<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Blog &#187; Akash Paun</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/author/akash-paun/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog</link>
	<description>Institute for Government Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:23:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>5, 4, 3, 2, 1, where next? Relaunching the coalition government</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4409/5-4-3-2-1-where-next-relaunching-the-coalition-government/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4409/5-4-3-2-1-where-next-relaunching-the-coalition-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 16:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The government’s intention is clear: to turn a page on the difficulties of the past few months and recapture the political agenda from its opponents, including those within the governing parties. But government renewal, as a forthcoming Institute for Government report will argue, is a tough task made more complex still by the pressures of coalition government. At its simplest, the joint press conference of Cameron and Clegg serves a useful symbolic function in emphasising the continuing strength of the core relationship at the heart of the coalition. From the start, the personal chemistry and trust between the two party leaders was central to the smooth functioning of the government, and compares favourably to the troubled relationship between Angela Merkel and two successive leaders of the liberal FDP party, for instance. Symbolism is important, but when it comes to renewal of a more substantive kind, personal relations can only get you so far. The story of the past year has been about a growing restlessness and unease between leadership and rank and file in both parties at the compromises inherent in coalition government. This pressure has led both leaders to spend more time emphasising the differences between their parties as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4409/5-4-3-2-1-where-next-relaunching-the-coalition-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lords reform – is a referendum the way to finally settle the issue?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4376/lords-reform-%e2%80%93-is-a-referendum-the-way-to-finally-settle-the-issue/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4376/lords-reform-%e2%80%93-is-a-referendum-the-way-to-finally-settle-the-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Labour under Blair and Brown tried and failed to forge a consensus over their 13 years in office. On one occasion, in 2003, the Commons (in)famously rejected all seven reform options, ranging from a fully appointed to a fully elected House. Later, in 2007, the government proposed a 50% elected chamber, only to see the Commons backing 100% election and the Lords 100% appointment. The coalition is committed to introducing elections to the upper chamber, but as this week’s Joint Committee report on the government’s proposals illustrates, deep divisions remain not just on the principle of election but on an array of subsidiary matters including the electoral system, the powers and size of the reformed chamber, and how to preserve the primacy of the Commons. The committee was itself divided on no fewer than 15 of its recommendations, with the pro-reformers winning most of the key votes, including giving qualified backing for the central principle that the reformed chamber “should have an electoral mandate”. Notably, however, the committee also stirred up a new debate by calling for the Lords reform plans to be put to the public in a referendum. Although pro-reformers such as Nick Clegg have come out against [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4376/lords-reform-%e2%80%93-is-a-referendum-the-way-to-finally-settle-the-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The end of the phoney war</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3960/the-end-of-the-phony-war/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3960/the-end-of-the-phony-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3960</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The battle over Scotland’s constitutional future stepped up a gear or three this week, with the UK Government declaring that a “legal, fair and decisive” independence referendum can be held only with explicit backing from Westminster. The SNP, unsurprisingly, demurs. A legal referendum? The Scotland Act of 1998 makes plain that the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation that “relates to” a list of specified exemptions (the “reserved matters”), including “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”. The Whitehall interpretation – set out in a new consultation paper – is that even a non-binding referendum asking voters about independence would “relate to” this reserved matter. Therefore, an Act of the Scottish Parliament authorising such a poll would be unlawful. Included in the UK government’s consultation paper is a draft piece of legislation that would place an independence referendum held by the Scottish Parliament on an unambiguous legal footing. But with a number of strings attached, which the SNP rejects. The SNP claims that holding a merely “advisory” referendum asking, for instance, whether “the powers of the Scottish Parliament should be extended to enable independence to be achieved” (the wording in the SNP’s 2010 draft bill) would not be unlawful [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3960/the-end-of-the-phony-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Multiple Choice Test</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3719/multiple-choice-test/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3719/multiple-choice-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Devolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Referendum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This week’s rebellion by Conservative backbenchers may have been thwarted, but a referendum on withdrawal from the Union is still likely to take place this Parliament. Not the European Union (though if treaty renegotiation is back on the agenda this cannot be ruled out), but the Union of England and Scotland, which has lasted a full three centuries and counting. And just as the Tory Eurosceptics were proposing a three-option referendum, it appears that the SNP’s planned referendum in Scotland will not be a straight yes/no choice on independence but will instead offer voters a choice between independence, the status quo and some stronger version of devolution (dubbed “devo-max”). The precise shape of these constititional options remains to be determined – even the status quo is likely to have changed by the time of the poll, assuming the current Scotland Bill passes in some form. But another important question concerns the mechanics of a multiple choice referendum: how do you determine which constitutional model has the backing of the people? New Zealand offers an interesting model. Next month, a complex multi-option referendum on electoral reform takes place. On polling day, voters will be asked first whether they favour a switch [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3719/multiple-choice-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Special Treatment? Why the coalition is appointing more special advisers</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3692/special-treatment-why-the-coalition-is-appointing-more-special-advisers/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3692/special-treatment-why-the-coalition-is-appointing-more-special-advisers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coalition Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No 10]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SpAds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special advisers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is in the process of appointing around half a dozen additional special advisers (SpAds). This will apparently take the overall number of SpAds across Whitehall to around 80, above the level at the end of the Labour administration (and not counting other political appointees within the civil service, let alone unofficial advisers involved in certain aspects of ministerial business). This recent development – if confirmed – would provide the latest evidence that the government has come to regret its early commitment to slash the number of advisers. The Conservatives in particular had long espoused an antipathy to SpAds – simplistically associated in much public debate with dirty tricks (especially following the Damian McBride affair), politicisation of the civil service and “good days to bury bad news” – and came into power determined to cut their numbers. Having pledged to “put a limit on the number of Special Advisers” (a limit that was never subsequently quantified), the coalition initially appointed just 66 SpAds. But as previously discussed on the IfG Blog, the number of SpAds has been steadily rising since then, partly in response to the view that Number 10 was understaffed and unable to keep [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3692/special-treatment-why-the-coalition-is-appointing-more-special-advisers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The French Primary Election: What lessons for British political parties?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3672/the-french-primary-election-what-lessons-for-british-political-parties/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3672/the-french-primary-election-what-lessons-for-british-political-parties/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[candidate selection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A novel experiment in democratic participation is under way on the other side of the Channel. Following recent rule changes, the French Socialist Party (PS) has offered all registered voters the chance to vote on the party’s candidate to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy in next year&#8217;s presidential poll. The first round of these new primaires citoyennes (citizen’s primary election) took place this past Sunday, with around 2.5 million people participating. The top two candidates – Francois Hollande and Martine Aubry – now go forward to a second, decisive round next week. This innovation comes at a time when the Labour Party has itself just taken a small step towards opening its own selection procedures to the public. The next time Labour selects a new leader or deputy, ‘registered supporters’ will be entitled to take part, although the share of the electoral college allocated to this group will be a measly 3%, perhaps rising to 10% later. The Conservatives also continue to debate the value of primary elections, following trials during parliamentary candidate selection processes before the 2010 election. But in both parties there remains scepticism about how far selection processes should be opened up beyond party members, while the Liberal Democrats [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3672/the-french-primary-election-what-lessons-for-british-political-parties/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Primary colours: Should parties open up candidate selection to the public?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3576/primary-colours-should-parties-open-up-candidate-selection-to-the-public/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3576/primary-colours-should-parties-open-up-candidate-selection-to-the-public/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[candidate selection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[primary elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Tuesday in Liverpool, a roomful of Labour MPs, councillors and party activists discussed whether the party should introduce primary elections for the selection of candidates for parliament or other posts such as elected mayors. Primary elections have been used in the USA for decades, but until recently political parties in the UK have restricted the right to vote in selection processes to paid-up members and activists. But today, primaries are seen by many as a potential remedy for public disengagement from politics. The Conservatives are the only party to have trialled primaries so far. Before the 2010 election, the party held all-postal “open primaries” in two seats, sending registered voters ballot papers and Freepost envelopes. An impressively high figure of 25% and 18% took part in the two constituencies (Totnes and Gosport). The party also held over 100 “primary meetings” – with the public invited into the final selection meeting – though these had a much lower impact on participation. Primaries are also attracting wider international interest. The French Parti Socialiste recently launched a “citizens’ primary”, in which – for a symbolic €1 fee – members of the public can vote on who should represent the left in next [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3576/primary-colours-should-parties-open-up-candidate-selection-to-the-public/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Striking the right balance on public appointments</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2121/striking-the-right-balance-on-public-appointments/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2121/striking-the-right-balance-on-public-appointments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public appointments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Select committees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lord (Chris) Patten will this Thursday be cross-examined by MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about his suitability for the role of BBC Trust Chairman, following his nomination by Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Over 25 such &#8220;pre-appointment hearings&#8221; with heads of major arm’s length bodies (ALBs) from HM Inspector of Constabulary to the Food Standards Agency and the Judicial Appointments Commission have taken place since the system was established in 2007-08. The purpose of these hearings – and similar sessions with new members of the Bank of England&#8217;s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) – is to enable committees to assess the professional competence and personal independence of the government’s candidates. Office for Budget Responsibility Such hearings are not binding. But the Coalition Government has now gone further, granting the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) a veto power over appointments to and dismissals from the board of the new Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), in what has been rightly described as a &#8220;major constitutional innovation&#8221; by TSC chairman Andrew Tyrie. From one perspective, it seems strange that the government should tie its hands in this way. Indeed, there are arguments against involving MPs in the public appointment process at all, including the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2121/striking-the-right-balance-on-public-appointments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public appointments: what role for parliament?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/944/public-appointments-what-role-for-parliament/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/944/public-appointments-what-role-for-parliament/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Select committees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Monday a pair of senior economists spent two hours defending their professional competence and personal independence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee. Stephen Nickell and Graham Parker are the Chancellor’s proposed candidates to join Chair Robert Chote at the new Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR). The Coalition government committed in its Programme for Government (PDF, 475KB) to &#8220;strengthen the powers of select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments&#8221;. Since then it has granted the Treasury Committee a veto over appointments to the OBR, making Monday&#8217;s hearing a rare example of a committee wielding real and direct power over the executive. The pre-appointment hearings system This was the latest &#8216;pre-appointment hearing&#8217; held by select committees under a system set up in 2007-08. 23 hearings have now been held, covering posts including the Information Commissioner, Local Government Ombudsman and Head of Ofsted. Previously, government would simply have announced such appointments following an internal recruitment process regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Today, select committees summon and question candidates for several dozen senior posts (particularly those where independence from government is crucial) before they take office. The committee then recommends whether or not government should go ahead with the appointment. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/944/public-appointments-what-role-for-parliament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is coalition government here to stay?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/237/is-coalition-government-here-to-stay/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/237/is-coalition-government-here-to-stay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Akash Paun</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coalition Government]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Nick Clegg, the historic formation of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government signals &#8220;a permanent move to greater pluralism, diversity, and fluidity in politics&#8221; and a new era in which coalitions become the norm. An alternative viewpoint has the Liberal Democrats facing a painful political squeeze between Labour and the Tories, or even being assimilated by their larger coalition partners. In this scenario, an early swing back to the two large parties and majoritarian politics may be on the horizon. Institute for Government analysis of electoral trends over the past century backs the claim that the classic era of two-party politics lies behind us. In 1951, Labour and the Conservatives collectively took an incredible 97% of the vote, winning all but 9 of the 625 seats up for grabs. The six decades since have witnessed a Liberal renaissance, the emergence of Scottish and Welsh nationalism, and the rise of smaller movements such as the Greens and UKIP. By 2010, the Big Two had fallen to their lowest combined standing since 1918. When falling turnout is taken into account, Labour and the Tories have lost almost half the votes they managed to attract six decades ago. What this all suggests, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/237/is-coalition-government-here-to-stay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

