The view of the public, and of Labour voters, is very straightforward: they fail to see any reason why Labour MPs would attempt to defend or vote to keep a discredited and outmoded expenses system.
 
To give specific examples: why does the taxpayer have to pay £23,000 a year for David Cameron to own a second home in Witney? Why is it possible for MPs to accumulate property using the second home allowance? Why can MPs move up the property chain by maximising their second home claim? How can an MP have a second home nearby their first home and claim second home expenses?
 
It is hardly surprising that some Tory MPs feel underpaid and impoverished as MPs. But Labour MPs? Why has the National Executive not called in every MP and peer to discuss their expenses and second jobs? As we all sign a declaration not to bring the party into disrepute, should Labour MPs not set higher standards than the Tory backwoodsmen?
 
We will all take a hit for unreceipted expenses and for any consumer goods we have bought, however much we attempt to defend their relevance. But why are we not taking a lead during this recession in tightening our belts by reducing this allowance to a much more acceptable and lower level?
 
I agree with Gordon Brown that staff should be directly employed and not classed as expenses. A rail season ticket would be similarly sensible. And I agree that expenses for attending parliament should be based on real attendance. Surely the second job MPs should claim from their second employer, not the taxpayer. But Gordon’s proposals need to be for overnight stays, as civil servants have and need to be for actual expenditure demonstrated by receipts.
 
Civil servants can claim around £127.50 for a 24-hour overnight stay in London, almost identical to the nightly rate at the County Hall Travel Lodge. This should be the maximum nightly claim, reducing the £24,000 threshold to around £15,000 maximum in the average parliamentary year of 120 overnights.