The Monthly Digest - Edition 1

Updates, links and recommendations

Update

When we decided to launch this substack at Christmas we had no idea what to expect. But the reaction to it has been very encouraging. In turn that has motivated both of us to write more for it than we were initially planning (not that either of us need much motivation to write). We also had a bit of luck in that there are simultaneously massive domestic and international stories which have provided plenty of material, though I have tried to stick to the plan of writing some pieces that look beyond the immediate news agenda (e.g. on who to trust on covid; and the mental health impact of social media).

Doing it together has been a definite plus. I think we’ve had more conversations over the past month than at any point since I was a student making regular requests for cash. It also provides some level of quality control, which is something that had put me off doing one by myself. We’ve both had pieces “spiked” by the other. Though I, in particular, still need to work on the proof reading.

The biggest challenge has been to work out the right balance between free and paid for content. There are differing views about this across the substack world. Some successful American substackers like Judd Legum and Freddie deBoer send out almost everything free and ask for payment as support for their work. Others make everything paid only. We’ve settled on around 50/50 for now to try and get the balance right between building an audience and paying for our time.

But we’d be keen to get feedback in the comments or by email. If you’re a free subscriber what (if anything) would convince you to pay? If you’re paying what are you expecting to get from us? What kind of things would you like us to write about? (I’ve shared some of my ideas for future pieces in my choice of links below). In the meantime thank you very much to those of you who have subscribed, it’s hugely appreciated.

Recommended Links from January (from Sam)

Are Knowledgeable Voters Better Voters? – This paper by a philosopher at Nottingham University takes a fascinating look at an issue I first started thinking about after Brexit. Many people assume that highly educated people are “better” at making political decisions. But they tend to be, on average, much more partisan and partisan identity makes for worse decisions. This paper looks at that tension and suggests we’d be more likely to improve politics by focusing on emphasising intellectual virtues like open-mindedness and humility rather than simply providing information which can then be cherry-picked.   

Which Country Has the World’s Best Health Care? – Another brilliant overview from my favourite substacker Scott Alexander. Which incidentally raises one of the biggest long-term questions in British politics: when are we going to acknowledge the NHS doesn’t actually work very well? Politicians are, rationally, terrified of broaching the topic and all have to pretend it’s The Great British Success Story. But outcomes are considerably worse than countries, like Germany and Holland, with other systems that still offer universal coverage. I want to write more about this and am in the process of trying to educate myself on comparative health policy so would be very grateful for any suggestions in the comments on what else to read.

David Runciman on Dominic Cummings – There have been numerous profiles of Cummings but this is by far the best. It’s remarkably insightful for someone who, as far as I can tell, has never met him. But then Dominic never really tries to hide his true character. I’ve held off writing much about working with him (though I have done a couple of interviews and an Evening Standard diary piece). But I do have an idea forming about the biggest conceptual error in Cummings’ thinking about policy, that people matter more than institutions, which may get an airing next month.

Change in the UK labour market and the role of worker mobility – OK I appreciate this Resolution Foundation report does not, at first glance, sound thrilling. But it completely refutes one of the standard narratives of our time that the labour market is a state of dramatic flux due to automation and so on. In fact occupational shifts between sectors is slowing down. So much for the “jobs of the future” that drives a lot of nonsense thinking in the education debate.

The BBC is heading into a death spiral – This one, from James O’Malley whose substack is both free and excellent, isn’t from this month but is relevant because of the licence fee debate resurfacing. James, like me, is a big fan of the BBC but its problems are real, not simply a figment of Nadine Dorries’ overactive imagination. I can see this with my twins who have zero engagement with the BBC and spend all their allotted screen time on computer games and YouTube. His follow-up piece on solutions is also very thought-provoking. As is Stephen Bush’s piece on the politics of the licence fee debate.

The Rise and Fall of Civilisations: A Reader Course – I love a reading list and this from Tanner Greer had a bunch of stuff that I hadn’t heard of before as well as books I’ve found very valuable in understanding “big history”.

Recommended Links on Ukraine (from Lawrence)

There has been intense discussion on what Putin is up to with Ukraine. I have addressed these in a couple of substack pieces and will no doubt return. I am on the more sceptical side of the debate. It would be unwise to assume that Russia has moved all those troops into position with no intent to use them but none of the options look particularly promising for Putin. We may have moved into a diplomatic phase. All this will need to be watched carefully over the coming weeks.

These links are suggested more to give a sense of the range of analysis available. They are all from serious people.

Michael Kofman has been leading the warnings on Russian intentions. This is a very informed and sophisticated analysis although it is still unclear how the military moves described yield the political benefits sought.

Another American analysis that assumes Putin will do something although in this case such as more limited operation.

Fellow north-easterner and former US official Fiona Hill provides insight into Putin’s thinking

A Russian perspective from Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Centre

Leonid Ragozin goes over the top in complaining that the US and UK are manufacturing an unnecessary crisis but an interesting corrective to more hawkish views, with an interesting Ukrainian slant.

This piece by Jim Goldgeier is from 2019 but is a helpful analysis of the arguments about NATO expansion.

Mark Galeotti expresses doubts about the UK/US intelligence assessment about Russian plots to install a puppet government in Kyiv.

Book of the Month

Sam recommends “Winds of Change” by Peter Hennessy – the third book in Hennessy’s series on postwar Britain covers 1960-63 with a heavy focus on Harold Macmillan and his struggles with EEC membership, America over nuclear weapons, and the Profumo scandal. It’s wonderful, old-fashioned, political history, not judgemental or preachy and giving rounded pictures of the main characters. This series should be read alongside David Kynaston’s brilliant “New Jerusalem” books which cover the same period (and has just reached 1962) but with more focus on social and cultural trends.  

Lawrence recommends “Master of the Game: Henry Kissinger and the Art of Middle East Diplomacy” by Martin Indyk. This is a fascinating account of how Kissinger engaged with Israel, Arab and Syria during and after the 1973 war to get them to disengage their forces. It is made more interesting by Indyk’s own role as an American diplomat who worked on Arab-Israeli issues. I reviewed it here.