<?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; Transparency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/tag/transparency/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>Who is fit and proper?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3098/who-is-fit-and-proper/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3098/who-is-fit-and-proper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Zoe Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leadership for government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cabinet Secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political leaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The headline grabber inevitably centres around the Prime Minister’s judgement. There are however other important issues which this has highlighted. These are about the processes for senior ‘political’ appointments which come within the purview of Prime Ministers but which involve people who work at the heart of government. The current system is pretty opaque. Even though some of these appointees may operate as quasi civil servants, can the civil service influence such senior appointments up to and including the power of veto? It appears not. Certainly the Civil Service Commissioners, although they are involved in the appointment of senior public figures, do not have a locus in this area. Positive vetting cannot, of itself, prevent appointments and is more likely to focus on personal behavioural matters such as sex and drugs than, say, someone’s business background. And does the Cabinet Secretary have a role? At this point the mists descend but the likelihood is that, whatever reservations he might have, ultimately, if a Prime Minister decides to run with an appointment, he gets his way. Not the first time Is this sustainable? This is not the first time questions over the behaviour of political appointees have been raised. More recently [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3098/who-is-fit-and-proper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>From attack dogs to ministers</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3000/from-attack-dogs-to-ministers/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3000/from-attack-dogs-to-ministers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Zoe Gruhn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leadership for government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shadow Cabinet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=3000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ed Miliband must have breathed a sigh of relief when the Parliamentary Labour Party endorsed his plans to end elections to the Shadow Cabinet even though he still has to get them through the party conference in the autumn. Having personal control as Leader over the composition of the shadow team would strike most people as common sense and a strengthening of the leader’s authority. This should certainly be the case but there are still challenges. Though  Miliband may not choose to reshuffle his team now, the onus will  be on him to ensure he thinks carefully about the challenges of building his team in the years to come. Open to scrutiny At least when others chose your team for you, you cannot be accused of favouritism. Now that it’s up to you, every appointment will be scrutinised for signs of what this means for the likely policy direction of the party and whether particular factions, and people, are in the ascendancy or decline. That is the stuff of politics and why choosing a Shadow Cabinet bears little resemblance to choosing a management team in, for example, a private sector company. There are, however, some factors which Ed Miliband might like to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/3000/from-attack-dogs-to-ministers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The incredible and the unbelievable</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2904/the-incredible-and-the-unbelievable/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2904/the-incredible-and-the-unbelievable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jill Rutter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Leadership for government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trust]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2904</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ipsos Mori’s Veracity Index (commissioned intriguingly by the British Medical Association) yet again shows that doctors and teachers top the net trust ratings at +80% and + 69% respectively (calculated as the difference between people saying they trust the group to tell the truth and they don’t) – perhaps illustrating the problems for the government in pushing through public sector reform against the views of professional groups. Three groups linger at the bottom of the rankings: ministers, politicians generally and journalists. Over a twelve year period, politicians have become more unpopular than ministers (on a downward trend pre-expenses). Ministers have lurked in the net minus fifties – and journalists have slightly recovered their reputation – but only from the lowest starting point of all groups.  Ministers’ trust took a dive down in 2009 and has stayed down in 2011 (though people are a little less negative than before).       Interestingly, despite the financial meltdown and the recession, business leaders have risen in the credibility ratings – though saw a dip in 2009. Civil servants have markedly more positive scores than their political masters. And the public rates experts like professors and scientists highly. The message to ministers? Get the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2904/the-incredible-and-the-unbelievable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The best laid plans&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2590/the-best-laid-plans/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2590/the-best-laid-plans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 15:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justine Stephen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=2590</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Published discretely alongside the refreshed departmental business plans was a dull but incredibly important annex (PDF, 431KB) that set out a line-by-line audit trail of changes to the original business plans. For each change the original action is listed alongside the new text and, crucially, an account of why the changes had been made. While the publication of an audit trail may seem like a minor detail, having this account is a very positive step towards genuine public accountability. Useful clarifications Many of the changes provide useful clarification of vaguely worded actions pulled together in the initial rush to get the business plans published last year. Departments have now had the time to reflect and have taken the opportunity to set out their intentions more clearly. One point of clarification has been very much in the public eye in recent weeks as the Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat Cabinet members have gone head to head on the issue of immigration. Government policy on this has now been clearly set out in the changes to action 4.4 in the Home Office plan. Previously this had read: &#8220;Set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted to the UK, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/2590/the-best-laid-plans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why fears the Cabinet Manual is a step towards a written constitution are unfounded</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1398/why-fears-the-cabinet-manual-is-a-step-towards-a-written-constitution-are-unfounded/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1398/why-fears-the-cabinet-manual-is-a-step-towards-a-written-constitution-are-unfounded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:56:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Riddell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government transitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Draft Cabinet Manual&#8217;s 148 pages cover everything  from the role of the Sovereign – placed first ahead of elections — to the roles of the Cabinet, Parliament, the civil service and the law, and relations with the devolved institutions. The draft is intended to be descriptive rather than innovatory or normative, but it may turn out to be more controversial: both over whether it represents a step towards a written constitution and over its status. Very much the personal initiative of Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, it  is modelled on New Zealand’s Cabinet Manual – the other main Westminster style system like the UK without a codified constitution. As such it is intended as a source of information and guidance. This is not a step towards a written constitution Sir Gus stresses in his foreword how: &#8220;It is written from the perspective of the executive branch of government. It is not intended to have any legal effect or set issues in stone. It is intended to guide, not to direct&#8221;. But merely by writing down the official view of current practice, the draft may be seen, wrongly, as a step towards a written constitution. It is not. Its authors expect, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1398/why-fears-the-cabinet-manual-is-a-step-towards-a-written-constitution-are-unfounded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business plans shift responsibilities for outcomes away from ministers</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1031/business-plans-shift-responsibilities-for-outcomes-away-from-ministers/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1031/business-plans-shift-responsibilities-for-outcomes-away-from-ministers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Riddell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[A more effective Whitehall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Big Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=1031</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Cameron launched today what he called a &#8220;power shift&#8221; from Whitehall to individuals and local communities. Behind the 30 to 40 page Business Plans announced by each department lies an attempt to answer a perennial question: how to push through, and sustain, a programme of reform? The shift is significant though not quite in the manner claimed since the Government is moving to concentrate on activity and process rather than results and performance. During the New Labour years, the emphasis was on central  monitoring of key priorities, via the Delivery Unit, and a range of targets about outcomes (notably via public service agreements agreed with the Treasury, by which performance was judged and managed). These were backed up by unpublished delivery plans. There was a later, only partially successful, attempt during the Blair years to shift away from the centre by creating more diversity of provision and greater choice of services. What today&#8217;s change means Today’s change is twofold. First, there will be a movement away from targets for policy outcomes to a focus on the processes and timing of reform. The Business Plans are all about activities: when will a change occur and who is responsible. Politically, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/1031/business-plans-shift-responsibilities-for-outcomes-away-from-ministers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spending Review: can transparency trump temptation?</title>
		<link>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/871/spending-review-can-transparency-trump-temptation/?source=rss</link>
		<comments>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/871/spending-review-can-transparency-trump-temptation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Julian McCrae</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Parliament and the political process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiscal consolidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spending review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/?p=871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Up to now, the message from the Coalition government has largely been doom and gloom. However, in the last few days there have been a lot of &#8216;good news&#8217; stories around the Spending Review, such as protecting schools and lesser than expected defence cuts. Do these stories reflect the reality of the government&#8217;s plans, or are they just a way to get some more positive headlines around a very difficult announcement? ‘Gordon counting’: Labour’s first spending review It is fairly straightforward for government to make numbers look better than the underlying reality. I was amused to hear Evan Davis taking Nick Clegg to task on the Today Programme last week. As Evan pointed out, the £7bn extra spending Nick was talking about was really the adding up of numbers over years. The per year total of extra spending turned out to be nearer to £3bn per year. This particular trick became notorious in Labour&#8217;s first Spending Review, and was christened &#8216;Gordon counting&#8217; at the time – making spending increases seem many times larger than they actually were. Labour came to regret the presentation of that spending review. The view was that, by making small increases sound large, the government had over-promised.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/871/spending-review-can-transparency-trump-temptation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</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>

