Why mayors (or provosts) are not the solution to proper devolution

 With Andy Burnham taking over as Prime Minister and publishing his devolution plan, it was inevitable that there would be another effort to promote directly elected mayors or provosts in Scotland. Gordon McKee MP makes such a claim in The Herald, albeit with an argument stronger on vision than merit, and the BBC has outlined the issue.

I wrote more broadly about Manchesterism in June, broadly supporting Matthew Lawrence's pitch in his new book. However, I also argued that this must be more than devolution to regions and nations. It has to filter down to real communities of place, as I argued in this paper.

There are various claims about how successful Manchesterism under Andy Burnham has been in practice. Anyone travelling from Scotland across Manchester has to be impressed by the Bee Network, when all that has been achieved in Scotland is working parties on transport integration. It isn't perfect, being stronger in the centre than in areas of deprivation, but Greater Manchester saw the largest increase in passenger satisfaction of any area in England in the first full year of the Bee Network. His housing policies started well, particularly on housing, but weakened as the cash ran out. On productivity, the raw data looks impressive, but regional economic data is always challenging, and it is hard to see how Manchester is actually that much better (see chart below) than the country as a whole. At best, it has been a mixed picture in the whole region, as the need for a Good Growth Fund demonstrates.

As Ian Harvey puts it, Manchesterism is bigger than Manchester; it's about system change. "Manchester doesn’t have all the answers. But if Manchesterism means anything, it is that lasting national renewal depends on ensuring places have the power, strong institutions, effective leadership and trusted partnerships they need to shape their own futures." James Mitchell and colleagues examine what this might mean for Scotland, pointing out that "A devolution agenda is straightforward to pitch in a political speech, but thorny to implement in practice." Applying a city-regional and regional devolution impulse to the Scottish context is complicated by our different governance structures, most of which require support from the Scottish Parliament. Not least the question of directly elected mayors/provosts, although Burnham's rewiring proposals don't require them anyway. However, it does offer a space for regions and local government in Scotland to make a pitch for a move away from the centralisation that has been our experience since devolution. A point the Building a Local Scotland group has been making, 

Economic growth is a particularly challenging issue for all English mayors because they have very limited powers. In many ways, this reflects that mayors have so far largely been about cheerleading for their region. There is no doubt that Andy Burnham has been good at that. In fact, he is probably the only mayor (other than London) that most people could name. We shouldn't forget that English regions have rejected mayors for good reasons, and many see it as a drive to further centralisation.

So why not mayors/provosts for Scottish regions, whatever a region might be in Scotland. 

The primary problem is its concentration of power in a single person. As local government expert George Jones explains, "the advantage of collective leadership is it enables exploration of policy from different perspectives. Colleagues can consider possible impacts of policy in a variety of contexts, spotting pitfalls ahead and the consequences for different people and groups. A single person is unlikely to represent the diverse complexities of a large urban, metropolitan or county region area better than can collective leadership." This would certainly be the case in Scotland, once a Glasgow mayor starts to second-guess what is best in Renfrewshire, Ayrshire or Lanarkshire. 

A single person cannot possibly pay attention to all the issues facing a regional organisation. This means power spreads to appointees or chief officers. Democracy is the loser locally and regionally. There was rightly a kickback when the Scottish Government wanted to introduce regional directors of schools. Regional mayors would face the same issues. Worldwide, the myth of the single leader also increases the risk of corruption and the rise of autocracy. Archie Brown, in his book, The Myth of the Strong Leader, makes an excellent argument for the virtues of collegiate leaders.

Regional mayors may not be for life, but they are there for four years, regardless of performance. In councils, ineffective leaders can be removed, and the same applies to Prime Ministers/First Ministers. At best, a recall provision would be required, but without other elected persons, this could lead to a public challenge after every controversial decision. 

At devolution, we were promised devolution to communities, not more centralisation. Holyrood has centralised services that were once the responsibility of councils. Our councils are already too big to be local and too small to be strategic. What we need in Scotland is a comprehensive look at local government. Councils in Scotland have an average population of 170,000, compared to 10,000 in Europe. We need genuine local councils representing real communities of place, who would then share services at an appropriate regional level. 

AI: a bold new frontier or the end of civilisation?

 In my July briefing for the Jimmy Reid Foundation, I examined the planned growth of AI data centres in Scotland. I didn't have space to develop the section on the merits or otherwise of AI, and many of those opposing AI centres accept that AI is here to stay but oppose hyperscale data centres. As the famous environmental campaigner (and now AI centre opponent) Erin Brockovich says, “That genie is out of the bottle: it’s here, it’s an effective tool, you can use it or not.”

Street art in Tel Aviv (Artem.G, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Personally, I am sceptical that you can separate the two issues. If you accept that AI is here to stay, can you reasonably oppose the means to deliver the benefits? For example, those popular image-generation apps are much more energy-intensive. That is not to downplay the justified concerns of residents facing these massive developments on their doorstep. Concerns that I doubt will be assuaged by the Scottish Government championing 'green' data centres. Some accept that AI cannot be 'put back in the bottle' but argue for greater regulation and hope that technology will provide an answer to the environmental impact, such as faster microchips. This sounds like wishful thinking to me, an argument we heard before over climate change, while the planet is burning. 

The EU has introduced some legislation to regulate AI. The UK does not have any AI-specific legislation. Instead, AI is regulated in the context of its use through existing legal frameworks, such as financial services legislation. It is argued that if democracies limit AI, autocracies like China will win the arms race. I am sure the naval chiefs in the Dreadnought era will be familiar with this argument!

Supporters argue AI can improve efficiency, automate repetitive tasks, solve complex problems, and support advances in healthcare, education, science, and business. It can help people make better decisions by analysing large amounts of data quickly and can perform tasks that are dangerous or difficult for humans. Critics argue that AI may replace some jobs, increase inequality, and pose risks to privacy, security, and the spread of misinformation. There are also concerns that AI systems can make biased decisions, be misused, or operate without enough human control and accountability. Not to mention destroying books!

There is an interesting interview in the latest RSA journal with Cory Doctorow, the technology activist, who argues that the unit economics of AI are really poor. "Every generation of AI is more expensive and money-losing. And they don't have a story about how the economics improve." He warns that when AI crashes, there will be lots of politically angry people, paving the way for authoritarian governments. My immediate thought was that this is just the outcome someone like Palantir's Peter Thiel is planning for. Doctorow argues that the 'regulation will ensure China will win' thesis is simply a cover for the monopolist behaviour we already see in companies like Apple. Stephen Boyd also makes a case for AI regulation in The Herald.

Another perspective on AI comes from a source that few would regard as a liberal leftist. Carson Block is a short seller and the chief executive of Muddy Waters Research in the USA. Writing in The Economist, he argues that in a few years, artificial intelligence will displace a significant portion of the world’s highly paid knowledge workers. These workers will withdraw funds from their investments, ironically causing a big price drop in AI firms. I would also say look out for pension funds that are heavily invested in these firms through increasing passive investment strategies. I had thought that the 'Jevons paradox' would save us (new technology that increases efficiency also increases demand, thereby creating new jobs that offset losses), and scepticism about the slope of the adoption curve. Block says both will be proven wrong, leading to a massive financial crisis. He concludes, "We will witness not just an almighty market correction, but the end of the existing social contract."

Surveys indicate that most Americans, who are at the cutting edge of this change, have a similarly gloomy view. A YouGov poll found that a whopping 45% say they are very or somewhat concerned that AI might cause human extinction. This is driving a rare cross-party political consensus that AI is a problem, not just a driver of growth. However, solutions are in shorter supply. Seventy-nine municipalities in the US have so far issued moratoriums on new data centres. The counterargument is that this backlash is dangerous. AI could power a surge in productivity and incomes, help find cures for untreatable diseases and improve everything else. 

The speculation over AI is justified and interesting, but what is needed is better facts. Investigate the data on energy and water use, as well as job security. Regulate where practicable, building international cooperation where possible, as Yvette Cooper argues this morning. If green data centres are essential, win communities over by making them as 'green' as possible, and offer them a share of the funding. Hopefully, a better system than most renewable generation. While I am not yet convinced that a basic income will work, we should at least be testing ways to share prosperity and tax wealth more effectively. 

And most of all, challenge the inevitability of corporate power by reclaiming collective power to challenge the machine. The Luddites were misunderstood. They rebelled against the way elites were deploying new technology to destroy livelihoods and lower living standards. As should we. 

Burnhamism and Manchesterism

 As it looks inevitable that Andy Burnham will be the next Prime Minister, we should consider what this might mean in policy terms.

But first, Sir Keir Starmer. He could not continue after the Mandelson saga, electoral wipeout, and the worst personal approval ratings in history. I voted for him in the leadership contest after Jeremy Corbyn resigned. I recognised he might not be a charismatic leader, but after Johnson and Truss, boring looked good. However, I didn’t reckon on him being such a poor politician as his early decisions in government highlighted. He also got sucked into internal factional infighting, which contributed to the loss of members and activists. Labour has to be a broad church.

The usual suspects claim we don’t know what Andy Burnham stands for. He may not have published a manifesto, but he hasn’t been shy at setting out his political philosophy – Burnhamism if you must label it. You might summarise it as devolution, preventative action and tackling social inequality. Matthew Flinders has a good go at articulating this today. And from a Scottish perspective, Marissa MacWhirter makes similar points based on her interview with him last year.

As someone who has argued that Scotland is too centralised, his support for local government is very welcome. As Matthew puts it “Burnhamism represents a complete rejection of the traditionally centralised, elitist, two-party, Whitehall-knows-best Westminster model. It seeks to shift towards a power-sharing model that can accommodate long-term strategic policy-making.” This must be more than devolution to regions and nations. It has to filter down to real communities of place.

The emphasis on preventative action reflects what we said in the Christie Commission many years ago. The government doesn’t need to keep spending more if it invests in tackling the root causes of inequality. There is a broad consensus that this is the right approach, although delivery has been patchy. It will be interesting to see if a true believer in this approach can achieve what governments in Scotland and the UK have failed to deliver.

He is also a supporter of proportional representation, although I regret that it may not be an immediate priority.

If you want a manifesto, then the Burnham supporting Mainstream has published ‘The Productive State: A Framework for Manchester’ – or in short ‘Manchesterism’. Matthew Lawrence and Alex Williams make the case against privatisation, another Burnham theme, arguing that “The retrenchment of public control has created an economy that extracts where it should invest, fragments where it should coordinate, and prices for profit where it should provide for use.” While the UK Government has made some modest changes in the right direction, the authors rightly argue that they have failed to make the necessary structural changes. 

In contrast, the Productive State does this with a toolkit that reasserts national economic sovereignty by directly engaging in public investment, provision, ownership, and coordination of and between essential sectors. This doesn’t ignore the strengths of markets in rewarding innovation and competition, but targets the specific domains where markets have demonstrably failed: where productivity is exhausted and profit is rent extraction; where prices are systemically significant and threaten macroeconomic stability; and where private capital chronically underinvests. Structurally, they argue we should use the public corporation model, operationally independent, commercially mandated, borrowing in its own name, and prioritising resilience over financial return. 

Andy Burnham has done some of this in Manchester with the Bee Network, expanded council housing, and the Good Growth Fund. This helps highlight what public control produces in practice. The challenge will be in scaling this up across the UK. While some of this can be achieved without a massive increase in public spending, more investment will be needed. 

This leads to potential issues with the bond markets. When the interest charged on UK bonds rises, for example, British banks face higher funding costs themselves. This in turn feeds into higher mortgage rates, more expensive business loans and tighter financial conditions. In the UK, total government debt now stands at about £2.9 trillion, with interest rates (yields) currently higher than those paid by the US, Italy, France, Canada, Germany and Japan. Burnham has indicated that he feels we are too much in hock to the bond markets and there are those, like Yanis Varoufakis, who go much further. Others argue for Modern Monetary Theory, but this is certainly a step too far for a new PM. Burnham is likely to bring in some economists with new ideas, such Andy Haldane, with his ideas on war bonds to finance defence investment.

Overall, even an old cynic like me is excited about what an Andy Burnham premiership could bring to our politics. Public sector delivery, preventative spending, tackling social inequality, and above all, localism, are all aligned with my policy perspective. Of course, he will have to face the carping from the usual suspects, the billionaire owned media and the difficult economic position. However, he understands that managerial tinkering around the edges just won't solve the UK's huge structural problems. A decisive change is needed, and we should give him the time and space to go for it.

Plus ça change

Another Scottish Parliament election, and it's plus ça change. The phrase coined by the French critic, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in 1849, suggests that despite superficial alterations or reforms, underlying fundamental issues often remain unresolved. As none of the parties in this election even attempted to address the fundamental issues facing Scotland, this seems apposite. Turnout was dismal, but no lower than pre-2021 levels, so the voters have been 'scunnered' for a long time.

It is often claimed that the Scottish Parliament's voting system was designed to stop any party from having a majority. Sadly, this is a myth. The Labour establishment at the time offered a nod of recognition of the need for some proportionality, but thought their dominance of the FPTP seats would deliver a Labour majority, or at least something close to one. They didn't envision the current circumstances, where it delivers an SNP majority. 

Vote share

But what about tactical voting? Yes, that can work in a by-election when the electorate can roughly work out their options. It can also work in a two-party circumstance, such as the last general election. It doesn't work in a Scottish election when the anti-SNP vote, on constitutional or other issues, is split three or four different ways. I was delivering a tactical voting leaflet to a Tory voter this week. He was genuinely confused about the FPTP system and the outcome I accurately predicted in my constituency. He wasn't a stupid person, as the long drive and three BMWs probably meant he had earned a decent living before retirement. In fairness, if he had just said, I'm a Tory, and I am voting that way anyway, I would have understood. I have voted Labour, even when they stood no chance. As I have no strong view on the constitution, if there wasn't a Labour candidate, I would vote SNP before I voted for the Tories or their reincarnation as Reform Ltd.

The constitution may be less of an issue than it was after 2014, but it remains the default position for many voters. It is going nowhere after this election, much to John Swinney's private relief. There will be some performative noise, and then it will be back to business as usual. It is a lot easier to win elections when you can blame someone else. I was the Chair of Scottish Labour when Wendy Alexander did her 'bring it on' stunt. I thought she was right then, as it certainly shook Alex Salmond as much as it would John Swinney today. However, he can rest easy, as UK Labour will take the same position it always has. There will be no break from the constitutional logjam unless there is a viable route to a referendum. That is tactically and democratically the right approach, but it won't happen.

As one commentator put it this morning, "The SNP victory was made in Downing Street by a hapless Prime Minister." That is possibly true, although I think the UK Government gets insufficient credit for the positive aspects of its record, particularly reforms to the railways and employment rights. I voted for Keir Starmer, and although I recognised he may be a bit dull, but after Johnson and Truss, dull looked good.  What I didn't appreciate was how bad a politician he would be. I expected to disagree with the new government on aspects of economic policy. I knew it wouldn't be as radical as I wanted, but I didn't think it would be politically incompetent. They are also learning that the billionaire media, which has now reached parts of the BBC, will go after a right-wing Labour leadership, nearly as much as a left-wing one. All you can do is try not to present open goals, as this government has done, just as Jeremy Corbyn did.

The same commentator also said, "Sarwar could have promised voters twenty grand each and they still would have shouted at him about the Prime Minister and voted SNP or Reform." Quite possibly, but there were major homegrown errors as well. If you are going to use the slogan 'change' when the voters have several options for change, you had better have a plan for what that change looks like. The Scottish Labour manifesto was yet another piece of managerial tinkering. This left Anas trekking the country, spouting slogans without anything to back them up. Instead of a radical plan that would distinguish Scottish Labour from the pack, it dissolved into platitudes that convinced no one. The outcome was Scottish Labour's lowest vote in the party's history as a national party, with 19.2% in the constituency vote and 16% in the list vote. The Scottish Greens won more list votes than Scottish Labour in Glasgow. 

This has nothing to do with the myth that Scottish Labour policies are set by 'London'. I have been closely involved in most of the manifestos since devolution, and Westminster influence has declined in every one. The rules give Scottish Labour absolute autonomy over devolved issues, and attempts to influence that, even when there was a UK Labour government, were largely rebuffed. The best example is the rejection of a marketised NHS in Scotland, when Blair was taking England in another direction. The problem is the mindset in the Scottish Labour establishment since 2007. I was at the parliamentary group meeting after the 2007 election, and with some honourable exceptions, most of the MSPs were not prepared to shift into opposition mode. Ever since then, it has been the same. Leaders have acted as if the ministerial Mondeos will turn up the next day (Kias and Volvos today), and have gone to the electorate with bland, no-risk policy platforms.

If Scottish Labour want's to climb out of the hole it has dug for itself, it needs to become a radical insurgent party. UK Labour also needs to change as well. I am less focused on personalities than on the need for policy and strategy changes, but there is little in this morning's missives from both Labour leaders to give me much confidence that real change is likely.

Weapons not welfare is poor framing, and so is military Keynesianism

 I was just logging on to make a presentation at a European defence workshop, when Lord George Robertson’s ‘weapons not welfare’ speech broke in the media: "We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget." 

Like many interested in this sector, I wasn’t expecting the attack on government defence spending to come from the man who led the defence review. When you dig into the speech, his focus was on the pace of change and the delay in publishing the 10-year investment fund. As a former Defence Secretary, he clearly recalled his battles with the Treasury, accusing ‘non-military experts in the Treasury’ of ‘vandalism’. The Treasury has long been sceptical about increasing defence spending, not on ideological grounds but on grounds of deliverability. With some justification, they point to poor defence procurement, which is some way short of ‘vandalism’.

On the warfare versus welfare argument, the Chancellor has signalled her unwillingness to raise taxes to fund additional defence spending. She has warned that ‘difficult choices’ are required to increase defence spending, and other budgets may have to be cut, including welfare. Other ministers have been more explicit, including Wes Streeting, the health secretary, who suggested that welfare cuts could be required because it was critical to deal with the ‘challenge of the world we face’. The UK has already cut international development spending to fund additional defence spending, although there is a broader policy shift towards repurposing development aid.

It may sound like a straightforward trade-off, but in public spending terms, it is more complex. Welfare budgets have mandatory elements and can be demand-led, while defence spending is discretionary. In the US, this has been called the ‘Guns and Butter’ economic model. In the UK, defence is part of ‘final’ public expenditure, funding the armed forces’ pay and the weapons and equipment they use. This consumes money that can’t be allocated elsewhere in the budget and consumes a share of national output when the government spends it. In contrast, the welfare budget consists mainly of ‘transfer payments’ that shift income between households. Alan Shipman explains this in more detail.

Tony Benn famously said, “If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people.” This leads to the concept of military Keynesianism, which offers an increasingly tempting way for governments to combine the economics of full employment with the rhetoric of national security. The UK defence review implicitly invokes this to justify defence spending, highlighting the positive impact on jobs and local economies. The European Commission has proposed exempting total defence expenditure from EU fiscal rules for four years. Germany has already begun rearmament by suspending its constitutional debt brake. 

The problem with military Keynesianism is that economic growth in pre-WW2 Germany and the USA was rising before warfare drove military expenditure, and the economic multiplier depends on a range of factors – not least how much is procured in the UK rather than imported. Russia is a war economy, yet it is not benefiting from the technological gains typically associated with a war economy. Research shows that the current state of its military industry is one of regression. Production will likely have to be simplified and slowed over the coming years, while Russia will be forced to accept reduced output quality and will suffer from ‘innovation stagnation’ in its technological research and development.

The UK Government would be wise to rely less on military Keynesianism and instead focus on the most significant threats. Despite the Iran War and the growth of China’s military capacity, Russia remains the primary threat. I have just finished reading If Russia Wins by Carlo Masala. He starts with the scenario of an attack on Narva in Estonia after Ukraine has been forced into a land-for-peace deal by the USA. If this sounds fanciful, the Russian Duma has just passed a law letting Putin deploy troops anywhere on Earth to “protect Russian citizens.” Estonia and Latvia both have large Russian-speaking minorities on Russia’s border. Masala’s scenario highlights the likely impotent response from NATO, given pro-Putin governments in Europe and the USA, and the impact of hybrid warfare. Kristan Stoddart's new book, Russia's Hybrid Warfare Offensive Against the West (de Gruyter, 2025), is worth a read on this. We also need to be less reliant on the USA, which, under the current administration, is an unreliable ally.

It is a simple fact that the UK is unprepared for these threats. As Andrew Neal argues, "The country’s leaders need to spell out what these threats mean for the UK. They must also be honest about our minimal defensive capabilities." War may come whether we like it or not, and being unprepared would be reckless. The UK Government can fairly dismiss the opposition’s attacks, as many of the problems facing the UK armed forces stem from decisions made by the Tories.

Instead, the UK Government should focus on ensuring that the necessary extra spending is well spent. As Richard Norton-Taylor argues, “Mandarins in the Ministry of Defence and successive defence secretaries have failed to confront the armed forces’ top brass – senior military figures who have a vested interested in preserving the status quo and continuing to fighting the last battles, reluctant to accept new geopolitical realities and new technologies.” The defence environment is changing rapidly, as evidenced by Ukraine’s use of drones and robots. It is therefore little wonder that the Treasury is reluctant to agree to the MoD’s demands, including signing off on the defence investment plan.

This requires a radical reform of defence procurement, including training and development. The UK’s defence industry is struggling to attract and retain talent at precisely the moment it could be most needed. Almost half of all engineering and technology businesses in the UK report recruitment difficulties. The UK has an engineering and manufacturing graduate share below competitors such as Germany, Japan, Italy and France. The shortfall is costing the UK economy an estimated £1.5bn annually.

In summary, there is no alternative to additional defence spending to counter real threats to our security. However, 'weapons, not welfare' is poor framing, and so is military Keynesianism. Defence spending also needs to be delivered more effectively, along with a revised industrial strategy. 

Pension Investment Conference

 I spent some time at the Pensions UK Investment conference in Edinburgh this week. I still do some consultancy work in the sector, and I am the Chair of a pension fund investment committee. Held during Trump’s war (sorry, ‘operation’; Have I heard that before somewhere?) against Iran, there were a few nervous delegates. However, pension fund investors take a long-term view, and most funds are in pretty good shape. In particular, the much-derided Defined Benefit (DB) schemes.

It is a busy time for pension schemes, with global volatility driven by Trump’s impact on the global economy before the current conflict, the risk of an AI bubble bursting, and significant changes to pension regulation in the UK.

Responsible investing (ESG) has faced increased scrutiny, especially from political sources in the US. The sector was never fully enthusiastic about it, and many fund managers and benchmarks have a noticeable tendency towards greenwashing. However, if the conflict in Iran teaches us anything, it’s that the push towards Net Zero is fundamentally correct. The more we invest in renewables, the more we enhance our domestic energy security. There was a broad political consensus on this until the Tories and Reform Ltd diverted in a Trumpian direction. At the conference, Caroline Lucas wiped the floor with Michael Gove in a debate; Gove, who was once part of that consensus, offered less-than-convincing reasons for his shift. The conference delegates reaffirmed that pension funds should do more to address climate change. Caroline emphasised that, particularly for young people, it makes no sense to invest in ways that harm the planet.

The pensions minister, Torsten Bell, was the keynote speaker. He has had a longer tenure than most pension ministers (not that’s saying a lot), and long may that continue. He is overseeing the biggest pension reform in a generation, and it is long overdue. He made a strong case for issues such as the consolidation of pension funds and UK investment, as well as the actions the government is taking to support them. The English Local Government Pension Scheme is rapidly consolidating its pooling arrangements. Sadly, the Scottish scheme is not reforming at all. We used to lead the way, but now we are stuck in a rut at the expense of effective investment and costs. The minister was asked about this and gave the tactful reply that devolution should be about learning from each other!

There were a few sessions on UK and place-based pension fund investment. An agenda is progressing in England, but much less so in Scotland. It is vital that more of our pension funds invest in the UK economy, where we live and work. Pursuing global investment returns is fine, but we all want to retire into a functioning economy and communities with a high quality of life. There are many examples of good local investment that also generate decent returns. In fact, overseas pension funds are investing in UK infrastructure, so why can’t we? One example is social and affordable housing, which provides stable, long-term investment opportunities that match the stable returns pension funds seek. I did some work on this with Scottish housing associations, which would be a win-win for them and pension funds. There has been some use of this in Scotland, but nowhere near the scale seen elsewhere. Declaring a housing crisis is all very well, but some action would be better.

It's encouraging to see such a bold pension reform in the UK. Some in the sector advocate for a slower approach, but I would encourage the minister to move more rapidly. I also wish we were as bold in Scotland regarding reserved pension policy.

The Good Society

 I was at an event last year where I was asked to list three books that have most influenced my thinking. One of those was The Spirit Level (2009) by Professor Richard Wilkinson and Professor Kate Pickett. 

The Spirit Level sounded the alarm on the corrosive effects of economic injustice. At a time when only a few academics were exploring this issue, it provided a comprehensive analysis linking the negative effects of inequality to a wide range of social ills. It revolutionised the way we looked at, measured and understood the impacts of inequality. Fifteen years on, its warnings ring truer than ever, exacerbated by years of austerity. The authors have published a report, "The Spirit Level at 15, " which highlights many of these issues.

Kate Pickett has also written a new book, The Good Society, which takes her analysis to the present day.

She starts with a (long) definition of a good society. Essentially, a society where everyone's physical and mental health is as good as it could be, by focusing on levelling inequality. Prevention before cure and ensuring the wellbeing of future generations. If those are not your priorities, you will struggle with this book. She argues that society is not improving because a few people are becoming fabulously rich. Tackling poverty and inequality benefits our society as a whole.

This is a book of two halves, not just because I read it on a long train journey to a football match! The first half outlines the blueprints for a good society, focusing on health, care, education, the environment, and justice. The second half explains how to build a good society.

As you would expect, almost every argument is referenced with evidence, and often illustrated with real-world examples. For example, in the city I was born in, Liverpool, half of the children born in 2009 and 2010 had been referred to children’s services by the time they were five. Many of her facts come from well-resourced, government-commissioned reports, with comprehensive recommendations that are repeatedly scuppered by another election, and put on a shelf to gather dust. A story we know only too well in Scotland, with the Christie Commission being just one pertinent example of this theme. Like The Spirit Level, it draws on international examples to show that another world is possible. 

Her solutions are not simply about income, vital though that is, but about engagement. She suggests participatory budgeting,  citizen assemblies and the strengthening of trade unions, alongside a National Institute for Social Change, for “ongoing proper assessment of the effectiveness of proposed social policies, their cost effectiveness”, so that the “then government could act on those things”. Where I part company with her is on the establishment of 'National' services for everything, unless they are limited to frameworks.

In interviews, Pickett has been critical of the incoming Labour government, "Given their mandate for change, I think they could and should have been bolder and faster.” New reviews are fine "unless they sit on the shelf, gathering dust, like so many other government reviews." It would be hard to disagree with that. Jonathan Portes has criticised the book as a "whistle-stop tour of the greatest hits of progressive social policy." Yes, there could be more depth, but that would make the book unreadable and just another report gathering dust on the shelf. The purpose of a book like this is to educate and inspire. On some of his specific criticisms, such as the evidence on Universal Basic Income, he has a point.

It is inevitable that a follow-up book will not be as influential as the original. However, it is important that the case for tackling inequality is refreshed. And this book does just that.