<?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; Parliamentary reform</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/tag/parliamentary-reform/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>John Major on the Union and the future of politics</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3079/john-major-on-the-union-and-the-future-of-politics/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3079/john-major-on-the-union-and-the-future-of-politics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:28:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Adonis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leadership for government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Devolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Major]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ministerial effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3079</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First he in effect called for a “devolution max” offer to be made to Scotland, and then for a straight “in or out” referendum to be held upon it.  By “devolution max”, Major includes full fiscal responsibility and pretty well all law making powers, except in respect of defence and foreign policy. He clearly thinks that the Scots would vote to stay in the union on such a basis and, although he did not say this explicitly, that Alex Salmond probably thinks so too. Calling for “devolution max” is easier than defining what it will be.  The crunch issue is whether Scotland is worse or better off with a full fiscal transfer.  Ingenuity probably needs to be focused on ensuring that it the impact is neutral at the point of transfer, with the Scots responsible for what happens thereafter. The need for experts Major’s other theme was in the inadequacy of party politics, and the existing House of Commons, to tackle the big issues of the age because of a shortage of experts able to look to the long term.  He called for a range of experts to be appointed directly to the Commons, alongside existing MPs. John Major’s thinking [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3079/john-major-on-the-union-and-the-future-of-politics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Speaker&#8217;s question time</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1597/speakers-question-time/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1597/speakers-question-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:53:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Riddell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Select committees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Bercow has been very active in his year and a half as Speaker of the Commons in leading a debate on strengthening the House &#8211; though his efforts have got much less public and media attention than the controversies he has become embroiled in with some, mainly Conservative, MPs. Far more than his predecessors as Speaker, he has put himself at the head of attempts to reform Commons procedures in order to enhance the role of backbench MPs and to give the legislature a stronger voice in relation to the executive. And much is happening away from media attention. But this is not just a matter for Westminster, Whitehall also has much to learn, and to change. The Speaker&#8217;s changes to date Mr Bercow can fairly claim to have done his bit, notably through the revival of the Urgent Question whereby ministers have to answer a highly topical question submitted on the day by an MP. The number awarded has risen by two in the 12 months before he became Speaker to 22 in his first year in office. This, he rightly argues, has made the House &#8220;a more relevant and unpredictable place&#8221; and has assisted what he calls [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1597/speakers-question-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Increasing diversity in parliament: what can we learn from New Zealand?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1585/increasing-diversity-in-parliament-what-can-we-learn-from-new-zealand/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1585/increasing-diversity-in-parliament-what-can-we-learn-from-new-zealand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Catherine Haddon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electoral reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 13 Jan, Professor Margaret Wilson spoke at the Institute on New Zealand&#8217;s experience of proportional representation and the impact on the diversity of their parliament, joined by Trevor Phillips, Baroness Parminter and Lord Adonis. New Zealand’s experience particularly resonates. According to Prof Wilson, the acute &#8220;sense of unfairness combined with a loss of confidence in Parliament and politicians generally&#8221; helped provoke the initial change to the country’s electoral system. The impact of MMP on diversity in New Zealand’s Parliament New Zealand adopted mixed member proportional representation in 1996 following a referendum. The system (also used for the devolved legislatures in Cardiff and Edinburgh) allowed a number of candidates to be chosen from party lists based on the overall share of the vote, in addition to traditional constituency MPs. MMP saw parties increasingly develop list candidates who reflected greater diversity: indigenous Maori representation increased from 5-7% to 16% (reflecting 18% of the population) for other self-identified ethnicities there was a similar move to near parity with overall population figures the number of women in parliament doubled to 34% (however, this compared to 51% of the population). It was not merely MMP but rather the impact of the selection of candidates [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1585/increasing-diversity-in-parliament-what-can-we-learn-from-new-zealand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Select Committee report demonstrates need for reform</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/586/select-committee-report-demonstrates-need-for-reform/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/586/select-committee-report-demonstrates-need-for-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arm's length bodies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everyone agrees the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) needs not only to be independent, but also be seen to be independent of government. Otherwise it fails the credibility test. The Treasury Select Committee has therefore concluded the only way of giving it that degree of independence is to make it a non-Ministerial department. The problem with non-Ministerial departments Our report Read Before Burning makes clear the real lack of transparency associated with non-Ministerial departments. Many departments treat them more like Executive Agencies. As one non-Ministerial department head memorably said, &#8220;the first thing you need to know about being a non-Ministerial department is that you have a minister and you are not a proper department&#8221;. The factor behind the Committee&#8217;s recommendation to make the OBR a non-ministerial department was the need for it to have its own Estimate – rather than get its money direct from the Treasury. However, as non-Ministerial departments agree their funding with the Treasury through their parent department (in the OBR&#8217;s case, the Treasury!) all this does is blur the picture. The need for a clearer system The answer, as recommended in our report and our evidence to the Treasury Select Committee (PDF, 98KB) is a new, clearer system for determining [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/586/select-committee-report-demonstrates-need-for-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>It took a scandal</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/82/it-took-a-scanda/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/82/it-took-a-scanda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:46:40 +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://dev1.silverworks.com/blog/?p=82</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael Heseltine famously entitled his report on the regeneration of the inner cities, &#8220;it took a riot&#8221;, after the week long disturbances in Liverpool in 1981. Similarly, Vanessa Nicholls could have called her report on the running of the House of Commons, &#8220;it took a scandal&#8221;. Commons administration has tended to be a closed world, unless, and until, something goes wrong, such as the expenses scandal or the arrest of Damian Green, the Tory MP and now minister. Much has changed since then: new rules on expenses have been introduced and are supervised by an external regulator IPSA catering subsidies have been cut and late payments eliminated clearer lines of accountability have been established the Speaker&#8217;s office is being reorganised an outwarding looking and thought provoking five-year strategy has been published most senior officials of the House are also aware of the need to restore Parliament&#8217;s reputation much more information, minutes of meetings etc, is put on the internet. All this is welcome, but there is still a sense of a secret garden controlled by a few senior MPs and Commons officials. Despite greater transparency than in the past, accountability is limited &#8211; to MPs as much as to the public. The National [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/82/it-took-a-scanda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

