Now the Telegraph really is scraping the barrel...

"Jo Swinson, the youngest MP in the House of Commons, included receipts for eyeliner, a "tooth flosser" and 29p dusters with her parliamentary" claims a sub-headline in the Telegraph.

"Included receipts". Yes, but we went through all this with Phil Woolas, didn't we? Receipts "included" don't necessarily mean that all the items on the receipt were claimed (although it got a bit surreal with Woolas).

Struggling through the Telegraph story, the only thing which even the paper itself is claiming, and this is denied, is that Jo Swinson claimed for a hairdryer and an eletric toothbrush for which she was reimbursed (perhaps wrongly).

There is one classic passage:

Contacted by the Telegraph, Miss Swinson said she had not claimed for the eyeliner, suggesting that it featured on a receipt that included other items for which she did seek repayment. No items other than cosmetics appeared on the receipt in question — it seemed to be the second of two pages, the first of which is missing.

So...er....the other items were on the first page which is missing then. Humpfffff.

So why is the Telegraph bothering with this article? It's not so that they have the opportunity to list a load of small items, most if not all they don't even seem to be saying were claimed, and, dare I say it, print a photograph of the MP in question - is it?