Duck soup

May 22, 2009

Last week it was pigs who saw their image dragged into the mire as they became symbols of the MPs’ expenses scandal. Now it’s the turn of the ducks.

Ducks are waddling all over the newspapers today after the revelation that Tory MP Sir Peter Viggers claimed 1,645 pounds for a so-called “Stockholm” pond house to give his ducks shelter from foxes and the cold.  

Cartoonists have had a field day.

Matt in the Daily Telegraph has two ducks surveying their aquatic pavilion with one saying to the other: “do you think we could fit a plasma TV in there?”

Steve Bell in the Guardian has two “sitting ducks” dressed as MPs in the line of fire of the Department of Work and Pensions’ campaign to target benefit thieves.

In the Daily Mail, Mac has a pair of ducks sipping champagne on the pavilion deck with one observing: “Make the most of this. Our man is being forced to stand down at the next election.”

Tim in the Independent has a couple of people sitting in front of a TV which features the words “Out for a duck” with one asking the other: “Is that the cricket score or another Tory MP?” 

And in the Daily Mirror, Kerber and Black have two ducks, faced with the news that Viggers is to retire, asking: “Does this mean we can’t get the conservatory done now?”

This last one so quacked up presenter Evan Davis on BBC radio’s “Today” show on Friday morning that there were fears he might not be able to go on. 

Any other ideas for animals that might symbolise the scandal?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Maybe an ostrich with it’s head in the sand would depict the attitude of pollies and their future!

Posted by Big_Norm | Report as abusive

Skunks, rats, weasels.

Take your pick really. The sad thing is of course that the behaviour of men can’t actually be related to the behaviour of animals. It is just that men ascribe the worst characteristics of other men to those of certain animals which appear to display the same unpleasant behaviour.

The only difference between men and animals, for those who don’t know, is that the behaviour of untrained animals is governed by instinct and the behaviour of men is governed by rational thought. So the nasty things that animals do are done in an unthinking response to the animal’s survival instinct, whereas the nasty things that men do are things that they deliberately choose to do.

Wild animals display the appearance of greed because they live in a competitive environment where snatching scarce food before others get it will in most cases mean the difference between living and dying.

MPs have no such excuse. The portrayal of them as comedy figures such as pigs wearing suits diminishes the reality of what they have done.

Posted by Mike T | Report as abusive