It is about
picking a side for yourself
in that old, drawn-out war
they call ‘civil’.

Then around you,
the ever-cumulous skies,
the revolting lands,
the tumultuous seas,
cannot even decide on their own names.

But oddly,
you know exactly
who you are,
where you stand.

But add to this coalition the Greens and the Scottish National Party, each having Cabinet posts. Caroline Lucas is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Baroness (Jenny) Jones of South Camberwell, the Secretary of State for Justice.

The opposition parties in Parliament include Labour, United Kingdom Independence Party, Christian Peoples Alliance (yes, seriously), and Respect.

That is pretty much what is going on in the Government of Finland right now. It will be intereresting to see how the Finnish Greens in Government deal with the nuclear power issue. To be fair to Finland, the approximation requires the removal of the more extreme views in each of the British parties, and a more proportional electoral system.

Will you join me in the prayers of concern. Let us pray.

God the Creator, we adore you for creating the universe, full of potential to unfold; for creating our world, teeming with life and the possibility to develop.

God the Christ, we marvel that you have come among us; that we can find you in the least of these, the most unassuming of our neighbours.

God the Holy Spirit, we ask you to fill us with your power, now comforting, now challenging, as you invite us to participate in the continuing creation, transformation, and renewal of our cosmos.

We confess the shortcomings in the past few weeks, the inadequacies we felt in ourselves, especially in our democratic processes, during the election campaign.

We first confess that we have seen injustice but failed to speak out. God, forgive us in your mercy.

We confess our lack of compassion, our inconsiderate thoughts and ill-considered words against our neighbours.

God, give us time to amend our ways and the occasion to say sorry, to heal our community.

God, we thank you for the chance to talk to our neighbours – to find common ground in discussion, to argue the best way forward.

We thank you for the election officers, the vote-counting staff, and all who carry out their duties without fear or favour.

We thank you for the glimpses of heaven as we campaign for your realm to realize itself, so your will be done, on earth as in heaven.

We thank you for the kairos moment, the opening, that three days after the elections, we still feel empowered, not resigned to fate, but actively watching and participating in the formation of our common history.

We thank you for the camaraderie among friends and comrades, as we walked together, ate and drank together, struggled and worked together.

We thank you for the civility and courtesy between rivals during the election campaign: A polite nod across the hall, leaving room for manœuvre; firm handshakes at the platform, building bridges for future co-operation.

We pray for the winners. May they retain their spirit of service. May they gain in humility and in wisdom.

We pray for those who lost. May they not be devastated in disappointment and grief, but stay hopeful and connected, continuing to contribute to their neighbourhoods.

We pray for our country, having elected a hung parliament for the first time in decades.

We pray for those in the process of forming a new government, not just those behind closed doors, but also those who gather to continue to engage, and those who contact their representatives to support and advise them in their exploration.

We pray that this process does not simply become an abstract power game, but a transformation that will hold this society together more coherently, keeping in mind all of our neighbours, especially those most vulnerable in our community, those who live among us but have no voice, and those in faraway lands whose lives are nonetheless affected by what happens in these our islands.

Almighty Father, we pray all this in the name of Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit: one God, now and forever. Amen.

See also the earlier prayer ‘Praying for the elections, seriously’.

One thing to keep in mind (for trans-Atlantic readers especially): This is neither an electoral college for a president, nor a baseball or American-football game. This is more soccer or cricket – with a draw being a possible and valid result – and a parliamentary system which should lead to some arrangement with a level of Cabinet collective responsibility. Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke too soon by congratulating David Cameron on his ‘victory’.

Much of the spotlight should be on Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats. The electorate has delivered a hung parliament that they (and, to lesser extent before 1997, the Labour Party) had asked for over the decades, in exchange for what they promised: proportional representation (not alternative vote plus). They should not squander this mandate, this kairos moment.

If instead, Mr Clegg wants to disappoint his voters, many voted tactically for him just to keep to Tories out, he can join with the Conservatives in coalition. He will thus quickly ruin the fortunes of his party for yet another generation, possibly also taking British politics down with them. Indeed, he would also be carrying out a coup d’état by subtly rewriting the constitutional rules to affirm the primacy of the party with only plurality, but not majority, in the House of Commons – let alone popular vote – at the expense of the incumbent Prime Minister, as current convention requires. He cannot talk his way out of this one, though many of his fellow party members seem already to start trying – totally on form, not out of character at all for the Liberal Democrats.

There is still a lot to play for. If these chaps do not deliver, the electorate needs to give them another hung parliament (likely very soon) – one even more ‘hung’, with more minor-party MPs and independents – which will have the mandate to try again. The Greens need to prepare for this worse scenario as well as the better one I outlined before. I might gently add that Caroline has finally made the breakthrough for us now … the party should have allowed Sara Parkin and Jonathon Porritt to make it two decades earlier, in 1992. Some friends might disagree with me, but in any case: Don’t mess this one up.

Dear Governor,

We here in England note with concern the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Along with hurricane Katrina, it should serve as another reminder of the devastating consequences of our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels. The animals grieve with humanity the destruction of the ecosystem. We hope you will reorientate your leadership of the great State of Louisiana, so it soon becomes a pioneer in zero-carbon economic models, in partnership with the federal government. We look forward to your response.

If the results of the the present elections turn out to be (as Nick Clegg intimated) a ‘two-horse race’, that is to say a return to the Tory–Liberal duopolistic hegemony, tactically perhaps I (as a Green) can comfortably say ‘bring on the Liberal surge’, expecting electoral and other important reforms to follow. But the obvious strategic concern is whether by this we are indeed catapulting British politics into the 21st century, or we are actually taking a retrograde step back to 19th-century politics.

Allow me to elaborate. To give a potted history, in the 20th century, the franchise gradually expanded in Britain: starting with propertied males, it then extended to all men, and then the inclusion of all women. One could extrapolate that in the 21st century, non-human beings would receive some sort of representation: true progress would extend franchise, would give a stake in the State, to the whole of biosphere … somehow.

The Labour party was created in this 20th-century context. It sought, in its early days, to represent (the interests of) those electors newly included in the franchise. Sadly, as we are witnessing, after a century of honorable characters and worthy struggles, the Labour story is ending in betrayal and implosion.

One could say the Greens are the ones trying to include the whole of ecology in the democratic deliberations of the State. Now we should watch carefully: Come Friday, does the Liberal surge mean a step forward, or a step back? Does it herald a further extension of the franchise in the ‘green’ direction, or is it simply a retraction to the old, cosy blue–yellow parlour game for propertied men?

I sincerely hope that the rich blood dripping from the red flag will fertilize the green shoots, perhaps nurtured in a yellowish compost, a strange mixture of egg and clay (hint hint), whether golden or jaundiced. Or to borrow vocabulary from beyond la Manche: that our politics will go from liberté jaune of simple laissez-faire, via égalité rouge of social democracy and the welfare state, to fraternité verte that encompasses all of ecology.

The wider strategy? I hazard earlier in my piece ‘Thinking a few steps ahead’.

‘One of the most encouraging developments in the emergent intellectual space [...] has been a new willingness to advocate the Necessary rather than the merely Practical.’ – Mike Davis, Who will build the ark? New Left Review 61 (January/February 2010)

Political events since mid-2009, especially the parliamentary expenses scandal, accentuated long-standing symptoms in the British body politic, eliciting predictions of doom (in the form of further voter disengagement, among others) and calls for reform. Among these, many an opinion poll suggested the possibility of a hung Parliament, and many a campaign group called for a referendum on reforming the electoral system of first-past-the-post (FPTP). Peter Tatchell outlined the case for electoral reform in the inaugural issue of this Review. Beyond this, the wide Left ought also to think a few more steps ahead.

Politics may be the art of the possible, full of contingencies and often driven by chronological events. In contrast, statesmanship requires identifying turning points, grasping the kairos moment, and making the seemingly-impossible happen. ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste’, as Rahm Emanuel said. Rather than simply being pushed by the waves of political events, it is advisable for those of us on the progressive side of the political spectrum – who still believe in the power of politics, both to hold our society together and for positive change – to plan and prepare for the consequences of a possible hung Parliament and a referendum on electoral reform.

Hung Parliament

To start, we need to recognize that, as Vernon Bogdanor pointed out in a recent talk in Oxford, that the House of Lords is now permanently ‘hung’. A new constitutional convention for Britain is emerging where no party enjoys majority in that chamber of Parliament. Electoral arithmetic – in a variety of systems – has so far produced similar results in the devolved assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. A ‘hung’ Parliament – in truth, a newly-‘hung’ House of Commons in addition to the other place – may present itself after the next general election. In this section, I will deal with the immediate consequences of this. (This will accentuate the issues with FPTP and electoral system reform; that I will treat in the next section.)

A possible scenario is a Tory (plus Liberal Democrat?) plurality a few seats short of a majority. The Liberal Democrats, or (an)other smaller party(ies), may be in a position to be the kingmaker. For simplicity of argument, I will take an unlikely scenario where the Conservatives are one seat short of majority and – in the hope of forming a coalition Government – offering a Cabinet post to a Green; more complicated exercises are left for the reader – especially Liberal Democrats, who need to think through this carefully – but the point to be made is the same.

The Tories – in this unlikely scenario – then offer a Cabinet post to Caroline Lucas (winning Brighton Pavilion) with portfolio for the environment (or energy and climate change). Hedging against this, the Tories say the alternative is a post for Nick Griffin (also winning in his Barking constituency) with a portfolio for home affairs. What is this new Green MP to do? Relinquishing this offer means the British National Party will have control over the policing, the state databases, and migration – not an attractive prospect. But if the Cabinet post is worth taking, what would be the red line be in the negotiation? That is to say, under what undesirable circumstances are you willing threaten to leave Government and/or withdraw supply and confidence?

The Irish Greens recently learnt this lesson the hard way. Their holding (and holding on to) the environment portfolio meant having to endorse new motorways over ecologically-sensitive sites, a decision made under another portfolio but held by Cabinet collective resposibility rules, unless the Greens are open to the prospect of leaving Government and returning the Opposition benches. Reluctant to do this, Greens there are at risk of becoming the ‘Mudguard of the Republic’, an unenviable office of State last held by the Irish Labour Party, whose electoral fortunes took a full decade to recover.

There is a feasible workaround to the problem of Westminster-style Cabinet collective responsibility in a coalition Government context. In New Zealand, after the upheaval of electoral reform (see below), the politicians arrived at an arrangement of ‘confidence and supply’, including the possibility of Cabinet posts for minor parties without share in collective responsibility, but rather with direct reporting to the Prime Minister.

A similar arrangement has been common practice in Germany, with the portfolio of foreign affairs given to the junior partner in Government, held variously by the Greens, the Socialists, and now the Liberals. Still, such an arrangement is not necessarily easy for the junior partner in Government: recall one of the turning point in post-Second World War German history was Joschka Fischer having to defend his military deployment in Yugoslavia in front of a rowdy conference of his own party.

These German, Irish, and Kiwi experiences should be object lessons for us in Britain: What is the Liberal Democrat foreign policy? It may become the British foreign policy, perhaps even as soon as this summer. And if one is in the position of the junior partner: What would the red line be in the negotiations? Are the electorate and party members at large entitled to know beforehand? How well-prepared do we want to be when this happens?

Electoral reform and party realignment

In April 2009, many were worried that the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa would get 67 % of parliamentary seats, thus wielding unchallenged constitution-amending powers. But in Britain, one-party state is not a far-fetched threat but the status quo. Since there is no entrenched, codified constitution, the governing party – even one elected by a minority of the popular vote – can ram through any legislation, even those of constitutional importance, through Parliament without consensus from any other party.

Had the ANC won its constitution-amending powers, it would have garnered two-thirds of the popular vote. Not so in Britain: the pathological FPTP electoral system, rather than encouraging consensus, facilitates a minority imposing its unchecked will over the majority with the impunity of a steamroller. (For example, in May 2009, we saw the retention of innocent people’s DNA data, pushed through the Commons, would have been judicially ruled unconstitutional had a written constitution so provided.)

This is the root of the toxic climate of political alienation and apathy now prevailing in Britain. Despite this sort of hurdles, political breakthrough has come from surprising quarters. The United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip) emerged as the second-largest British party in the European Parliament election last June, garnering 16.5 % of the popular vote, second only to the Tories at 27.7 % and ahead of Labour’s 15.7 %.

Regardless of whether we agree with Ukip, it is a political innovator. To start, it revived and sharpened the traditional Tory–imperial rhetoric, offering an ersatz alliance of the interests of the parochial, jingoistic petty bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat on one part, with those of the globalized, Anglospheric élite on the other. More important, Ukip broke away from its Conservative ideological cousin, despite the constraints of the FPTP system for the Westminster elections which has dominated national politics. It took advantage of the more-proportional electoral system offered by the elections at the European level, though paradoxically it aimed to dismantle this.

Again, the experience in New Zealand offers an object lesson of what may come in British politics after electoral reform. In 1996, the electoral system for the House of Representatives (the only chamber in the Kiwi parliament) changed from FPTP to an additional-member system (there named ‘Mixed Member Proportional’). After some initial partisan discomfort, new alignments emerged with smaller parties which have more ideological clarity.

This process of party realignment, though transiently painful, is ultimately healthy for the body politic. There are two or three ‘parties of conviction’ within each of the larger existent parties in Britain, waiting for the right time to break out. A realignment similar to that experienced by New Zealand may happen here with small parties of conviction breaking out of existing ones, favouring consensus (internal and external to each party) rather than electoral expediency. Ideological clarity, in a system with fewer ‘wasted votes’, offers the best prospect of re-engaging the voters and boosting turnout.

In preparation for this process after the upcoming electoral system reform, generous statesmen and stateswomen would do well to start identifying friends across party lines. People we can do business with in other parties – either in a hung Parliament scenario, in the upheaval of partisan realignment; or in the subsequent consensual, coalition Government (or Opposition). Party-internal groups such as Compass, Green Left, the Beveridge Group, Green Liberal Democrats, and the Co-operative Party will play important roles in this scheme. It would be good to seize the opportunity and sketch out some plans for it … behold: on the other side of the political spectrum, they seem to be doing this already (e.g. Ukip).

Consensus Parliament with power-sharing

Partisan realignment does not occur without labour pains. Loyalty to one’s own party, in the right measure, ensures strategic coherence and is often admirable. But, as I hope I have sketched out, a time may come when the greater goal of national and societal Common Good calls for – and warrants – the sacrifice of such loyalty for a time.

The current partisan configuration in Britain is not divinely ordained, but an ecology that developed within the existent electoral systems. Likewise, the actual fissures within each existent parties during the realignment process, while not random but with deep ideological roots, are still to be determined. These are to be called by the most astute stateswomen and statesmen with foresight in each party, if they are not barely to be driven by haphazard events. Take my own political tradition – the Greens – as an example: the ideological differences between Realo and Fundi, or (vulgo) ‘spikes’ and ‘fluffs’, has more than one time rend Green parties apart: in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Mexico, and now (lo!) in Ireland.

Such ideological undercurrents are not absent in other parties; taking the other two from the wide Left: The oft-heard accusations of Liberal Democrat ‘fence-sitting’ may come from the ideological dialectic between internal factions: one with neoliberal/libertarian instincts, the other social-democrat. Within the Labour Party, various configuration are possible: New and Old, Third Way versus Civil Republican, Mainstream against Militant; this dynamically-changing landscape awaits able and adroit hands to mould and then to hold.

The realignment may be a scary prospect for partisans, but the outcome for the whole of Britain can be better than the status quo. The adversarial nature of the Westminster Parliament, stemming from the incidental architectural heritage of Saint Stephen’s Chapel and reinforced by the FPTP electoral system, has sometimes become a gratuitous two-sided shouting match, caricatured as a Punch and Judy show. This contrasts (as Norman Davies explained in an appendix of his work of haute vulgarisation, Europe: A History) with the European continental political culture of the Hemicycle, expressed (again) architecturally in the layout of the debating chamber of the European Parliament – and in these isles, the Dáil and the Scottish Parliament.

As the Peace Process in Northern Ireland rolled on, the new U-shaped chamber in Stormont prophesied a move away from sectarian two-sidedness. An otherwise-unlikely but constitutionally-mandated permanent coalition Government, holding two parties from the extrema of the political spectrum, projects the peculiar effect of holding the society together. Britain can borrow from this culture of consensus and power-sharing in the neighbouring island. The new-format Westminster Hall debates in Parliament herald such a move, both architectually and politically, to a more hemicyclical arrangement.

This is what a constitution ought to do: to hold the society together, no matter who is in Government. A hung Parliament would give us an opening to consider – with due care – not only the designs of our electoral system, but also the wider scheme for this constitutional telos. Imagine a more generous, more vibrant politics in Britain. More diversity of opinions with smaller, coherent parties; accompanied with ideological conviction on the one hand, and consensus-building on the other. In all, much less partisan bickering and decisions driven by triangulation and crude expediency. A Britain where a ‘Government of All Talents’ is no longer a contrived piece of rhetoric, but naturally unfolds from the healthy constitution of the body politic. For the good of our country, let’s prepare for it. Let’s work towards it.

As I mentioned earlier, I went to a talk by Dr Sándor Fülöp, Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations, at the British Ministry of Justice headquarters on Thursday evening (2010-02-25). Here are some notes I took. Any inaccuracies are mine.

The Commissioner is one of four ombudspersons in Hungary, appointed by a two-thirds supermajority by Parliament for a 6-year term (good), eligible for reappointment (not so good). It is the only such commissioner for sustainability in the world. The legal basis is the Ombudsman Act, passed only a couple of years ago.

The name is poetic, but really the job description as provided in the Act is that of an environmental ombudsman – a complaints officer. It would be unwise to reopen the Act to include socio-economic concerns of future generations, for fear of industrial lobbying that would erode the environmental focus.

The main duties and powers of the Ombudsman:

• enforcement of constitutional rights re environment
• mediation with administration/government
• access to parliament (even the plenary) and constitutional court with expediency
• some scientific capability in the science unit
• examine policy – even European Union measures and international treaties
• power of suspension and remedy from operators
• litigation, intervenor (amicus curiæ)
• safeguarding the interests of future generations
• access to environmental information
• climate change and the sustainability of local communities (resilience)
• access to confidential documents, even commercial and military ones (an important power)

The Commissioner’s Office has only been with full staff in post for 14 months. So far, some 600 cases have been submitted, 400 dismissed, leaving about 200 valid cases. Among these, 70 has been decided and there are 130 live investigations.

In the advocacy work, 50 Bills in Parliament have been analyzed, such as

1. reform of the Administrative Code re access to information and public participation
2. deletion of the budgetary item for seed/gene bank is against the interests of future generations
3. Kyoto carbon-trading units scandal – wrongful spending of ringfenced state funds

The largest case was that of a straw-based powerplant as large as 50 MW; too big. It would draw straws from a radius of 150 km with 200 trucks arriving per day. Worse, it would be located next to a World Heritage Site. The landscape would be changed into one dominated by the biofuel ‘weed’. The Unesco World Heritage treaty had not been transposed into Hungarian national law. The environmental impact assessment was done by the investors themselves. The Ombudsman’s final report had recommendations to all parties.

The smallest case concerned the noise of a late-evening café in downtown Budapest. Various areas of law could be involved and the complainant was given a menu of options to take the matter further.

Conclusion. These might seem like piecemeal work in a planet approaching (or even going beyond) its ecological boundaries. But this builds up a network of knowledge. The environment inspectorates in Hungary have low prestige, and do not apply the ‘finality principle’: only pushing files rather than dealing with environmental problems.

Questions and answers. Networking with churches and environmental industries are being explored.

The political atmosphere was fortunate when the Bill passed the Parliament: without consensus-forming work from the civil society, neither the governing party nor the opposition would have been able to create the new post. It so happened that the Speaker of the Parliament and the President of the Republic were both environmentalists. In preparation for this, an NGO worked for 7 years on the Ombudsman Bill, mocked up an ombudsman’s office and worked with it – similar to the success of the Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask campaign on a Climate Change Bill here in the United Kingdom. The most vociferous opponents of the new post were existing ombudspersons (for example, that for human rights).

The Ombudsman was not reluctant to say that his post is not impartial: it is victim-centred. The variety of possible norms, mandates, and conflicts for the post are philosophical questions he was not prepared to answer. There might well be a distinction to be made between a supposedly-impartial ombudsman and a biased public advocate; perhaps the commissioner is more the latter. He likened his office to a state NGO (quango?).

My questions for further consideration. How would a British sustainability ombudsperson/commission work with the existing Sustainable Development Commission and Climate Change Committee? Can we learn from the experience of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and its predecessors? Which Montesquian branch of the State would it belong to, if any? It would serve us well to study the Hungarian Ombudsman Act carefully.

Thanks to the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development and the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association for organizing the event, and to the Hungarian Embassy in London for facilitating it and providing the excellent wines.

In the past 5 years or so, I have heard from time to time impatient proponents of a Green Senate, a committee for sustainability, a parliamentary chamber with a built-in long-term view and overriding power in favour of measures for sustainability. Famous proponents include Norman Myers, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and (most recently, this past Tuesday) John Strickland. I do not think such a constitutional arrangement would work.

First, who would we appoint to this Senate? Would they be 70-year-olds, having accumulated years of experiences and (one hopes) accompanying wisdom? Or would they be 20-year-olds, or even teenagers, who have a stake, with realistic interests, in the future? Or a mixture thereof? Then, what about the midlifers? Are they totally disinterested, and should only be shoved around by the young and the old?

And quickly you can foresee the second question: How would we appoint them? By popular election with pre-screening? By lot? Very soon I come to my main point, and I hope the reader gets it before I tell. With more than one person in the world, there inevitably comes politics. As much as we would like God to send edicts which we all equally receive with equal clarity, that is not the case.

Either we engage with politics, or we get apathetic and let others (the Pope, the King, the Prime Minister, the political class, etc.) run our lives for us. Politics cannot be circumvented or transcended. Or rather, the only way to transcend politics is to engage. There is no Enabling Act, no Guardian Council, no Workers Vanguard, that can deliver the Final Solution without real politics. There is no such thing as a system so perfect that people do not need to be good.

That means the only way to ensure sustainability is for those who care about sustainability to engage, to talk progressive talk with neighbours, to vote, to go to hustings and meetings, to agitate–educate–organize, to listen and learn, to run for political office and lose (sometimes), to win a few offices and use the power for good ends.

If you do not like the people running the system, aim to replace them. If you do not like the system, change it. But do not expect these to be once-and-for-all, straightforward, and clean. As much as there is no silver bullet, no single technological fix in environmental problems, the same applies to politics. It requires a collective change of mind, which will be messy and will take longer than we would like.

In the words of the prophet Bob Marley: ‘So you think you’ve found the solution, | but it’s just another illusion. | (So before you check out this tide,) | don’t leave another cornerstone | standing there behind. | We’ve got to face the day; | come what may: | We the street people talking; | yeah, we the people struggling.’ (So much trouble in the world)

And on the way, there will be setbacks, losses, defeats, wastage, betrayal, assassinations. (Though I hope the latter ones do not ever visit the present incumbent of the Presidency of the United States of America.) And what is the Christian response but to take these on with courage and hope? (Holy Martyrs, pray for us.) Was that not the way Jesus showed?

‘For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.’ (Romans 8:24,25 KJV)

There are no easy solutions: one can only go out to knock on doors and canvass. With this note, I relied heavily on the thinking of my friend Rupert Read, who taught that theoretical social studies in economics and politics are useless on their own except in praxis. He also demonstrated this brilliantly with his own life. ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

Amendment after discussing with Rupert:

Yes, I think I should moderate my position.

To speak for the motion, a sustainability commissioner or committee only elevates the idea of sustainability in our constitutional architecture to the level that human rights already occupy. This is long overdue. To expand on the human rights mechanism: a minister certifies each Bill as compatible with the Human Rights Act; then there are enforcement mechanisms through domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights to induce revision of incompatible Acts of Parliament.

Then we might think what are the norms of sustainability to be enumerated? How do we articulate the remit of the Green Senate, the mandate for our commissioner? The bare ‘whether they like it and think it is sustainable’ may not be enough. For human rights, there is the European Convention etc.; this is along the same lines.

Even if we introduce such a commissioner or committee, we should still reserve the right to criticize it. We should stay vigilant and political. Our interlocutors would have no qualms hijacking a ‘Green Senate’, so we should feel free to criticize it if it becomes mere greenwash for expedient projects. I think I am preaching to the converted, as you, Rupert, are the leading critic of liberal neutrality! (A recent example of such a lapse has been pointed out by Chris Goodall: The Committee on Climate Change shouldn’t have answered the question it was asked [about Heathrow expansion].)