UK News

Is it time to give Guy Fawkes a break?

It’s bonfire night, and once again poor old Guido gets it.

Up and down the country he will be burned in effigy for the dastardly crime of trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament over 400 years ago.

But wait — after all the moats, duck houses and house-flipping of the past 12 months, should it not now be conceded that he might have had a point, even if his methods were a little extreme?

With Westminster held in little more than contempt by many people who have been appalled at the greed and sharp practice of some of our MPs, surely Guy Fawkes should — maybe for just one year — be regarded as more of a hero than a villain. A sort of sabbatical from the day job.

That of course would leave a vacancy on top of all the woodpiles stacked waiting and ready for tonight.

Who should we put there instead?

MPs’ expenses: rubbing it in?

Fury, resentment and a general feeling of being hard done-by is reported to be the prevailing mood amongst MPs as they reconvene after the Summer break to find brown envelopes of an unwelcome sort waiting for them.

These are the already infamous “Legg letters,” the latest symbol along with duck houses, moats and mole-catchers of the expenses scandal which did so much damage to all parties earlier this year.

Written as a result of the inquiry headed by former civil servant Sir Thomas Legg, they assess the expenses claimed by each MP between 2004 and 2008 and, where anomalies have been found, they either demand repayment or clarification.

Gordon Brown is to pay back 12,415 pounds, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg 910 pounds and SNP leader Alex Salmond 700 pounds. David Cameron has been asked to provide more details about his mortgage repayments.

But three things have particularly annoyed backbenchers.

The first is that Legg has imposed  retrospective limits on various categories of expenses that the MPs themselves obviously cannot have known about at the time. He has said the maximum allowable for cleaning for example is 2,000 pounds and that for gardening 1,000 pounds, according to newspaper reports.

The second is the perception at Westminster that those MPs who made the really big claims, the ones on mortgage payments, are getting away with it. Saying “sorry” seems to be enough, as in the case of former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Duck soup

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?” 

Echoes of Italy’s Clean Hands revolution

The shockwaves reverberating through Westminster as the MPs’ expenses scandal unfolds have been compared with the “Clean Hands” bribery scandal that effectively demolished Italy’s post-war political establishment in the space of a couple of years in the early 1990s.

If things are going to get that bad, the guilty politicians are going to have an uncomfortable time.

As a reporter in Rome at the time, I remember how surprise turned to anger then just as it has now as the public began to realise the sheer extent of the corruption that was helping to line the pockets of the country’s leading politicians and their parties.

The morning newspapers brought fresh revelations almost daily of how the main political parties routinely demanded kickbacks in return for government contracts. There were the “golden sheets” for example in which invoices for linen and bedding were inflated to thousands of pounds, and the exorbitant demands placed on suppliers to hospitals, which caused particular anger.

People used to demonstrate in the streets wearing white gloves to show they had clean hands. They would try to scare MPs they felt were corrupt by sending them spoof versions of the ”avviso,” the official notice that warned potential offenders they were under investigation. The avviso itself became one of the enduring symbols of the scandal, almost like the guillotine in revolutionary France. Reproductions of it used to sell well as birthday and Christmas cards.

Another favourite amng the angry public, if any disgraced politician dared show his face his public, was to mockingly shower them with coins.

Such was the fate of one of those held to have been most deeply involved in the corruption, Socialist leader Bettino Craxi, who was forced to flee to his second home in Tunisia to escape jail in Italy. Other disgraced politicians and businessmen even took their own lives.

Another bumper Budget?

All we’ve heard for the past few weeks is how little room there is for Labour to pump more money into the economy to fight the recession.

The increasingly popular — and confident — opposition Conservatives have gained ground by blaming Prime Minister Gordon Brown for turning the public purse into a public hearse.

But there are a few reasons to suspect that when finance minister Alistair Darling steps up to the dispatch box tomorrow, he will deliver another blockbuster life-support package.

Yes, there are inklings of a recovery out there — some experts say we have reached the bottom — but Labour has to make sure this recession is long gone before it can hope to win an election.

And it only has until mid-2010 to wait before that day of reckoning must come.

Brown might be willing to chance his arm with some big spending to reassure the public that job losses will be kept to a minimum and that Labour cares more about ordinary peoples’ lives in the here and now than it does about the budget deficit and government debt markets. If this is the worst economic crisis for decades, then there is no easy way out of it and the best thing to do is to take whatever action is necessary to bring it to an end and worry about the consequences later.

Respected think tank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has called for a temporary 30 billion pound stimulus aimed at stuffing employers and employees coffers with cash.

David Davis – what the papers say

Leader writers applauded the shock value of David Davis’ resignation but were divided over his motives and predicted the potentially shambolic by-election to come would damage the Conservative party.

With the LibDems already having said they will not field a candidate on July 10 and Labour still mulling the options, the papers raised the spectre of Davis campaigning alone against fringe parties like the Monster Raving Loonies and a motley crew of publicity-seekers.

“Yesterday he slashed his own party’s jugular instead of Gordon Brown,” said the Sun. “He will win praise from many voters glad to see a politician standing on a point of principle but in truth his vanity has led to an act of incredible selfishness.”

The Daily Mail also praised his principles but questioned his judgement. “At the very least it deprives the Conservatives of a recognised big hitter ..,” it said. “More worryingly Mr Davis leaves his party leader … exposed to accusations of internal division.”

Right on cue, the Labour-supporting Daily Mirror twisted the knife. Under the headline “Cracks in Cam’s Lot,” it praised Davis for his stand, but said he had thrown the spotlight on party leader David Cameron.

“His failure to show true leadership has left him with a thorn in his side that threatens to divide the Tories,” it crowed. “If Cameron can’t keep a grip on his party in opposition, how would he cope with the pressure of running the country.”

The Independent said Davis’ move “cannot be interpreted as anything other than an act of reckless egotism” which had indeed exposed divisions on the Conservative front bench about 42 days pre-charge detention. Like several other papers, it wondered whether Davis still harboured a grudge against Cameron for having beaten him in the party’s 2005 leadership election.

Media’s views on the abortion vote

As MPs prepare to vote on cutting the time limit for abortions, the Daily Mail says the current system “shames our nation”.

Foetuses are being aborted at a late stage in their development when they would have had a good chance of survival outside the womb, the Mail says in an editorial.

“An attack on women? Utter nonsense. The campaign to cut the time-limit is an attack on an everyday practice that shames our nation,” it says.

Rubbish, says Times columnist David Aaronovitch.

There is no significant evidence to support the claim that the foetus is more viable at up to 24 weeks than in 1967 or 1990 when the law was last changed.

“If viability isn’t the test – as it was claimed to be back in 1990 when the limit was reduced from 28 weeks – then the judgment must be that some folk simply don’t like abortions and wish to restrict them as much as possible,” he writes.

There is little doubt that the “temperature of the debate about abortion” has changed in recent times, says the Independent.

MPs and the “John Lewis” list

How much should MPs be allowed to keep confidential?

The High Court has ruled that Members of Parliament must disclose details of expenses claimed for second homes and the location of those properties.

House of Commons authorities had sought to block the publication of second-home expense claims for 14 current and former MPs — including Tony Blair and Gordon Brown — requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

It had been argued on behalf of the politicians that publication of the addresses of second homes would pose a security risk and could inhibit what politicians would be prepared to say publicly.

But Mr Justice Igor Judge disagreed, saying it was in the public interest to have a detailed breakdown of second-home allowances and that anyone determined enough could find an MP’s address anyway.

Under the so-called “John Lewis list” MPs can claim items up to 23,000 pounds a year for second homes, they need to be near their constituents. The details are here. They include for example 10,000 pounds for a new kitchen and over 6,000 pounds for a new bathroom.

Some critics have said the secret system allowed MPs effectively to “write their own cheques” but others say the war on MPs’ expenses has gone far enough — that they are public servants who devote a huge amount of their time to their jobs as MPs, often during antisocial hours and far from their homes and that they deserve some help if we are to have an effective national parliament.