Why? Because MP's are angry about it.
IPSA said it received complaints that some MPs whose primary home is in London but represent seats outside London are unable to see their children at weekends, because they cannot afford family-sized accommodation in their constituencies.
Boo hoo. If a person with a child who lives with the other parent wants to claim social housing they cannot claim it for that child. You can only claim larger than a 1 bed if the child lives with you. Why should MP's be any different?
And if their constituency is outside London why isn't that their primary residence? If the primary residence is in London and you want to see more of your kids, here's an idea - MOVE!.
It's what IDS expects everyone else to do. Other parents travel at weekends to see their kids, what makes MP's so different?
In the long run, Ipsa’s review document also raised the prospect of eventually shifting away from the current system of detailed rules for every sort of expense claim and adopting a “principles-based” regime that gives MPs much more discretion over claims.
And will therefore be open to more abuse.
And here's what's really made me angry:
Under pressure from Tory MPs angry at IPSA, Mr Cameron has warned that the body must address members’ concerns and become more "family friendly" by April, or face possible abolition.
In other words, do what I say or I'll get rid of you. Are we still pretending we live in a democracy?
There is national outrage all over the country about the cuts to benefits, the rise in tuition fees, the slashing of jobs. But David Cameron is carrying on. A few squeals from MP's about expenses and he's threatening to abolish the watchdog.
Just goes to show doesn't it?