<?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; Localism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/tag/localism/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>Kicking the habit</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3757/kicking-the-habit-2/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3757/kicking-the-habit-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3757</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department for Education announced earlier this week that it will ‘name and shame’ poorly performing adoption services by ranking local authorities on the basis of 15 performance indicators. The Children in Care and Adoption league tables combine process indicators &#8211; such as the speed in which adoptions take place – with outcome indicators &#8211; such as the caution and conviction rate of adopted children and children in care. Poorly performing authorities may have their adoption services contracted out or privatised. Given the political salience of adoption and the poor performance of some local authorities it is perhaps unsurprising that the department has stepped in to monitor performance. But the intervention appears to contradict the coalition’s promise to end the culture of targets and top down performance management and to release data so independent adjudicators or ‘armchair auditors’ could create their own league tables. Is this an isolated incident, and, if not, why has the government found it hard release control and rely on local democracy to punish poor performance? As I have argued before, despite their localism rhetoric governments find it hard to trust local accountability mechanisms to monitor and punish poor performance in the face of pressure from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3757/kicking-the-habit-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the government needs to improve the mayoral offer</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2864/why-the-government-needs-to-improve-the-mayoral-offer/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2864/why-the-government-needs-to-improve-the-mayoral-offer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elected mayors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organisational change]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On our tour of these 11 cities we were told by chief executives, officials, councillors, business and voluntary sector leaders alike that elected mayors could offer greater accountability and clear leadership at a local level, but that the mayoral offer to local authorities needs to be more clearly defined.  Yesterday we got more clarity on the government’s position with Baroness Hanham’s announcement that both the merger of mayors and chief executives and the concept of shadow mayors would be abandoned. This will be a welcomed relief for many. On our tour we were told time and time again that shadow mayors, making current leaders of councils unelected shadow mayors before the referendums, were a central government imposition of the localism agenda. So where next in improving the mayoral offer?  A visible leader A recent survey conducted by Birmingham’s Chamber of Commerce revealed Birmingham’s business community is sympathetic to the mayoral proposition. 36% of the 204 respondents were in favour of having an elected mayor, with 41% not sure and 23% opposed. The most popular reason given (38% of those in favour) was because a mayor would enhance Birmingham’s profile. The reasons for the profile enhancing role are well established. Elected [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2864/why-the-government-needs-to-improve-the-mayoral-offer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Acceptance of NHS reform could hinge on accountability</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2781/acceptance-of-nhs-reform-could-hinge-on-accountability/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2781/acceptance-of-nhs-reform-could-hinge-on-accountability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bill Moyes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arm's length bodies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Devolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Select committees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the Government&#8217;s listening exercise can encourage ministers to clarify the lines of accountability, the decentralisation introduced in the Health and Social Care Bill may be more widely accepted. The Institute&#8217;s recent report, Nothing to do with me? put forward guiding principles on ministerial accountability within decentralised services. The report argues for a new consensus about the accountability of ministers, as well as officials, as services are devolved. Greater clarity is needed on two fundamental points: what a minister should properly be held accountable for, and how Parliament can best play its role in holding ministers and others to account. Guiding principles The report suggests two guiding principles: the use of public money should always be subject to ultimate scrutiny and oversight by elected public representatives, acting on behalf of taxpayers accountability should be aligned with effective responsibility, with scrutiny and oversight focused first on the person or body with the most appropriate remit and powers (see page 9 of the report). Putting these principles into practice implies an end to top down accountability by default. But changing perceptions of who is accountable takes: time clarity about who is responsible for what actions within decentralised services political skill and discipline [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2781/acceptance-of-nhs-reform-could-hinge-on-accountability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cameron&#8217;s Big Society speech: a day for mutual learning?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2667/camerons-big-society-speech-a-day-for-mutual-learning/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2667/camerons-big-society-speech-a-day-for-mutual-learning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 16:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Big Society has always been synonymous with David Cameron. He sees the Big Society as his raison d&#8217;etre for being Prime Minister and, as we argued in One Year On, he is alone in the cabinet in being comfortable talking about it. Today&#8217;s speech reaffirms his commitment and emphasises that it is still very much a Cameroonian project. Nevertheless, despite prime ministerial backing the Big Society is on shaky ground. The idea still generates huge amounts of scepticism and cynicism. This month a ComRes poll revealed that only 30 per cent of people understood what the term Big Society actually meant, compared with 40 per cent in February. Evidently, there is still work to be done. A cabinet project? In particular, the Big Society is yet to be embedded as a cross-Whitehall agenda. The new policy announcements we learned today included removing paper work for gift aid donations up to £5,000 and rewarding social-action neighbourhood groups with additional money. These are all new policies that are being implemented by Number 10 and the Cabinet Office. The fact that new policies were announced is testimony to how far a project can get on the back of prime ministerial conviction. With [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2667/camerons-big-society-speech-a-day-for-mutual-learning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shock, chaos and public service reform</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2611/shock-chaos-and-public-service-reform/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2611/shock-chaos-and-public-service-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 13:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Better policy making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2611</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Coalition&#8217;s plans for reforming our public services have been breathtakingly bold. From hospitals to schools, criminal justice to welfare, the pace and scale of the proposed reforms have taken many by surprise. But the government seems far more coy when it comes to publishing the long-delayed Public Services White Paper. What’s the problem? Shock therapy and chaos theory The government’s approach to public service reform over the past year has been radical in three different ways. Firstly, the reforms are ambitious in their scope, leaving few stones unturned. The welfare system is being revolutionised rather than tweaked. The health proposals will radically restructure the NHS. Important reform themes include opening up public services to new providers and extending the use of payment by results. Secondly, many policies are being rolled out very rapidly. The first ‘free schools’ will open this September after the Academies Bill was rushed through Parliament in the first few weeks of the Coalition. Many aspects of the health reforms are being implemented even before the legislation has been finalised (which, incidentally, will make them extremely difficult to reverse). Together these two points have been described as &#8220;shock therapy&#8220;- radical reform that is unapologetically revolutionary. Tony [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2611/shock-chaos-and-public-service-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Last week&#8217;s mayoral elections and the future of urban governance</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2524/last-weeks-mayoral-elections-and-the-future-of-urban-governance/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2524/last-weeks-mayoral-elections-and-the-future-of-urban-governance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2011 16:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Sims</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elected mayors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week the nation emphatically rejected AV as a way to elect its MPs. On the same day voters in Middlesbrough, Mansfield, Bedford, Torbay and, for the first time, Leicester used a form of AV (the supplementary vote) to elect five executive mayors. There are now 14 elected mayors in the UK governing cities including London and Middlesbrough. As 11 of England’s biggest cities gear up to decide whether to adopt the mayoral model in local referendums early next year, we look back at last week&#8217;s results and look at some of the emerging trends. The rise of the independents? In Middlesbrough, Independent candidate Ray Mallon easily beat his closest opponent, Labour&#8217;s Michael Carr, by 17,917 votes to 11,405. This is Mallon’s third consecutive win and makes him one of seven mayors who have managed a three term run (there are now 22 people who have held mayoral office in England.) Mallon rose to fame in the late 90s for his &#8216;zero-tolerance&#8217; policies while detective superintendant at Middlesbrough police, gaining him the nickname Robocop. Mansfield saw the re-election of another three-term mayor, Tony Egginton. The run off saw Mayor Egginton squeeze into first place with 12,680 votes, just 67 more than [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2524/last-weeks-mayoral-elections-and-the-future-of-urban-governance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leicester: The real constitutional revolution of 2011?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2487/leicester-the-real-constitutional-revolution-of-2011/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2487/leicester-the-real-constitutional-revolution-of-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 15:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Adonis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elected mayors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Without much national fanfare, Leicester will tomorrow become the largest city in England outside London to elect a mayor to run its affairs. In doing so, it could pave the way for Birmingham and other major cities outside the capital to follow suit in short order. Leicester&#8217;s council voted a few months ago to change to the mayoral system. This short-circuited a process which in Birmingham and 10 other major cities is requiring referendums. These will be held in May 2012, on whether to make a similar change in defiance of the wishes of the existing elected councils, which are opposed to it. The Leicester field The hot favourite to become Mayor is Labour’s Sir Peter Soulsby, one of the city’s MPs and a previous leader of the Council. Peter Soulsby’s decision to leave Westminster – a by-election for his Leicester South seat is also being held tomorrow – is another first: the first Mayor of a town or city outside London who is a former MP for the locality in question. There is a good London pedigree for this: both Ken and Boris were previously MPs, although in Boris’s case for Henley. Their decision to leave the Commons for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2487/leicester-the-real-constitutional-revolution-of-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why localism is a load of rubbish</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2348/why-localism-is-a-load-of-rubbish/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2348/why-localism-is-a-load-of-rubbish/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy-making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Local government waste management is emerging as a test case of the government’s genuine commitment to localism. Over the weekend, plans by the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to rein in local authorities who charge for waste, suggest a low level of tolerance for local action and little belief in the power of local people to hold those authorities to account for their actions. The same can be said of the Communities and Local Government Secretary’s return to the charge on alternate weekly collection (aka emptying the bins every fortnight.) As such, they suggest a very weak commitment to real localism (and a very loose reading of the normal moratorium on new government announcements during the pre-election period.) Down in the dumps It is hard not to feel for local government over waste management. They are caught in a vice: the landfill tax escalator is raising the price they pay for waste they have to freeze council tax the UK still needs dramatically to cut waste sent to landfill – to meet the looming targets in the EU Landfill directive and avoid hefty infraction fines. But the government seems determined, apparently because of high profile campaigns run by national newspapers, to impose the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2348/why-localism-is-a-load-of-rubbish/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Community Budgets are worth watching</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2305/why-community-budgets-are-worth-watching/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2305/why-community-budgets-are-worth-watching/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today marks the launch of 16 Community Budget pilots that promise to pool local budgets around families with complex needs. Eric Pickles has said: &#8220;My message to local areas is: don’t be afraid to think big &#8211; to be as bold and as innovative as you can. This is the future for public services.&#8221; The issue Community Budgets is seeking to address is well documented (not least by Total Place.) Families with complex needs often depend on many different public services. But separate chains of command can mean these services are not joined-up in a way that best addresses their needs. The result is significant cost to the taxpayer and poor quality services for the families concerned. Community Budgets aim to address this by giving local areas the freedom to pool money across budget lines and design services to reflect local needs. Some may ask whether this is some kind of April fool. How can something as technocratic as reallocating funds across budget lines really lead to big innovations in public services? If you can get past the management speak you may be surprised. At the very least, Community Budgets offer an opportunity to tease out some of the thorniest [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2305/why-community-budgets-are-worth-watching/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A tale of two knights</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2249/a-tale-of-two-knights/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2249/a-tale-of-two-knights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:00:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Adonis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leadership for government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elected mayors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Manchester boasts the greatest concentration of students west of Moscow. &#8216;The Corridor&#8217;, a vibrant university and business district surrounding Oxford Road in the city centre, is home to: the University of Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University the Royal Northern College of Music a host of knowledge-related businesses. A £2.5bn investment and regeneration plan for the entire zone – including the redevelopment of the old Eye Hospital into incubator space for new bio-tech businesses – is being driven forward by a novel partnership company embracing the city council, the universities and local employers. The aim is to boost the area’s employment to 77,000. Dynamic and stable This initiative is typical of the dynamism of Manchester city council. In stark contrast to the position in most of the other cities I have visited, there is unstinting praise for the council leadership from the city business, voluntary and media leaders.  Stability, competence, pragmatism, vision – one or all are mentioned wherever you go. Manchester has big challenges.  Low skill levels, unemployment and deprivation are all serious. Public sector cuts will bite hard. But the city and its neighbours have a string of regeneration and employment successes to match. Underpinning it all is the highly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2249/a-tale-of-two-knights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

