Sleaze (n): dishonest, disreputable, or immoral behaviour, especially of public officials or employees

There's been a lot about sleaze in the news recently, hasn't there? MPs expenses, MSPs selling dinners held in the parliamentary canteen, and even an international football captain losing his job due to his off field activities.

Of course, this is not a new phenomenon. Lloyd George sold honours for campaign contributions back in the 1920s. Nixon was forced to resign in the 70s following the Watergate scandal. And who can forget Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky and that cigar?

But is the situation getting worse? Or has the modern media spotlight simply enabled us to know more about our public officials?

We all remember the stories that emerged last year regarding MP's expenses. Our Westminster representatives claimed for anything they could think of, it seemed: from toilet seats to moat cleaning and piano tuning. We also paid for everything from luxury furnishings to basic foodstuffs. And then there was Duck Island!

Even politicians would be hard pressed to explain how some of these items were necessary for them to fulfil their parliamentary responsibilities.

But it is the funding for second homes that formed the basis for the worst excesses. I can accept that the majority of MPs need somewhere to stay during the week while in London. But the rules around second homes appeared to have more holes than a Swiss cheese.

Here's how it works.

A new MP has a home in the constituency. He or she now requires a second home in London, so they purchase one. We pay the mortgage, and foot the bill to furnish it.

But your MP deserves the best, so everything is bought from the now infamous John Lewis list. This means claims of £1,000 for a bed, £700 for a wardrobe and £200 for a food mixer are allowed.

And of course, if our MP loses their seat they can take away all of these items, sell the home and keep any profit. And the new MP now needs a home, so the whole cycle starts all over again.

Then there is the, perfectly legal, practice of flipping. Basically this means changing the designations of your first and second homes.

It works like this.

Our MP from above now has a lovely new home in London, paid for, decorated and furnished by the taxpayer. But their first home in the constituency needs some work done. So the London residence becomes the first home, making the old one into the second home and therefore eligible for redecorating and refurnishing at our expense!

And on top of this, MPs can claim up to £400 per month for food. Also, any individual item or service costing under £250 did not even require a receipt. It appears that surprisingly large number of plumbing and decorating jobs came in at £249. A coincidence?

Many MPs have now paid back sums claimed in error, or that on closer examination could not be justified. A total of £1.1M has been recouped to date. But it has recently been announced that criminal proceedings will be started under the Theft Act the cases of three MPs and one Lord. If convicted they face prison time.

It should be noted that all have said they will fight the charges.

But what will perhaps rankle most with the public are their claims that the cases should be heard in parliament rather than in the courts under the doctrine of parliamentary privilege.

Are MPs above the law? Or should they be held to the same standards as the rest of us? I know which most people believe.

In Scotland there has recently been a much smaller scandal, but one which also has at its core the issue of public standards.

First Minister Alex Salmond and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon have been raising funds for their party by auctioning off places at a lunch to be held in the members' dining room at the Scottish Parliament. The dining room is subsidised by taxpayers and should not be used for party political purposes.

And rather than admitting to an error of judgement, Salmond tried to muddy the waters before pressure eventually led to the lunches being cancelled.

Firstly he argued that the auction was political but the lunch wouldn't be; a distinction that not too many reasonable people would see. And then he argued that banning his lunches could also mean an end to lunches held to benefit charities; another argument that simply doesn't stand up.

So while the sums involved may be small in comparison with the Westminster expenses scandal, the matter still demonstrates how politicians can come to believe themselves above the scrutiny that we should surely be entitled to expect.

England football manager Fabio Capello has also had his own version of sleaze to deal with recently when the tabloids became full of issues about the private life of his captain, Chelsea's John Terry.

After allegations of an affair with a team mate's girlfriend became public, Terry was called in by the manager and stripped of his position. What is not clear is whether this was a moral judgment on Terry's behaviour or a pragmatic one because of the effects the publicity might have on the team.

The appointment of Terry's replacement perhaps gives a clue. Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand will now take the armband: a man currently serving a four match ban for elbowing an opponent in the face and who served an eight month ban for missing a drug test.

Does either really make a good role model for young footballers? Or do they personify the sleaze that seems rife in modern society?

  

In all walks of public life it seems that we can find examples of well-paid individuals, feted in the media and believing that the rules simply don't apply to them.

Of course, all politicians are not dishonest. And all sports stars are not John Terry or Tiger Woods.

But while there are those who use position for their own benefit, it is easy for the public to become disillusioned, particularly with the political process.

And that is something that could be demonstrated very clearly in a General Election year.