As the actress said to the bishop?

Not quite. More like what the actor and the bishops said together. A few days before Michael Sheen delivered his passionate speech at Tredegar (link here),  the House of Bishops published a “pastoral letter” (Who is my Neighbour? - access a copy here) calling for “a fresh moral vision of the kind of country we want to be”. “The different parties have failed to offer attractive visions of the kind of society and culture they wish to see,” it says and calls for citizens to engage fully in the political process: “Unless we exercise the democratic rights that our ancestors struggled for, we will share responsibility for the failures of the political classes.” In its 52 pages it says many things and calls for us to vote “with the good of others in mind”. It endorses no political party but, true to form, it has been criticised by many Tories who feel that there is a left-wing leaning to the Bishop's message. Predictable though it is, I still find this knee-jerk response irritating: rather than simply disagreeing with its contents and pointing out where they think differently, they take issue with the fact that it was written at all. Bishops should not comment on this sort of thing, they reckon. On wealth and poverty, on equality and fairness, on how our communities are governed, on right and wrong. But if our church leaders can't comment on these things, who can? Actually, anyone who agrees with the Tories, that's who. Those with a contrary view should shut up.

Here are a few quotes from this seditious document, copies of which are no doubt being burnt at Tory HQ as I write:

"How can we build the kind of society which many people say they want but which is not yet being expressed in the vision of any of the parties?"

 "The privileges of living in a democracy mean that we should use our votes thoughtfully, prayerfully and with the good of others in mind, not just our own interests."

"In Britain, we have become so used to believing that self-interest drives every decision, that it takes a leap of imagination to argue that there should be stronger institutions for those we disagree with as well as for those 'on our side.' Breaking free of self-interest and welcoming our opponents as well as our supporters into a messy, noisy, yet rich and creative community of communities is, perhaps, the only way we will enrich our almost-moribund political culture."

"It is not possible to separate the way a person perceives his or her place in the created order from their beliefs, religious or otherwise, about how the world's affairs ought to be arranged. The claim that religion and political life must be kept separate is, in any case, frequently disingenuous - most politicians and pundits are happy enough for the churches to speak on political issues so long as the church agrees with their particular line."

They note that "with few exceptions, politicians are not driven merely by cynicism or self-interest" but nevertheless, "the different parties have failed to offer attractive visions of the kind of society and culture they wish to see…. There is no idealism in this prospectus".

 They express the hope for political parties to discern "a fresh moral vision of the kind of country we want to be.  How can we build the kind of society which many people say they want but which is not yet being expressed in the vision of any of the parties?"

 "The extent of loneliness in society today, with the attendant problems of mental and physical health, is one indication of how far we have drifted into a society of strangers. But that drift is far from complete - and few people, if asked, would say that a society of strangers represents a vision of society which they desire."

"We are seeking, not a string of policy offers, but a way of conceiving and ordering our political and economic life which can be pursued in a conservative idiom, a socialist idiom, a liberal idiom - and by others not aligned to party."

Allowing for the different styles (one is delivered with raw passion and vitriol, whereas the other is much more measured and nuanced), there are many similarities between Sheen and the Bishops. Both are saying "you politicians are out of touch and have no real vision for moving the country towards a fairer and more equal society". And surely no one can argue against that? What a daft question! Of course there are many people who can and will argue against it. Unfortunately, most of them are people who can pull the levers of power and self preservation. A pox on all of them, I say.