Many MPs will be very displeased by the contents of the leak of some of Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals. However, the public are in no mood to listen to what they will see as self-interested bleatings. I think, therefore, they probably have little alternative but to go along with them. That doesn't make them 100 per cent right, though.
Let's take the case of MPs employing their wives or huisbands. In most cases they do a very good job. It is all very well to ban new MPs employing relatives (and I said when I was in North Norfolk I wouldn't do it) but it is quite another to force existing MPs to sack their wives. Employment and anti-discrimination legislation ought to see that it can't happen. A five year phasing in period isn't a solution.
The mortgage interest ban was inevitable, and it is right that MPs should not be able to benefit at the taxpayer's expense. However, let no one pretend that the taxpayer will get a better deal from this proposal. If you have a £250,000 mortgage at the moment you're probably paying around £400 a month in interest. Even when rates were 5 per cent it was only around £1,250. Yet try finding a one bedroom flat in central London for less than that. Even in the suburbs you'll be forking out in excess of £1,000.
MPs who live within a "reasonable" commute of London (said to be defined as an hour) won't qualify for a second home allowance at all. I can foresee all sorts of issues about what constitutes an hour's commute. But I totally agree that with the hours the Commons sits now it is right to expect inner and outer London MPs (and possibly more) to return to their main homes at night. I presume there will be an allowance for hotel accommodation on the odd nights where the Commons sits until midnight or 1am.
MPs should think very carefully about how they react to these changes. But I suspect we will now see a number of them standing down in protest.