Which long word do they not understand?

There is a problem for MPs who represent a constituency some distance from London. Their travelling costs are covered, but they clearly cannot return home each night.

So some basis must remunerate them for the extra costs not faced by London MPs.

The long established principle was "...it reimburses 'for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence...for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.'"

"Wholly, necessarily and necessarily" should be clear. So how is spending money on a house in Southampton, when you are serving commutable Luton, covered here? Or Patio Heaters in the midlands, or cosmetic improvements to the appearance of a house in Hull?"

One clear and obvious abuse it the ease of designating and changing designation of the main home. MPs have obviously improved and furnished one house and turned and done it again with the other(s). This cannot be right.

Some have acquired a property portfolio partly at taxpayer expense, while at least one has gone to watch his favourite football team in a chauffeur-driven limousine.

Perhaps the very worrying aspect of this gravy train has been the attempt to conceal from disclosure, which has to imply some sort of shame or guilt.

The obvious conclusion is to make London accommodation available free to MPs - some have suggested re-conditioned London flats, but why not the Olympic Village after 2012. Failing this, either a maximum overnight stay allowance, paid on production of receipts. This would be true for anyone else in the country, so why not for our representatives? This last suggestion would also apply to (near)London MPs who have to work late at times and miss the last reasonable train.