🌍 Climate and nature
🏦 Funding the transition
⚖️ Poverty and inequality
👷♀️ Labour market and economy
We focus on two dimensions: ambition and policy alignment.
As we are focusing on subset of policy issues, this should not be interpreted as an assessment of manifestos as a whole.
Some reflections on how manifestos stack up...
For the first time, there is a clear divide between parties committed to meeting climate goals, and those who oppose them.
The cross-party consensus that backed Scotland's net zero target is no longer – but two-thirds of Scotland’s main parties still back it.
No party has a credible fiscal offer. Those that support a just transition aren't facing up to fiscal reality, while Reform + the Conservatives are pushing heavily in the opposite direction.
Across the board, there is a gap between spending priorities and credible funding plans.
Most parties are committed to tackling poverty, but without bolder action, Scotland's 2030 child poverty target is unlikely to be achieved.
Only the Greens back active redistribution; Reform and the Conservatives favour regressive measures likely to worsen inequality.
On the labour market and wider economy, parties diverge between those recognising the need for a more active state and those favouring a market-led approach.
Again, Reform and the Conservatives are outliers in that they do not support the aims of a just transition.
In some respects, the top level results are unsurprising. The Greens, for whom a just transition is a central aim, perform well on many areas.
Reform and the Conservatives, who oppose it, score poorly. The SNP, Labour and Lib Dems each have distinct strengths and weaknesses.
But the analysis in our report provides distinct insights on each party's platform, as we get into quite a bit of detail.
The US spends far more on healthcare than any other rich country.
Most European countries spend 9-12% of GDP, whereas the US spends close to a fifth of GDP. Yet despite spending far more, the US has much worse health outcomes.
Americans have lower life expectancy, are more likely to die younger, suffer higher rates of chronic illness, and die more often from preventable causes.
In other words: Americans spend far more money and get far worse outcomes.
I came on secondment from the economic regulator of the Scottish water industry which - like almost every other country - is publicly owned
Regulating a privatised industry was therefore new to me. It quickly seemed apparent that something wasn’t right
Bills had soared by over 40% since privatisation. Companies had repeatedly outperformed settlements. Shareholders had lined their pockets at customers’ expense
The Scottish Government has been far from prefect. But by creating a more progressive tax system, and creating things like the Scottish Child Payment, it is making a difference
The pledge to abolish the two-child benefit cap in Scotland will create further divergence
To his credit, @JohnSwinney has made eradicating child poverty a key mission of his government. But this is going to be very difficult while the UK is embarking on austerity 2.0
Holyrood is pulling in one direction, while Westminster is pulling in the other
We often hear that “all economists agree rent controls don’t work”. But is this actually true?
My new long-read for @futureeconscot looks at the evidence – and finds the reality is far more nuanced than is often claimed. Some key points 🧵 futureeconomy.scot/posts/57-can-r…
Economists’ distain for rent controls is rooted in basic models of supply and demand
Rent controls will allegedly reduce prices below the equilibrium price, which will reduce supply and choke off investment — leading to fewer, poorer quality homes
Similar arguments have been used before. Textbook economics said minimum wages would increase unemployment
As it turned out they didn’t. Why did many economists get this wrong? gov.uk/government/pub…
It’s undoubtedly the case that Scottish Government decisions have contributed to fiscal pressures
But the idea that UK fiscal choices haven’t played any significant role is absurd - and that’s not what the SFC report says (as some are claiming) bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…
The Barnett formula means that most of Scotland’s budget is determined by UK spending decisions
When the UK makes cuts, this directly impacts Scottish budgets. The austerity of prior UK governments left an almighty mess — and (so far) the new regime hasn’t sought to unwind it
Scotland’s capital budget is forecast to fall by 20% in real terms over the next five years — again a direct result of UK fiscal decisions
This is at a time when public services are crumbling and public investment has to be dramatically scaled up to deliver net zero