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.

“The resignation is the first bit of luck Gordon Brown has had in many months,” it concludes.

The Financial Times said the forthcoming by-election “is more likely to be a damp squib than a national rallying point,” and added: “The Tories need fewer gimmicks and more gravitas.”

The Guardian said the Tories are “aghast” at Davis’ stand and echoed many papers’ suspicions that he had been carried away by the emotion of the moment after Wednesday night’s Commons vote in favour of 42 days.

“Everyone at Westminster yesterday thought his decision mad,” it added. “Mr Davis’ job now is to prove all of them wrong.”

The pro-Tory Daily Telegraph said the shock should act as a wake-up call to the Conservatives. “It is no secret at Westminster that the top of the party is run by a small clique of which Mr Davis was not a part,” it says, calling such cabalism unworthy of a government in waiting.

But for the Times, Davis has made a big mistake. Under the headline “From bruiser to Loser”, it said: “David Davis may hold sincere convictions but he has put them and his party at risk for the sake of a disastrous ego trip.”

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.

“The introduction of 4-D ultrasound techniques, showing foetuses of just 12 weeks with apparent facial expressions, has dramatised the debate,” it says in an editorial. “So have couples coming back from hospital and proudly showing off photos of their baby at its 12-week scan.”

But there is an even more pressing matter than the upper time limit for abortions, according to a Daily Telegraph editorial.

It says that only a small number of terminations take place at more than 22 weeks. However, there are 200,000 abortions in Britain each year at 12 weeks or less.

“Governments routinely launch campaigns telling us not to drink, smoke, take drugs or eat to excess; yet there is no sense of a similar effort being expended on advising women about the medical and psychological trauma of abortion,” the paper says.

Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley says the debates over abortion and research on embryos highlight a wider divide between the two main political parties.

She argues that there is a real difference between a progressive, pro-science Labour government and a backward-looking, “finger-wagging” Conservative opposition.

“If the reactionary arguments are successful, throwing out vital medical advances and criminalising frightened, often young, women, then it will mark a real turning point,” she writes.

“Whatever you think of the New Labour years, it has been a decade of social liberalism, when racism, homophobia and anti-science voodoo became steadily less respectable.”

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.

What do you think?