Leading article: An open - and shut - case

Yesterday Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, called for an "honest debate" about whether multiculturalism has gone too far in Britain. Leaving aside the incongruity of this government preaching the virtues of honesty, we should perhaps focus on what it means by the idea of debate.

We were offered a "debate" on GM crops four years ago. The views from the public registered by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were almost entirely hostile. But GM crops continue to be grown here.

Last year the Prime Minister announced that he wanted a "debate" on whether we should expand Britain's use of nuclear power. Despite a marked absence of public support, this year's energy review duly revealed that a new generation of nuclear power stations would be given the go ahead.

Downing Street promised us a "debate" on whether Britain should retain its nuclear deterrent. But then the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, promptly declared his commitment to renewing Trident if he became Prime Minister, making it virtually a certainty.

There is a pattern here. If these exercises have been debates there has been but one participant. But let us be realistic.

When Mr Blair or his ministers volunteer a public debate on a subject, what they actually mean is that they would like a controversial decision to have the patina of public endorsement. And if such endorsement is not forthcoming, they will proceed regardless. When this government calls for a debate, it is a sure sign that it has made its mind up.