Great story on the front of the Telegraph today suggesting that the weekly bin round has been axed by half of  England’s councils amid pressure on local government funding.

Expect to see (and smell) rubbish piling up on the streets as people struggle to get used to fortnightly collection.

This may sound esoteric but it’s the kind of thing that gets voters very exercised. I have seen the future and it looks a bit like Naples (see below).

Eric Pickles, Tory spokesman on local government, has been asking numerous parliamentary questions on the garbage issue.

He’s also just obtained a copy of the “enforcement manual” given to town hall bin inspectors by government. It advocates “zero tolerance” and fines for any of us who put our rubbish out at the wrong time.

My favourite part is the tips given to bin workers on how to handle furious householders. For example, they should say: “I am not prepared to carry on this interview whilst you are calling me a wanker and a jobsworth”.

More seriously it may not be long before many of us are paying for our litter collection, as is the norm on much of the Continent. Five councils have said they want to pilot a charging scheme but they aren’t revealing their identities; yet.

Gordon Brown may come to regret today’s boast - in today’s prime minister’s questions - that Britain has "more homeowners than ever before".

Newcomers to the market are more exposed than anyone else if and when prices fall; which looks more and more likely. Especially now that banks are cutting back mortgage lending in the wake of the credit crunch.

The PM is still maintaining that circumstances are totally different to the early 90s, when interest rates were 11 per cent.

He is ignoring the fact that we’ve all borrowed far more this time to take account of the fact that debt is cheap. House prices have nearly tripled since the last crash. The key ratio - mortgage repayments as a proportion of income - is at its highest for over a decade and for many people will leap further this year as recent rate rises kick in.

Mr Brown tried to shrug off a question from Vince Cable, Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, asking whether the government had been "complacent" about the risks to the economy from the housing bubble. He may not be able to ignore it much longer.

Thanks to the Guido Fawkes blog for pointing out that Lord Hoyle is up in front of a Lords disciplinary committee today.

The Guardian first broke the story that money changed hands between Lord Hoyle (formerly Doug Hoyle, a Labour whip) and Michael Wood, a former RAF officer now working for arms companies. A meeting subsequently took place between Lord Drayson - defence minister - and Mr Wood, although accounts differ as to how this was arranged. That was in June 2005

Unfortunately today’s meeting in the Lords (of the interests sub-committee of the privileges committee) is behind closed doors. No doubt we’ll hear more in a few weeks.

A growing number of pundits are wondering why the mainstream press aren’t writing much - if anything - about Lee Jasper. The London mayor’s race adviser has been subjected to a stream of allegations made by Andrew Gilligan, the investigative reporter, in the Evening Standard.

Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall, was fuming to me the other day at how the story was being ignored by papers including the FT.

I did write a news story last night but it was spiked at midnight by one of my editors (mainstream media gatekeepers). You may have already read something similar in the Standard but for those readers outside the capital.

"Police officers have carried out searches of premises in south London as investigations get under way into five separate projects that received public funding from the London Development Agency.

Lee Jasper, senior race adviser to Ken Livingstone, mayor, admitted on Monday that £18,000 of public money was diverted to a private company of which he had been director.

Ethnic Mutual, a project that has received more than £1m in public funding, lent the money to African Caribbean Positive Image Foundation, a group that no longer exists.

But Mr Jasper said the loan had been arranged by Emerson Braithwaite, a fellow director, without his knowledge. The loan was subsequently "reassigned" to Mr Braithwaite personally and he had made arrangements to pay it back.

Mr Jasper said he only became aware of the loan after an investigation by the LDA and the Financial Services Authority. "The loan was not agreed by me, nor was I formally or informally consulted or contacted about it as a director of the company [ACPIF]", he said.

The Met confirmed on Monday night that it was carrying out five investigations involving public funding but it refused to comment on the identity of the organisations or individuals.

The claims have threatened to destabilise Mr Livingstone ahead of May’s mayoral elections, where he faces a challenge from Boris Johnson of the Conservatives. An internal inquiry has rejected the claims but a cross-party group of London MPs has called for a separate independent inquiry."

Derek Conway is whip-less. His political prospects look bleak. His constituency association is weighing up whether to back him as an independent MP. The question is, do the Tories want to risk a by-election?

Mr Conway’s seat is Old Bexley and Sidcup. It covers an area that was represented by former prime minister Ted Heath for more than half a century. It has one of the lowest proportions of ethnic minorities in London, and the highest level of home ownership. It should be as blue as the ocean. But Mr Conway’s bungling has probably put the seat into play.

If a by-election was called, it would be Nick Clegg’s first test as Liberal Democrat leader. And it would be on reasonably favourable terms. The Lib Dems would be the underdog, with the wind of a genuine scandal in their sails. And of course the Tories can always be relied upon to underperform in a by-election race.

Even the geography is raising hopes in the Lib Dem HQ. Bexley is reasonably close to Bromley, where the Lib Dems lost by just 633 votes in a by-election less than two years ago. The original majority in Bromley was more than 13,000, which far outstrips Mr Conway’s 9,309 vote margin.

Lord Rennard, the Lib Dem by-election guru, can smell blood. "The Tories definitely won’t want a by-election there," he told me. "In these circumstances, they’ll be very fearful of us."                                                                                                                      

Let’s face it, British politicians are the Lilliputians of the world of political money scandals. However much time journalists spend muckraking, whatever misconduct is uncovered, it is almost always small fry. Our politicians, for the last decade or more, seem incapable of corruption on a grand scale.

Where is the Randy "Duke" Cunningham of Westminster? The former Republican congressman pleaded guilty in 2005 to taking $2.4m in kick-backs. He cavorted with prostitutes (feeding them grapes in Hawaiian hot-tubs) and used private jets — all on the expense account of defence contractors. He did not need his party leader or a standards commissioner to tell him to step down.

Where is the William Jefferson of Westminster? The Democratic congressman is in court fighting charges of bribery after the FBI raided his house and found $90,000 in his freezer. Cold cash, as they say.

And who could match James Trafficant, the toupee wearing Democratic congressman who was sentenced to eight years in prison for bribery? As well as taking kick-backs, the Congressman forced his staff to toil on his Ohio farm. He was so fond of his job, the House had to vote to expel him — after he was convicted. (He had one vote in his favour, would you believe.)

I do not mean to make light of Labour’s donations problems — the Abrahams episode, the cash-for-honours allegations, the police investigation into late-declarations by Peter Hain. Nor do I want to excuse the conduct of Derek Conway, the Tory MP who seems to have given his son public money for no good reason. (Guido Fawkes has some humble opinions on this matter.)

The comparison merely puts our home-grown scandals in perspective, and maybe helps to clarify why we should care at all. Even if British misconduct is on a smaller-scale, it still involves big misjudgements by our elected officials. That should interest us all.

(For those who are interested, the AP put together a handy list of congressmen convicted of crimes since 1970, which you can see here. There are more than a dozen convictions, including extortion and sex with an underage campaign worker.)

Five European leaders are meeting on Tuesday night in Downing St to discuss the world’s economic problems. That’s no bad thing, but how much are Mssrs Brown, Sarkozy, Prodi, Barroso and Ms Merkel really going to achieve in talks lasting no more than a few hours?

Kenneth Clarke, whom one might have expected to be sceptical about the whole thing, told Sky this morning that such events are useful, provided they can be kept informal. The former Chancellor says it is important, in an inter-connected world, to know how your counterparts in Europe are going to react to any given event.

The worst thing that can happen, he says, is for the leaders to get bogged down too much in detailed work on the communique to be presented to journalists afterwards.

Fair point, but isn’t it about time all this talk about reforming the financial system started bearing fruit. After all, Mr Brown and his colleagues have been talking for months about greater transparency, better early warning systems of contagion, clearer roles for credit rating agencies and so on.

Perhaps that will all be nailed down in greater detail at the G7 in Tokyo next month. Let’s hope so.

I suspect Tuesday’s events is more about politics. For Mr Brown it is a chance to make it look like he is engaged in Europe and setting the agenda, rather than the lonely, forlorn figure who turned up late to sign the EU treaty in Lisbon last month.

For Mr Brown, Mr Sarkozy, Ms Merkel and (the soon to be former prime minster) Romano Prodi, it is also a chance to tell domestic audiences that - hey - these economic difficulties at home are actually international in nature. We’re all in this together and we’re doing something about it.

One other thought. How many times do you think we we will be told that the problems in the global financial system started in America?

My colleague Jim Pickard, who has just joined our lobby team, is proving to be a tremendous asset.

Just today he spotted that James Purnell, the newly promoted work and pensions secretary, has a doppelgänger — Daniel Craig, the current James Bond.

The thought of Mr Purnell swashbuckling evil villains and bedding nubile Russians may be more than some can stomach.

We prefer to think of him as the young George ‘Geordie’ Peacock in Our Friends in the North, the seminal TV programme following the fortunes of four young idealists.

Indeed several of the cast (pictured on the right) seem to bear a striking resemblance to rising stars in Gordon Brown’s administration.

At the back with the helmet hair-cut and cool stare is none other than Andy Burnham, the new culture secretary (seen here on the left).

And on the far left is Jeremy Heywood, the former banker and Blair aide who was made the Downing Street permanent secretary last week. The best picture I can find of the real Jeremy Heywood is on the left.

Now, the only character left is Mary, who becomes a Labour MP in the series (which, incidentally, we highly recommend watching).

We  have failed to come up with any current Labour figures who look like her. Jim suggested Caroline Flint but he obviously hadn’t seen her properly. Can you do any better?

Tomorrow morning we’re running two articles about donors shying away from political parties after an endless wave of unwelcome publicity. But not everyone is deterred.

Mike Slade, the flamboyant founder of Helical Bar, a property developer, says donors should ignore it when observers question their motives.

Too many people have been “cowed” into not giving to parties because of the potential ignominy, he reckons. They should have “big balls” and ignore any potential flak.

Mr Slade (pictured on the left) recently gave £20,000 to Boris Johnson’s campaign to be London mayor and has donated £100,000 to the Tories in the past.

The entrepreneur concedes that his support could be seen as an attempt to influence Mr Johnson’s policy on tall buildings in outer London.

“You do run the thin line of someone saying: I’m only doing this to have access and influence, but that was what politics was always about. It is a little unfair but there must be 20 per cent truth in it.” Refreshingly honest, I’d say.

You can read about the opposite point of view - from businessmen including Sir Tom Hunter - at this address.

In the 1990s it was usually sex which got MPs into trouble. Now it’s money.

This time it’s a Tory. Derek Conway has been rebuked by the Commons standards and privileges committee for paying his 19-year old son - who was at Newcastle University at the time - a research salary.
The committee has found a lack of evidence as to what work may or may not have been done by young Frederick Conway.

Last time the committee’s members gave an MP a similar kicking it was George Galloway last summer.

Conway is now facing a Commons vote over whether he should be suspended for 10 days and have to repay some of the £45,000 which his son received.

This comes at an interesting time for two reasons. Firstly, MPs are about to get more money to pay for their staff; up from the equivalent of 3 people to 3.5. The change was one reason why the Commons showed wage restraint during a pay debate last week.

Secondly, the information commissioner is fighting a running battle to get a breakdown of several MPs’ expense details after several decisions by the House to turn down freedom of information requests.

Getting information about MPs’ staff is still far from easy. The reporter who helped break the original story about Conway in the Sunday Times writes about it today in the Telegraph.

For the FT’s news story and a further link to the report go to this address.