Comment: Why didn't Boris fight these payouts on principle?

But not many people will be laughing. In fact, several London politicians contacted by the Standard last night literally gasped when they heard the news.

The amazement of that reaction is due to three things about Ken's infamous advisers - or "cronies," as his opponents usually preferred to call them.

First: they have already done very well for themselves while in office, earning salaries of £120,000 plus.

Second: though they were highly focused and in some ways effective, they ended up inflicting great damage on Mr Livingstone's mayoralty.

Most obviously, Ken's race adviser, Lee Jasper, had to resign amid mounting allegations of misconduct.

But the others contributed too. Being surrounded entirely by fervent supporters, largely drawn from a fringe political sect, created the arrogant, bunker-like atmosphere which helped scupper Mr Livingstone's bid for a third term.

Mainstream Labour figures involved in the election speak of their frustration at the complacency and misjudgment of the Trotskyite advisers running the campaign.

But the main reason why people gasped at the payouts is, of course, that these were political appointees, explicitly hired, in the words of the 1999 Greater London Authority Act, for "the term of office for which the Mayor was elected."

Who, then, is to blame for the fact that each has pocketed an average of £200,000 for losing jobs which the law says they had to lose anyway?

Boris's PRs were insisting today that the law is not that clear - other regulations have come in since.

They say they paid up only reluctantly, having been told by multiple lawyers that they would lose - and cost the taxpayer even more - if they fought in court.

But even if that's right (and employment lawyers consulted by the Standard aren't so sure), it still looks a bit feeble.

Shouldn't City Hall have fought, on principle? Would the advisers really have had the brass neck to go into court? And even if they did, wouldn't this reminder of the Livingstone years have helped Boris?

What the saga does show, yet again, is the GLA's desperate need for institutional reform. It may look modern and groovy - but in governance terms, it has been a mess from the start.

The adviser payoffs scandal is the latest symptom of a GLA which cannot decide whether it is an American-style personal fiefdom, run by political appointees with limited shelf-lives, or a traditional Britishstyle authority, run by permanent civil servants who have full employment rights.

Ken, meanwhile, conscious of the political damage this could do, last night accused the Boris City Hall of releasing the story to embarrass him. But the real cause of his embarrassment is the behaviour of his former advisers.

They were supposed to be radicals, the political instruments of a populist, man-of-the-people mayor. But they have ended up as grasping as any of the capitalists who they used to condemn.