An Exocet in a Red Box: Parliamentary Accountability in the Sandline Affair

In the UK, it is commonly proposed that the accountability gap resulting from ministers' reluctance to accept responsibility for departmental failures could be closed by giving parliamentary select committees stronger investigative powers. In the Sandline affair the Foreign Affairs Committee sought to take on such a role, notwithstanding that a separate external inquiry was already under way.
This paper compares the two mechanisms of accountability. It concludes that committees are poorly suited to investigate high-profile administrative failures because they are too influenced by party politics. Independent inquiries are better for the purpose (though improvements are needed here too). A parliamentary resolution gave the inquiry primacy over the committee in the Sandline case. This may become an important precedent.     

Building consensus for affordable housing

Abstract

At one time the national goal of affordable housing was a widely held consensus that led to decent housing for millions of Americans. Today, proponents of affordable housing must negotiate with diverse and sometimes hostile parties to secure project approvals. Discussions are frequently adversarial, and stalemate is too often the result. The consensus has collapsed.

If progress toward affordable housing is to be made, proponents will have to recast the way they operate within this new environment. More than new financing plans or recommendations for regulatory relief are needed. Attention must also focus on the processes by which groups address divergent interests and come to agreement. “Principled negotiation,” a form of joint problem solving, when coupled with third‐party intervention, offers a promising and effective means of dealing with this hostile environment.