MPs must have their head in their hands and be groaning into their cornflakes at their second homes as they confront yet another rash of grisly headlines over their allowances.

They often claim that there is a widespread misunderstanding about these allowances, not helped by pejorative headlines that accuse them of having their snouts in the trough.

Throw in the news that they are to get an inflation-busting pay rise and you have a toxic mixture guaranteed to trigger an outpouring of public indignation and fury.

Some of is justified, some not. For example, MPs employ staff to run their offices but those costs could never be described as “expenses”.

But either way, it is the MPs themselves and the Commons authorities who must shoulder the blame for being so dilatory in trying to come up with a way to fix things. Gordon Brown has now demanded a review sooner rather than later but it has come too late to take the heat out of the controversy over second homes and Jacqui Smith’s claim for adult films.

You can expect another slew of similar stories in the summer, when receipts that indicate how some of this money has been spent will have to be disclosed.

For now, I think there are some MPs in Kent who will have some difficulty explaining why they have accepted close to the maximum amount when they live pretty close to Westminster.

On the other hand, MPs I have spoken to often make a persuasive case, saying that given Westminster’s working hours and late nights and poor train services, there is no option but to stay in London.

One interesting aspect of the allowances is the amounts claimed by some MPs for “communications”. When this was first introduced, many - including MPs – complained it would be used for party political propaganda. The allowance covers things like newsletters, the cost of running websites and something called “targeted communications” – floating voters, perhaps?

In Kent, it is intersting to look at how the sums claimed for communication allowances claims relate to the relative vulnerability of MPs in terms of their majority.

Top spender is Gravesham Conservative MP Adam Holloway, who claimed £21,063. His majority? 654. Dartford Labour MP Dr Howard Stoate spent £11,252. His majority is 706. Chatham and Aylesford MP Jonathan Shaw claimed £14,755 under this heading and has a majority of 2,332. Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP Derek Wyatt, who is nursing Kent’s smallest majority at 79, spent £10,729.

Meanwhile, Conservative MPs Hugh Roberston, who represents Faversham and Mid Kent, claimed nothing for communications; neither did Sir John Stanley, Tonbridge and Malling MP. Hugh tells me that he is firmly opposed to the allowance and says he meets the costs of any communications by taking money from another budget.

But even David Cameron makes use of the allowance. He claimed £2,200 last year.

Read link text for our story on Kent MPs' allowances