<?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; Mutuals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/tag/mutuals/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>Wide open public services</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3056/wide-open-public-services/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3056/wide-open-public-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tom Gash</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If we’ve learnt one thing from the Government’s faltering attempts to radically reform the NHS, it’s that nobody likes surprises. The Coalition failed to fully test its reforms with policymakers and professionals, resulting in public and practitioner resistance that led to the plans being first delayed, then substantially revised. So it must surely be a good thing that there were few surprises in Government’s most recent white paper on public service reform published this afternoon. The overall narrative is remarkably well-rehearsed, with Prime Minister Cameron’s mission to “replace bureaucratic accountability with democratic accountability” having been echoed in the speeches of his cabinet ministers for months. The most concrete proposals within the white paper have, for the most part, been announced previously. New locally elected officials &#8211; check. More powers for community representatives – check. “Payment by results” – check. New providers of public services, including ‘mutuals’ – check. Increased professional autonomy – check. Greater transparency over public sector performance – check. Slight differences of emphasis aside (for example, a focus on finding ways of enshrining the right to choose services in legislation) this is the Government’s agenda as outlined by the prime minister a year ago in his first speech [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3056/wide-open-public-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Incrementally revolutionising public services</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3045/incrementally-revolutionising-public-services/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3045/incrementally-revolutionising-public-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Blatchford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organisational change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3045</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The quote serves as a reminder that over the last 30 years public service reform has been underpinned by some common, perhaps clichéd themes. Successive governments have repeatedly told us they will make public services more ‘citizen centric’, will ‘open up government’ and provide more ‘choice’ for service users. So is Cameron’s promise  to “release the grip of state control and put power in people’s hands” any different? Does today’s White Paper mark a break from the past or continuity? What new directions or policy specifics are hidden in the document’s 58 pages? Integrating services  It is now commonly accepted that provision works best when it is wrapped around the individual rather than delivered as a series of separate services. Under the mantra of ‘joined up government’ the Labour Government developed a whole suite of mechanisms to encourage the integration of services, from local partnerships and one-stop shops to pooled budgets and shared targets. But as Total Place illustrated, even with an extensive array of mechanisms to join up government, significant gaps and areas of duplication still exist in service provision. Today, the ambition to integrate services is still evident, but the old infrastructure is being disbanded. Joining up will [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3045/incrementally-revolutionising-public-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t quota me</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2037/dont-quota-me/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2037/dont-quota-me/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Moss</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commissioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Friday 11 February the Prime Minister launched a new approach to government procurement. As part of his Big Society vision, public services would be thrown open to competition and there would be a &#8220;right to bid&#8221; for delivery of public services. David Cameron also stated that the government’s ambition is that &#8220;twenty-five percent of all government contracts are awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises&#8221;. The ambition was repeated by Francis Maude the following Monday at the launch of the government’s Social Investment Strategy. Not so fast Within days Whitehall &#8216;sources&#8217; were briefing that this commitment to 25% had been dropped. Quite rightly, as EU procurement rules do not allow it. Frances Maude has now gone on the record in an interview with Public Finance confirming: &#8220;We’re unlikely to have rigid quotas. We want public services to be opened up and to have a multiplicity of providers – but it’s going to be hard to define what proportions there should be. What you want is to have openness and encouragement for diversity without trying to enforce a particular template.&#8221; It is clear the direction of travel is to deliver more public services through commissioning with the private and voluntary sector. It is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2037/dont-quota-me/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The feeling&#8217;s mutual</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1084/the-feelings-mutual/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1084/the-feelings-mutual/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How do the words &#8216;mutual&#8217; and &#8216;co-operative&#8217; make you feel? For many, they conjure up positive feelings of togetherness and community. Everyone loves John Lewis and we can all understand how giving people a direct stake in an organisation they work for, or are served by, is a good idea. What about words like &#8216;management&#8217; and &#8216;bureaucracy&#8217;? I’ll bet the association is significantly less positive. It goes without saying that words like &#8216;cuts&#8217;, especially when closely associated with &#8216;front-line&#8217;, play very badly indeed. So broadly, everyone feels jolly positive about mutuals and if they can help reduce management and bureaucracy while reducing the need for front-line cuts then it is pretty easy to see why they are very popular with the government. The mutual moment The government&#8217;s big idea is to give public sector employees (or the communities they serve) the right to take over the ownership and management of public services. This frees up services from the bureaucracy of the wider system and allows public sector workers to focus on the people they are serving. Morale, efficiency and quality are driven up while absenteeism, waste and errors are driven down – at least the theory goes. Francis Maude has been [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1084/the-feelings-mutual/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just how Big is the Big Society?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/479/just-how-big-is-the-big-society/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/479/just-how-big-is-the-big-society/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adrian Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[New models of governance and public services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Devolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Localism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist reportedly said that &#8220;anyone who isn’t shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.&#8221; And so it is with the Big Society. Over the past few weeks, the Institute for Government has been hosting a seminar series on Big Society Public Services along with NESTA and the Design Council. The series provided an opportunity to explore what the Big Society means in five different policy areas. It is fair to say that for each area, from education to criminal justice, the full implications of the Big Society for policy and the management of services are still being worked out. What is already clear is that many of those implications are likely to be profound. A new relationship Most people solve most of their problems most of the time without reverting to the state. Families, friends, communities and the marketplace can all help individuals to solve problems with minimal involvement from government. Even when the government does get involved there is a great deal that can be achieved without the state providing all the funding, assets or people involved in the solution. This switch in emphasis lies at the heart of the Big Society argument and suggests [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/479/just-how-big-is-the-big-society/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

