Has Digg come up with the next Google Reader?

Struggling to replace Google's "most useful tool".

With Google Reader now just two weeks away from being smothered with a virtual pillow by the powers that be at the world's biggest media company, Digg may be coming to the rescue with an alternative.

Social Media site Digg says it has a five-person development team working on a "freemium" alternative (meaning presumably that it will ultimately have some paid-for elements).

The new reader is due to launch on 26 June and will, Digg says offer the following:

  • Easy migration and onboarding from Google Reader.
  • A clean reading experience that gets out of the way and puts the focus squarely on the articles, posts, images, and videos themselves.
  • Useful mobile apps that sync with the web experience.
  • Support for key actions like subscribing, sharing, saving and organizing.

It sounds perfect, so lets hope it works. As Jon Bernstein noted a few months ago, Google Reader is - for many journalists - Google's most useful tool.

For many, Twitter has replaced the RSS reader. And it is certainly true that Twitter is a much better place to go for breaking news because it disseminates stories before they have been turned  into polished prose.

But RSS readers remain for many - myself included - an essential way to keep tabs on the news agenda.

So far I have yet to find a replacement for Google Reader which is anything like as good. Feedly and Flipboard are the two sites which seem to be most widely cited as Google Reader replacements but I find both over-designed and cumbersome compared with the streamlined effortless efficiency of Google Reader (which I mainly use as a widget which sits on my phone).

Here's hoping that Digg's new service fits the bill. In the mean time, can anyone recommend another Google Reader replacement which is as simple and effective as the original?

Google HQ. Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.