Ever more cynical about politicians

My Labour M.P. has sent me - for the second time - a letter and a questionnaire telling me how sincerely she wants to open up a debate on immigration. It is, she says, an honest and open attempt to engage the public on an issue of national importance ahead of the government's impending legislation. The questionnaire is presented as a series of options, purportedly allowing an unbiased and free choice of responses, though clearly angled towards an acceptance of the government's position. But at least it does give options

Then she spoils the facade with a PS. 'This is not about asylum seekers," she writes. "It is about economic migrants. People genuinely fleeing persecution will always be welcome in the UK."



Aha. So by implication our minds have been made up for us. Let's forget this attempt at democratic involvement. This is simply an attempt to rubber stamp her own beliefs on an issue she believes is a vote-winner.

If the voters of my area are to be canvassed so earnestly on immigration, why not on other areas of government policy? Let's have a letter on what we should do about alcohol consumption, the Criminal Justices Bill - which certainly had a few contentious anti-human rights elements . And why didn't she consult us on the invasion of Iraq? Apart from a few pockets, my neck of the woods is hardly an area where immigration is a major source of social problem.

The truth is that the next General Election is going to be difficult for the Labour Party. In some areas - and mine is possibly high on that list - it is going to be damn near impossible. So what better to try and bolster support than an issue on which you can attract the 'send-the-bastards-home' brigade to your camp, and point them to areas of government policy which will have their tails wagging.

I really have become sick of politicians jumping on a bandwagon and pretending they are doing it for reasons of deep social concern and a desire to involve the electorate. I remember the days when the Labour Party had some sense of principle - or was it just always better in the 'good old days' ?