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.

From their voting on the issue, it seems that many other MPs shared this view - though some took much more convincing than others and a sizeable minority remain opposed.

This attitude was doubtless informed by the tireless and disciplined work of gay lobbyists and their supporters over the past two decades. Whatever one's views on the issue, one has to admire their persistence and strategic thinking.

In the end, their lobbying managed to change even the terminology of the debate. What was once intended to be a discussion about the shape of marriage and family became more narrowly defined as a 'struggle' for 'equal marriage'.

Readers will take different sides on this divisive issue, but whatever the view there is, I suggest, a good case for the argument that professional lobbyists of all persuasions often have too easy access to power.

Their carefully constructed opinion polls and other devices are given too much credence. Lobbyists, like priests of old, are too often thought to be above question in areas where they claim to have special insight.

Lobby groups are an inevitable consequence of liberal democracy. If the many are to be ruled by the very few, those few must be confronted with the divergent views of their constituencies.

Lobbying has been an integral part of politics for as long as Parliaments, Congresses and Senates have existed. Yet their role in actually shaping government policy needs to be carefully scrutinized.

Of course, many lobby groups fall well outside the circle of well-funded and well-connected groups like CTF. Some are run as charities on shoestring budgets. Their members often feel impelled into action by a deep passion for their communities and their cause.

In some cases, members and supporters believe that their views remain unheard, or unheeded. Or that they are ignored amidst the rise of professional politics and the resulting metropolitan elites - on both sides of politics.

I have friends who work for lobbies like these. I may not always agree with their stance on issues, but I applaud their deep commitment and their pursuit of what they believe is for the common good.

Lobby organisations may be necessary to politics but they should not get too cosy with politicians. A healthy distance must be maintained if objectivity is be both achieved and seen to be achieved.

For their part, MPs - and those paid to advise them - must ensure that they move beyond the professional political bubble, to hear the views of local, community-based groups.

In particular, they should seek out religious bodies, charities with sizeable constituencies, networks representing small businesses and even local community associations.

By virtue of their size and donor-base, most of these groups cannot afford the luxury of PR representation or professional lobbyists. Yet they often provide a better insight into the potential impact of policy because they are politically non-aligned and because they operate at grass-roots level.

Their advice, while still driven by the best interests of their clientele, is coloured by day-to-day experience at the coal-face where policy decisions impact on individuals, families, communities and businesses.

Politicos must avoid seeming shortcuts and expedient short-term answers, pondering long and hard how their present choices will impact on the future.

They must also learn to behave in more statesmen-like ways; thinking not just of the next election but of the next generation. They should be wary of those lobbyists who operate closest to the centres of power.