Disgrace of our greedy politicians

For while these claims are within the existing rules, they suggest a culture where politicians routinely milk the system for the very maximum that they can. It has been clear for some time that this attitude is widespread among MPs; that it should extend to the very highest levels of politics, while perhaps inevitable, is still shocking.

Thus we see how Mr Brown himself claimed £6,577 over 26 months which he paid to his brother for cleaning at his flat. Then when he became Prime Minister and moved into 10 Downing Street, Mr Brown transferred his allowance to his constituency home.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer paid almost £10,000 towards the costs of stamp duty on a new flat for Chancellor Alistair Darling, one of four changes in four years that Mr Darling made to properties in London and Edinburgh which he officially designated as his main home.

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham was paid £16,644 for buying and refurbishing a new flat, despite initially having his claim rejected three times by the authorities. And the list goes on and on.

At fault is both the system and the politicians. The full extent of how over-generous the rules are is now manifestly clear.

For an expenses system to allow MPs to build up small property empires cannot be right.

Options for reform are now being considered by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and MPs last week voted for short-term changes to the London second home allowance and other rules.

The more fundamental problem is the attitude of MPs - and Cabinet ministers - to such public funds, and the sense of entitlement that has grown up.

They seem to have no sense of how such expenses look to the people who elect them, for whom most the idea of spending thousands of pounds on household cleaning would seem extravagant enough even if it were not funded by the taxpayer.

Some MPs readily admit that it has become the biggest "doorstep issue" when they are talking to voters. Full publication of expenses in July may help change the culture of greed. But sadly, the damage to the public reputation of Parliament may already have been done.

City Hall opens up

We welcome the commitment that Mayor Boris Johnson is to make in his State of London debate tomorrow to greater accountability and transparency at City Hall.

That was a key pledge when Mr Johnson was elected just over a year ago and he has made progress towards it. The GLA's website now publishes details of the salaries and financial interests of all the deputy mayors and mayoral advisers, as well as details of all payments over £1,000.

One of the greatest errors of Mr Johnson's predecessor, Ken Livingstone, was that he appeared suspicious of such openness.

Large sums of money were spent by the London Development Agency and others without either clear audit trails or accountability - the root problem of the Lee Jasper affair.

Mr Johnson's efforts to make City Hall more transparent are welcome but he still needs to back up those measures by explaining more fully how the public's money is spent. The LDA, for instance, spends almost £400 million a year - with questionable results.

Value for money for taxpayers goes hand in hand with openness, and it is positive that Mr Johnson recognises that.

Storm in a D-cup

Not since Jordan turned on the polo-playing fraternity has the wrath of large-breasted women been so devastating.

Marks and Spencer had tried to charge an extra £2 on bra sizes larger than a DD, as first reported in this paper.

Generous-bosomed women were outraged, and a group threatened to storm the company's AGM.

M&S's complete climbdown - all bra sizes will now cost the same - is a victory for all women, no matter how generously proportioned.