call on Barclays executives “to cease fundraising for political candidates immediately and to concentrate entirely on repairing confidence and trust in the banking system instead”.

(And before anyone asks: No. Romney Street was around many, many years before Mitt Romney)

Jimmy Carr’s tax avoidance has uncovered an ideological split between Cameron and Miliband | Daniel Finkelstein

The gap between David Cameron and Ed Miliband on Jimmy Carr’s tax bill seems uninteresting at first. Miliband’s assertion that politicians shouldn’t lecture on morality but should change the law appears to be a bit of (understandable) Opposition distancing. Understandable because, naturally, he thinks it’s immoral. But he can see that the whole moral attack might go wrong for Cameron.

I think that this gap is more interesting than it seems.

Cameron believes that things that are legal can be immoral, and that a politician can say that. Miliband does not agree. He thinks if things are immoral they should be made illegal. And there is no role for a politician to take moral stands without outlawing the subject of their attack.

In other words, they are having an argument about a core proposition of Cameron’s Big Society.

Twitter: @Dannythefink

“Albert Einstein once said that filing a tax return was too difficult for a mathematician and so required a philosopher.” Read more

Loading posts...