Mal Fletcher comments on the need for politicians to behave in more statesmen-like ways; thinking not just of the next election but of the next generation.

Arguably, this gives rise to political careers that are just that - carefully mapped-out strategies for a life-long pursuit of power or, at the very least, a comfortable life of relative privilege, with some good works thrown in.

This may sound entirely too cynical and it may be just that - if we're considering the largely anonymous journeymen MPs who simply get on with the job at hand, doing their best for their electorates.

For the real power players, though, such a description is often apt.

In their cloistered world, operating under the harshest media spotlight of any generation, professional politicos are all too susceptible to the charms and ready-made policy packages of professional lobbyists.

Many of the more prominent lobby groups are made up of people whose careers have followed similar trajectories to those of MPs. At times, those career paths have crossed and closer relationships have formed.

Former MPs often become consultants to lobby groups, offering them behind-the-scenes access to power players, or at least insights into how governments think. In some cases, MPs take these paid roles even before they retire from Parliamentary life, a practice that has been revealed time and again by newspaper sting operations.

By making themselves relatively accessible to lobby organisations, busy MPs and ministers in particular are able to rationalise their lack of contact with men and women in the street. They are, the thinking goes, taking account of the widest possible range of views on issues by entertaining a variety of lobby representations.

Almost imperceptibly, then, a government that is open to lobbyists can become a government that is, in effect, ruled by lobbyists. Politicos sometimes mistake debates among lobbyists as wider community discussions, a convenient and time-saving shortcut when it comes to shaping policy.

When that happens, government becomes about closed elites taking advice from unrepresentative interest groups, the views of which are at best single-minded and at worst short-sighted.

In a way, the latter epithet is of little concern to modern politicians, as each successive government is in power for a very short period before the next election cycle begins - at least in the media.

For this reason, it often seems unlikely that we'll get quality decisions on long-term issues, such as climate change, from governments whose focus is on what will sustain their popular support until re-election.

Governments these days are in an almost constant state of electioneering. As a result - though this is never admitted - far-sighted community benefit is often replaced by immediate political expediency as a primary political goal.

The British government's recent deliberations on the marriage issues provide a case in point. David Cameron promised a community-wide debate on the issue - though, it must be said, no such debate had been sought by the majority of the electorate before the last election. Marriage was not an issue in the election.

In the end, however, the Prime Minister treated the issue of redefining marriage as if it were a foregone conclusion. He behaved as if the argument was decided before it began and the conclusion should be seen as self-evident.