What's the difference?

Last year a Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into the housing affairs of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper included this important statement:

"If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that that Member's main home is in the constituency."

In the case of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper the Commissioner also noted that

"In the case of Ms Cooper and Mr Balls, however, they maintain two properties sufficient for them to conduct their family life in both London and in Castleford. Which is their main home is not a simple or self-evident fact. It is necessary to examine their arrangements more closely in accordance with the remaining provisions in the rules which assist Members in defining their main home."

In that case Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper were trying to prove that their Castleford home was their main home, in this case Jacqui Smith is claiming that her London "home" is her main home.

Remember

"If a Member has his or her family living permanently in their constituency home and has modest accommodation in London big enough only for themselves, and which they use only when Parliament is in session, then it would clearly seem to be a matter of fact that that Member's main home is in the constituency."

How does that not apply in Jacqui Smith's case?

How can John Lyon say that in Jacqui Smith's case there was "not sufficient evidence for an inquiry"?

Why is this matter not being pursued more doggedly by the media? Are they all that much in thrall to Gordon Brown and his Labour henchmen? How can this Labour government again and again close down legitimate argument and complaint without anything much in the way of consequences?