SINCE the Makin report and the resignation of Archbishop Welby, the Church’s voice in the public square has seemed quieter, if not entirely mute. To many inside and outside the Church, this was entirely fitting: a period of quiet reflection was called for. Whereas an intervention by a previous Primate of All England on, say, poverty, tax, or immigration would make front-page news, this year, it seems as though episcopal pronouncements on social and ethical issues have been hardly noticed. There have been interventions on important ethical matters such as assisted dying and abortion, and the usual reminders to remember the poor in social and economic policy. But has anyone really been listening?

The past week, however, might have signalled a change of gear and a reorientation outwards. The Archbishop of York made headlines as he, along with several dozen religious leaders, called upon the Government to be bolder and faster in tackling child poverty. He also voiced support for the Bishop of Oxford’s criticism of Nigel Farage for Reform UK’s pledge to carry out mass deportations of migrants should his party gain power (a more plausible proposition than many believed even a few months ago). On both of these issues, it has been noteworthy that the Archbishop’s intervention has cut through beyond the Church: Sky News dedicated one of its prime-time Sunday-morning slots to an interview; The Guardian gave him a prominent slot in its opinion pages. We hope that this represents the Church regaining its confidence in the public square, and taken seriously again as a moral authority.

Church leaders have been criticised in the past for targeting politicians on the Right (“the Labour Party at prayer”, as one prominent blogger once wrote). Almost simultaneously this week, however, its ire has been directed at both the present Labour Government and at what could well be a Reform Government-in-waiting. In seeking to speak truth to power (also the title of the Church Times Festival of Preaching next weekend), the Church should pay less attention to party colour, but to whether or not, as Dr Croft said on Radio 4’s Sunday, a policy is compassionate toward those who suffer. This is by no means a straightforward question to answer; but it means a move away from the “broad-brush slogans”, which Dr Croft rightly denounces, to pursue instead, the calm, coherent conversations that seek consensus.

Church leaders deserve a hearing not because of the office that they hold, but because of the way they witness the consequences on the ground of these policies on people’s lives — whether it be a school in the north-east where many pupils bring an empty lunchbox, or getting to know vulnerable migrants in Oxfordshire. Such first-hand experiences have much to teach politicians, whichever colour they nail to their political mast — even if it is turquoise.