SEX scandals among politicians no longer cause much more than a ripple. Corruption allegations, like the cash-for-questions and cash-for-honours affairs, are taken more seriously but often fizzle out.
But nothing can compare with the expenses scandal now engulfing Westminster, exposing previously respected politicians and draining public faith in parliament.
Two weeks of relentless revelations have already taken their toll – two Labour MPs susp
ended; a senior adviser to David Cameron resigned; other MPs saying they will not stand again; and Michael Martin forced to quit as Speaker.
And the politicians' over-the-top expenses look certain to have further repercussions before the voters' anger subsides.
The whole system of MPs' allowances is to undergo major reform and there are widespread demands for a change of culture at Westminster, with Gordon Brown rightly insisting the Commons can no longer be run as a gentlemen's club.
There is always a danger of hysteria or hyperbole when a strong public sentiment takes hold and is stoked up day after day.
But voters, many of whom struggle to make ends meet, are entitled to be outraged when they see elected representatives casually claiming taxpayers' money to fund their luxury living.
How can MPs in all conscience ask for their country houses, home cinema systems and fancy furnishings to be paid for by people who worry how they are going to pay their gas and electricity bills and have to scrimp and save to take their kids on holiday?
Comedian and actor Stephen Fry has urged us not to confuse "what politicians get really wrong – things like wars, things in which people die – with the rather tedious, bourgeois obsession with whether or not they have charged for their wisteria".
He has a point. Ultimately, the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath are far more serious than the excessive claims by MPs. George Foulkes also had a point when he took a BBC journalist to task over her £92,000 salary – well over an MP's pay – and when he raised questions about how the Daily Telegraph acquired the data and criticised the police for their decision not to investigate the leak.
But none of these arguments can answer the betrayal of voters' trust.
Now consumer champion Esther Rantzen is threatening to stand for parliament as an independent.
And new poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy has even penned an "off-the-cuff couplet" to sum up the situation – "What did we do with the trust of your vote? Hired a flunky to flush out the moat."
Not all MPs are "at it", of course. Undoubtedly, some of the dodgy claims arise from genuine mistakes or misunderstandings or sloppy accounting.
Some claims which might look suspiciously large turn out to be quite legitimate. And items which it might have seemed acceptable to claim for at the time suddenly look less justified in the harsh spotlight of public scrutiny.
It seems unlikely many MPs chose a political career simply in order to milk the system.
But while some have been scrupulously careful in their claims, it seems others have allowed themselves to be drawn into a culture where claims were encouraged and there was no expectation that the details would be made public and pored over.
Politicians with constituencies well away from London do need somewhere to stay while they are at Westminster. And it is not unreasonable that at least some of the extra costs should be covered. No-one wants to go back to a situation where only those who can afford to run two homes out of their own pocket can become MPs.
But home improvements, mending pipes under tennis courts, cleaning moats and maintaining swimming pools are not essential living costs incurred by spending four or five days a week in London.
And there can be no excuse for continuing to claim for interest payments on a mortgage that has been paid off.
The muddle over office lets which forced Henry McLeish to resign as first minister is trivial in comparison with what is now being uncovered.
The sheer scale and extravagant nature of some of the claims suggest too many MPs have simply lost touch with what real life means for the people who elected them.
And so far as the future of democracy is concerned, that is arguably more serious than deliberate fraud or unrestrained greed.
