"I'm Joanna Lumley..."

I was labouring under the misapprehension that we lived in a democracy, where we elected a parliament which, in turn, effectively elected a government which then made decisions. Policies, I foolishly thought, were formulated by Ministers and approved by the Cabinet. Obviously, I've been mistaken for all these years as, today, it became apparent that policy is being made by celebrities, at least in the case of immigration policy this seems so. OK, I know that I'm stretching the definition of 'celebrity' somewhat to encompass Joanna Lumley (it is difficult to recall anything of real consequence she has done acting-wise), but if we're to believe the media, she is effectively dictating to a beleaguered government the way in which they should treat a particular group of foreign nationals. This whole furore over the rights of Gurkha ex-soldiers to settle in the UK has highlighted for me just about everything that is wrong with political reporting in this country.

The whole campaign is based upon sentimentality rather than rationality and, had it not been endorsed by a TV personality, it is doubtful that it would ever have garnered the disproportionate amount of attention that it has. What I find particularly ridiculous about it all is that many of those apparently endorsing the rights of Nepalese people to come and live in the UK are exactly the same people who can usually be found vehemently protesting against immigration. Yes, David Cameron, I'm thinking of you here. But it isn't just Cameron. A lot of the right-wing nutters now beating the drum for the Gurkhas would undoubtedly be manning the barricades if any of Nepalese people actually moved into their street, or wanted to marry their daughter. These were the very people urging the government to take ever more stringent anti-immigration measures. However, when these policies are applied to some group they have a rose-coloured perception of, guided by sentimentality and the hazy recollections of old soldiers, they suddenly don't like it. The 'wrong' foreigners are being excluded!

Now, I have nothing against the Nepalese and there's no doubt that they've done a fine job as soldiers in the service of the British Crown. However, to be contrary here, when the particular Gurkhas in question signed up, they knew the score - they were being employed solely as soldiers, there was no guarantee of UK citizenship or residency at the end of it. The idea that they have somehow been duped or mistreated is, arguably, pretty wide of the mark. They signed contacts and the UK has kept to its side of them. Ultimately, it isn't so much the stench of hypocrisy which hangs over his whole campaign which has got my back up, so much as the involvement of the aforementioned Joanna Lumley. I'm sorry, but I've never rated her. Like their Gurkhas, most people's view of her is based upon hazy recollections, mainly of the New Avengers. The sad fact is that the series was crap, a pale shadow of its predecessor. One of the main reasons for this crapness was Joanna Lumley. Not only was she a poor substitute for Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg or even Linda Thorson, but she was a piss-poor actress and not even remotely sexy. I know that I'm in the minority here, but I have never found Lumley even remotely attractive! Quite why she is held in such high regard by so many people (particularly in the media) is a complete mystery to me. She's just some posh bird on a personal crusade. If it was anyone but her leading this campaign, I'd have a lot more sympathy! Shallow of me, I know, but there you are!