<?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; 2010 &#187; July</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/date/2010/07/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>IPSA&#8217;s battle for consent</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/290/ipsas-battle-for-consent/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/290/ipsas-battle-for-consent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Riddell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IPSA has had the most controversial first few months of any public body since, say, the Child Support Agency. So Sir Ian Kennedy, its chairman, was inevitably on the defensive when he spoke at the Institute for Government about IPSA’s record and prospects. It was unquestionably the least heated and most reasoned discussion of the issues he has recently faced, in marked contrast to the often boorish meetings he has had with MPs at Westminster. Sir Ian had three central arguments. First, IPSA has achieved a remarkable amount in a very short period, setting up a new organisation and systems, paying MPs their salaries and expenses. Second, the inevitable early problems have been much smaller than the frequently aired myths. And, third, that the underlying framework, based on transparency and the requirement for detailed expenses for all bills, is correct. This is essentially the “teething problems” thesis: the belief that all  new organisations go through a rough phase, and that adjustments of working practices and better communications and dialogue with MPs  will, in time, reduce, if not end, controversies and produce generally accepted arrangements. The vilification of IPSA by MPs has not only been way over the top, but also [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/290/ipsas-battle-for-consent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</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>
		<item>
		<title>Q. When is an agency not an agency?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:01:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arm's length bodies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome to the confused subject of arm’s length government. At the launch of the Institute last year, Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O&#8217;Donnell singled out the tangled landscape of arm’s length government as a suitable case for &#8216;IFG treatment&#8217;. One year’s research, seminars and discussions on, we have published Read before Burning, our recommendations for sorting out this confused landscape. A key recommendation is to untangle the current confused designation of public bodies – and relate form and governance much more closely to function and the freedom the body needs to perform that function. Although ALBs in total account for about 14% of government spending, the big money is tied up in just a few organisations – and even then 75% of NDPB spending is passed on to third parties.  If we are to get real efficiencies and better governance, we need remove the temptation to treat arm&#8217;s length government as a numbers game. Half ALBs are small advisory bodies with no independent budget or staff. They advise, not execute. We think they should simply be treated as what they are &#8211; departmental advisory committees and no longer be regarded as part of arm&#8217;s length government. For the rest, we would get [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/130/when-is-an-agency-not-an-agency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How much does a government website cost?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/85/breaking-blog-news-from-ifg/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/85/breaking-blog-news-from-ifg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:48:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Hallsworth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=85</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent release of official data on government websites allows us to make some comparisons. In a straight comparison of costs, the ‘Your Freedom’ site nearly makes it into the cheapest 20% of government websites. But costs are only part of the story, of course: websites are also judged on how many visitors they attract. Higher costs may be justified on the basis that the site attracts more visitors. On this basis, the costs of &#8216;Your Freedom&#8217; appear to be justified: the site has met with &#8220;overwhelming demand&#8221; (FT, free registration required). In fact, it could be argued that more should have been spent on the site, since it crashed under the number of visits it attracted. Factoring in usage give us a better idea of which government websites are good value for money. We can get a crude &#8216;cost per visit&#8217; measure by dividing total costs by total visits. Initial headlines focused on the fact that www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk appears to cost £11.78 per visit, but these figures have been questioned, so we’ve excluded them from the graph below: But a simple cost per visit measure conceals massive variation. To understand this, see the second graph, below. This plots total costs [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/85/breaking-blog-news-from-ifg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An evening with Tony Blair</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/133/an-evening-with-tony-blair/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/133/an-evening-with-tony-blair/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Halpern</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No 10]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political leaders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=133</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It was a tough first audience made up of many familiar faces who helped shape his experiences as Prime Minister &#8211; and who were now busy settling in a new Prime Minister. He kicked off the evening with a self effacing story of his experience of coming into Number 10 for the first time after winning the 1997 election. He painted the scene: As the staff of No10 lined up to welcome him in the traditional manner, clapping and so on, he spotted a few tears, not of joy but sadness as so many had worked for so long under the previous government. &#8220;By the time I made to the end of the line, I started to feel pretty bad about it. Then I went in to see the Cabinet Secretary who said &#8216;now what?&#8217;&#8221; The roaring laughter from the audience, largely senior civil servants, showed these first few days for a PM was definitely familiar ground. It was vintage Tony – informal, disarming and seemingly frank, noting it was on the record. Blair&#8217;s first term He offered a list of 10 conclusions he had reached about government, but in many ways he got more interesting as he relaxed into [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/133/an-evening-with-tony-blair/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

