<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/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>Doing GOD?: Gus O’Donnell and better policy making</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4438/doing-god-gus-o%e2%80%99donnell-and-better-policy-making/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4438/doing-god-gus-o%e2%80%99donnell-and-better-policy-making/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:07:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy-making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The ten policy making commandments: 1. Thou shalt be clear about the outcomes that you want to achieve Agreed. Policy fundamental number one is to be clear about your objectives. 2. Thou shalt evaluate policy as objectively as possible Agreed. Fundamental no. 7. Evaluation important – but still an area of weakness when Gus left. The Centre could and should have done more to make good independent evaluation standard. 3. Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour’s policies Agreed. But even the weak mechanisms put in place under the last government to enable more cross-cutting policy making (PSAs, the strategy unit) have been dismantled under the current government. 4. Thou shall not assume the government has to solve every problem Makes sense. But need to convince ministers (and the media). 5. Thou shalt not rush to legislate As above. Under Gus a variety of mechanisms were put in place to stop the rush to regulate – but were ineffective and ended up being gamed by the system. Legislation/ regulation remains the default mindset of both ministers and officials. 6. Honour the evidence and use it to make decisions Yes. Policy fundamental No.2 on evidence and 4 on thorough [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4438/doing-god-gus-o%e2%80%99donnell-and-better-policy-making/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A legislative scorecard for the coalition government</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4418/a-legislative-scorecard-for-the-coalition-government/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4418/a-legislative-scorecard-for-the-coalition-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 11:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stuart Hallifax</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coalition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, the Queen opened the second session of the current parliament. This follows the unusually long 2010-12 session that began after the May 2010 election; each session begins after the monarch’s speech and divides up the ‘parliament’ that lasts from one election to the next. The coalition government has been perceived as having front-loaded legislation for this (presumably) five-year parliament into its long first session. There have been major reforms in education, health, legal aid, pensions, and to the constitution with fixed-term parliaments and changes to electoral boundaries. But the level of legislative activity does not reflect this perception of hyper-activity. Number of acts The 2010-12 session was one of the busiest of the last 15 years with 49 acts passed into law, 42 of them introduced as government bills and seven as private members bills brought forward by other MPs and Lords. From this perspective it does look like an active first term. However, this figure is smaller than the session immediately after the Labour election victory of 1997, the last time that a new government with a reforming agenda took office. The 1997/98 session saw 62 bills become acts over 18 months, and was retrospectively seen as a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4418/a-legislative-scorecard-for-the-coalition-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>A spad for all seasons: the reality for special advisers</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4406/a-spad-for-all-seasons-the-reality-for-special-advisers/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4406/a-spad-for-all-seasons-the-reality-for-special-advisers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 08:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Zoe Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4406</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Special advisers are subject to their own strict code of conduct and the ministerial code states clearly that ministers are responsible for the management and conduct of their spads and are also ‘accountable to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers.’ The lines of responsibility appear to be clear and should ensure that any problems can be dealt with quickly and effectively. But is this the case? If it was all so straightforward, surely the current row about special adviser accountability would not be taking place? David Cameron argued on the recent Andrew Marr programme that a secretary of state should not automatically resign because of the mistakes of the special adviser. It is easy, though, amid all this noise, to lose sight of the fact that spads are now a very useful and necessary part of government and are here to stay. They can bridge the gap between ministers and the Civil Service and provide a political touchstone for the Civil Service. They can go to places where a non-political civil servant cannot. However this does not mean that the current system works perfectly. Research at the Institute [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4406/a-spad-for-all-seasons-the-reality-for-special-advisers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guest blog: Services at risk of failure without Whitehall overhaul</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4399/services-at-risk-of-failure-without-whitehall-overhaul/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4399/services-at-risk-of-failure-without-whitehall-overhaul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 11:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bernard Jenkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This was our conclusion in our report, ‘Change in government: an agenda for leadership’. We warned that unless the government can rapidly develop and implement a comprehensive plan for cross‐departmental reform in Whitehall, the government&#8217;s wider ambitions for public service reform, the Big Society, localism and decentralisation will fail. The open letter is right to note that, &#8220;in the view of many politicians of all parties, the Civil Service simply doesn’t work well enough. Deeply rooted weaknesses can no longer be safely ignored given the scale of the challenge over the coming years.&#8221; We need a more innovative and entrepreneurial civil service which works across departmental boundaries and has the ability to engage with voluntary and private sector organisations to contract and commission public services. Unless this can be achieved, the government’s flagship policies will be left high and dry. The prime minister promised in July 2010, when speaking to civil servants, to ’turn government on its head; taking power away from Whitehall and putting it into the hands of people and communities.’ I wholeheartedly agree with the IFG’s view that, &#8220;Change has only been sustained when there is firm and clear ministerial backing, otherwise the forces of inertia and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4399/services-at-risk-of-failure-without-whitehall-overhaul/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What works in government – lessons from the other Washington</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4394/what-works-in-government-%e2%80%93-lessons-from-the-other-washington/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4394/what-works-in-government-%e2%80%93-lessons-from-the-other-washington/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4394</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As part of its investigation of a possible “What works in social policy” institute for the UK, the Cabinet Office invited Steve Aos, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) to a roundtable at IFG last week. To many WSIPP is a blueprint for this type of body. It has been around for a relatively long time – set up in the 1980s – and with Steve as its first and so far only director. Where other US states have institutes based in the Governor’s office, WSIPP serves the strong Washington State legislature and is set up with cross-party governance to ensure impartiality and credibility. It’s budget is small &#8211; $1.5m which pays for 11 analysts. For the rest it brings in the people it needs to do the work commissioned by legislators. Steve described the WSIPP’s as an “investment advisor”, informing government about the best uses of its money in core areas such as education, child welfare and criminal justice. But like any investment adviser, it had to recognise that its advice might or might not be taken. A baseball batting average – where batting above 0.3 is good – was a reasonable hit rate. Steve [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4394/what-works-in-government-%e2%80%93-lessons-from-the-other-washington/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>Direct democracy and the mayoral referendums: more heat than light?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4360/direct-democracy-and-the-mayoral-referendums-more-heat-than-light/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4360/direct-democracy-and-the-mayoral-referendums-more-heat-than-light/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:26:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Sims</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kellner criticised the quality of the debate in the run up to the AV referendum, describing it as ‘frankly pathetic.’ Perhaps most disappointing was the extent to which the arguments on AV centred around cost. Disappointingly, cost issues have also taken on a disproportionate prominence in the mayoral debates. Claims and counter-claims about million pound price-tags and six figure salaries have been traded incessantly. Greg Clark is now refusing to pay for Bristol Council’s information leaflet on mayors, saying it is misleading on this front. On the other hand, credit is due to organisations like Bristol Says NO who have provided a fastidious and relatively sober analysis of the figures. An important point which has been overlooked by all sides is that, given we are definitely going to be having elections for Police and Crime Commissioners every four years, the marginal cost of holding mayoral elections at the same time will be very small indeed. Fundamentally however, the problem with all these arguments about cost is that they deal with issue in a vacuum, rather than comparing costs with benefits. Kellner cites polling evidence which found that when respondents were told the annual cost of a TV Licence and asked [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4360/direct-democracy-and-the-mayoral-referendums-more-heat-than-light/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Political parties need state funding</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4311/political-parties-need-state-funding/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4311/political-parties-need-state-funding/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Liz Carolan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state funding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of the 15 “old” EU states, the UK stands alone with Luxembourg in not providing significant funding (defined as more than 25%) to political parties from state resources. Other Westminster model states, like Canada and Australia, have also moved in this direction. Political parties in the UK do receive some funds, but they accounted for only about 18% of party funding between 2001 and 2011(about £9m a year), and just 10% in the 12 months up to the 2010 general election. Party funding per quarter 2001 – 2011 in millions of pounds, state and private sources. Source: Electoral Commission. Central to moving the debate on must be a recognition that political parties form an essential part of the governance landscape; they develop policy, recruit future representatives and leaders, and prepare them for government. There is no single way to fund these activities, but if the public wishes to control or limit donations, it is unrealistic to imagine that this can happen without substantial state funding providing an alternative source of income for political parties. Other states have built funding systems around their own values, culture and political system, incorporating state funds in different ways. In the 1970s Swedish political parties [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4311/political-parties-need-state-funding/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pensioners, pasties and philanthropists: how to avoid further budget fiascos</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4295/pensioners-pasties-and-philanthropists-how-to-avoid-further-budget-fiascos/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4295/pensioners-pasties-and-philanthropists-how-to-avoid-further-budget-fiascos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=4295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When is avoidance not avoidance? When it’s propping up the Big Society – and a cornerstone of the culture secretary’s strategy to save the arts from the impact of the spending cuts. That is the problem confronting the chancellor and the prime minister as they contemplate the last week’s furore over the impact of capping tax relief for the rich.  What appeared to be a reasonable measure to make sure that the Lord Granthams paid tax at a rate somewhere approaching the rate of the Carsons has now turned into a row about the future of charities. Not surprisingly, when surveyed, they all claim they will be hit very badly (a question to which the answer is an almost inevitable yes). There is a reasonable in principle case to be made for saying that the personal philanthropic choices of individual rich people should not drive where we allocate “tax expenditures” (the other way of looking at tax reliefs). Better for them to pay proper amounts of tax and then let decisions on what charities the taxpayer wants to support be made by accountable politicians. But that is not the argument the chancellor made, and so far only the Guardian in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/4295/pensioners-pasties-and-philanthropists-how-to-avoid-further-budget-fiascos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

