Earlier you insisted that Cameron isn't "in it for the money" because, essentially, he doesn't really need the money.

If you ask me, those two politicians (for all their undoubted faults) actually represent the behaviour of someone who genuinely isn't in it for the money. While someone who claims £80 thousand of public money for a house he really doesn't need... well, let's say it's not quite so clearcut.

The point is not that Cameron might be in it for that extra £80k, but that his actions are those of someone who is in it for himself. Whether it's fame or power or status he craves isn't the issue, this trip he's on is all about Cameron.

But a politician that forgoes the financial perks and insists upon better representing his constituents by living on the same average wage they do...? By their deeds do we judge them.

No. I'm fixated upon a man draining money he doesn't need from the public purse while simultaneously proposing cuts in health spending. Or education. I don't have an automatic problem with anyone who is a millionaire. We live in a world where the unequal accumulation of wealth is ubiquitous. If, without exploitation, you succeed in becoming a millionaire, then well done you.

But the second homes of millionaires (whether politicians, businessmen or rock stars) shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer. Not so long as there's a single person on a single hospital waiting list. Isn't that just obvious? How is there even an ethical grey area here?

And just because the rules allow the wealthy to claim public money doesn't mean that they should. I mean, isn't that exactly the kind of thing the tories say is wrong with the country? Taxes are too high because public money is being frittered away where it's not needed?

How come it's suddenly OK when it's the expense accounts of millionaire politicians, but isn't OK when it's childcare allowances for single mothers just above the poverty line?

Don't you see the contradiction? The rank hypocrisy?