HERE'S a neat phrase to suggest what could be wrong with modern politics.

Peter Hyman used to toil at the heart of New Labour, writing speeches for Tony Blair and planning strategy in Downing Street. Now he works in the real world, in an inner-London comprehensive.

This era of 24-hour news has, Hyman says in his new book, led to "the tyranny of momentum politics".

In an age when rushing forward is all that counts, politicians want to be seen to be acting. It matters not a jot whether what they propose is sensible or workable. What counts is the impression of doing something, of taking quick decisions to respond to the issue of the moment.

The trouble is, momentum politics is designed to sell headlines in newspapers or to win a favourable mention on that night's TV news - or even that hour's TV bulletin, such is the panicky obsession with chasing the moment. What it isn't designed to do is turn out sensible, long-lasting policies.

One of the great disappointments of this Government has been the way in which it has remained twitchy about headline debates, with knee-jerk reactions offered to every prevailing issue. This is why, for example, the Government has this week been pouring fuel on the asylum and immigration debate - and then chucking on a lighted match just to make a beacon blaze.

How depressing it has been to see the Government stooping to the level of the Conservatives on this matter. Michael Howard got the spiked ball rolling with his call for a quota system on asylum seekers. Now New Labour has thrown down its own measures, which include ending the right of immigrants to apply for indefinite leave to remain here after four years.

Also, would-be immigrants will be expected to pass a skills test, with only those deemed to have the relevant skills allowed in.

Here we have what one Sunday newspaper - one of the sensible ones - described as an "ugly auction" in which the two main parties try to out-do each other in being tough on foreigners.

Mr Howard started the present debate a couple of weeks ago with a typical spot of blatant double-thinking. He attempted to appease the nasty wing of his own party by being tough on immigrants, while pretending that his proposals were liberal and sensible.

Now New Labour has joined in what might be termed the "I'm not a racist but..." game.

No one in either party will admit as much, of course. But both parties should be ashamed - and the Labour blush should be the deepest and most pink.

It is virtually impossible to have an honest discussion about asylum and immigration in this country, at least in political terms. The debate has become so politicised that all the main parties will do, especially this side of an election, is shout louder and louder about how tough they are going to be.

The Government's proposals risk turning immigrants into second class citizens and will inflame racial tension; where, for example, are the restrictions on white immigrants from Europe or the US?

There exists in this country a very real fear of immigration among many people - a real fear, but a misplaced one. Surveys always discover that people vastly over-estimate the number of different racial or religious groups in this country. And the issue is often hottest in the many more or less white enclaves in Britain, such as, for example, our own city of York.

An exaggerated fear of difference has been exploited by certain newspapers and right-leaning pressure groups. Yet immigrants come here to work, not to scrounge; this county has needed incomers throughout history, and will continue needing them to maintain future prosperity.

Instead of sticking up for the many and real benefits of immigration, the politicians are caught in an ugly squabble over who can be toughest on what remains a phantom issue. It is about time they learned that, in politics as in life, ghosts don't exist.

Updated: 09:15 Thursday, February 10, 2005