THERE IS a scene in Life of Brian where Brian has been arrested by the Romans. His girlfriend bursts into a gathering of the People’s Front of Judaea and demands that her comrades save Brian from his imminent crucifixion. Their leader, Reg, seeing the urgency of the situation, declares that they must immediately convene a meeting to agree a firm resolution in response to this gross violation of Brian’s rights. And everyone sits down.

It is a good joke. But it does not go far enough to capture the absurdity of many contemporary British politicians. They do not simply substitute acting with talking; they substitute talking with talking about talking.

Alan Milburn was at it again in The Sunday Times. In a comment article he claimed that the date of Tony Blair’s departure is not nearly as important as which policies Labour will pursue when he has gone. And just as I was expecting to be told what the correct policies are, he pulled a Reg. He called for a debate on the issues.

We do not live in Singapore or Burma. If Mr Milburn wishes to contribute to the various debates about public policy, he is free to do so. Indeed, he had been afforded the luxury of a column in The Sunday Times with which to make a contribution. What was stopping him? Watch Question Time or Newsnight, read the comment section of any newspaper or simply visit a pub: Britain is awash with debate about the issues. It stops only when politicians intervene to call for a debate. They are like people who interrupt an orgy to call for sex.

Those who are unusually fond of talking about sex are often suspected of having difficulties actually doing it. Something similar explains why politicians prefer requesting debates to having them. Debate is demanding. In our gaffe-obsessed political culture, it requires both knowledge and courage.

But calling for a debate requires neither. It allows you to show concern about the issues without taking a position. It implies that others are shirking a duty that you recognise. And, if you pick your moment, it can even get you a headline.

To which I would have no objection if it always read: “Political lightweight evades issues with meaningless call for debate.”