The men who stare at Jon Ronson

A fake Twitter account satirises a world in thrall to robots.

I'm writing because I have just watched this Jon Ronson video. In it, Ronson tracks down a trio of academics who have created a piece of computer code that samples and mimics some of his stylings, and then tweets nonsense as Jon_Ronson.

Ronson is incensed by this - rightly or wrongly - but his exploration of their motives ends with them revealing themselves as making a postmodern, or perhaps post-ironic (who the hell knows or cares?) statement about the world being in thrall to the decisions of robots.

The video is interesting. I like these people (I don't think Ronson does). I like the way they sit in a row on the sofa and absorb his exasperation. And what's more, they have a point.

In May 2008, I met a very senior mathematician who told me we might be about to encounter a massive financial meltdown. The problem, he said, was that "about 80 per cent of all moves made in financial transactions are the results of decisions taken by black boxes - the dealers just do not know what they are doing any more."

I wrote the story for New Scientist, and - for very boring reasons to do with timing and news pegs - it got spiked. Six months later, we were in the global financial crisis. At least I can say it's not my fault.

The black box models used in financial trading are not some value-free piece of mathematical truth. According to Professor Yuri Manin, now retired, but director of the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn, they stretch the logical truths of mathematics to breaking point.

The accuracy of the computers' analyses of the markets was being taken on trust, he said - especially when dealing with "virtual" commodities such as hedge funds and derivatives.

In scientific disciplines, such as theoretical physics, the performance of such models would be judged on whether they reflect the real-world behaviour of the process being modelled. But the closed nature of the models used for virtual transactions, where nothing is actually bought or sold, means their accuracy is uncheckable: there is no "real world" aspect to the process.

In such systems, the values of commodities can flip wildly, Manin said, growing exponentially or collapsing at the stroke of a key. Because the traders have no idea what the parameters of their models are, they are powerless to stop this happening.

It's the point that Dan O'Hara, a lecturer in literature at Cologne University (and part-time Ronson-baiter), makes in the video. "I want to understand those algorithms, and furthermore I want to help other people understand those algorithms," he says. "I want to make people aware of these... bits of code that are having really important effects on our lives."

Sadly, if no one listened to a professor of mathematics, who will listen to a lecturer in literature? Really, though, it doesn't matter: as long as it remains acceptable for traders to gamble away other people's pensions in games whose rules they don't even understand, someone's got to keep shouting. Sorry, Jon. But you'll probably get over it.

Michael Brooks's "Free Radicals: the Secret Anarchy of Science" is published by Profile Books (£12.99)

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange minutes after the Federal Reserve announcement. Photograph: Getty Images.

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At The Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science By Surprise.

Chuka Umunna speaks at the launch of Labour's education manifesto during the general election. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

After so badly misjudging the leadership contest, how will the Blairites handle Corbyn?

The left-winger's opponents are divided between conciliation and aggression. 

When Labour lost the general election in May, the party’s modernisers sensed an opportunity. Ed Miliband, one of the most left-wing members of the shadow cabinet, had been unambiguously rejected and the Tories had achieved their first majority in 23 years. More than any other section of the party, the Blairites could claim to have foreseen such an outcome. Surely the pendulum would swing their way?

Yet now, as Labour’s leadership contest reaches its denouement, those on the right are asking themselves how they misjudged the landscape so badly. Their chosen candidate, Liz Kendall, is expected to finish a poor fourth and the party is poised to elect Jeremy Corbyn, the most left-wing leader in its 115-year history. For a faction that never ceases to underline the importance of winning elections, it will be a humbling result.

Though the crash has been sudden, the Blairites have long been in decline. Gordon Brown won the leadership unchallenged and senior figures such as John Reid, James Purnell and Alan Milburn chose to depart from the stage rather than fight on. In 2010, David Miliband, the front-runner in the leadership election, lost to his brother after stubbornly refusing to distance himself from the Iraq war and alienating undecided MPs with his imperiousness.

When the younger Miliband lost, the modernisers moved fast – too fast. “They’re behaving like family members taking jewellery off a corpse,” a rival campaign source told me on 9 May. Many Labour supporters agreed. The rush of op-eds and media interviews antagonised a membership that wanted to grieve in peace. The modernising contenders – Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, Mary Creagh, Tristram Hunt – gave the impression that the Blairites wanted to drown out all other voices. “It was a huge mistake for so many players from that wing of the party to be put into the field,” a shadow cabinet minister told me. “In 1994, forces from the soft left to the modernising right united around Tony Blair. The lesson is never again can we have multiple candidates.”

While conducting their post-mortem, the Blairites are grappling with the question of how to handle Corbyn. For some, the answer is simple. “There shouldn’t be an accommodation with Corbyn,” John McTernan, Blair’s former director of political operations, told me. “Corbyn is a disaster and he should be allowed to be his own disaster.” But most now adopt a more conciliatory tone. John Woodcock, the chair of Progress, told me: “If he wins, he will be the democratically elected leader and I don’t think there will be any serious attempt to actually depose him or to make it impossible for him to lead.”

Umunna, who earlier rebuked his party for “behaving like a petulant child”, has emphasised that MPs “must accept the result of our contest when it comes and support our new leader in developing an agenda that can return Labour to office”. The shadow business secretary even suggests that he would be prepared to discuss serving in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet if he changed his stances on issues such as nuclear disarmament, Nato, the EU and taxation. Were Umunna, a former leadership contender, to adopt a policy of aggression, he would risk being blamed should Corbyn fail.

Suggestions that the new parliamentary group Labour for the Common Good represents “the resistance” are therefore derided by those close to it. The organisation, which was launched by Umunna and Hunt before Corbyn’s surge, is aimed instead at ensuring the intellectual renewal that modernisers acknowledge has been absent since 2007. It will also try to unite the party’s disparate mainstream factions: the Blairites, the Brownites, the soft left, the old right and Blue Labour. The ascent of Corbyn, who has the declared support of just 15 MPs (6.5 per cent of the party), has persuaded many that they cannot afford the narcissism of small differences. “We need to start working together and not knocking lumps out of each other,” Woodcock says. There will be no defections, no SDP Mk II. “Jeremy’s supporters really underestimate how Labour to the core the modernisers are,” Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, told me.

Although they will not change their party, the Blairites are also not prepared to change their views. “Those of us on this side of Labour are always accused of being willing to sell out for power,” a senior moderniser told me. “Well, we do have political principles and they’re not up for bartering.” He continued: “Jeremy Corbyn is not a moderate . . .
He’s an unreconstructed Bennite who regards the British army as morally equivalent to the IRA. I’m not working with that.”

Most MPs believe that Corbyn will fail but they are divided on when. McFadden has predicted that the left-winger “may even get a poll bounce in the short term, because he’s new and thinking differently”. A member of the shadow cabinet suggested that Labour could eventually fall to as low as 15 per cent in the polls and lose hundreds of councillors.

The challenge for the Blairites is to reboot themselves in time to appear to be an attractive alternative if and when Corbyn falters. Some draw hope from the performance of Tessa Jowell, who they still believe will win the London mayoral selection. “I’ve spoken to people who are voting enthusiastically both for Jeremy and for Tessa,” Wes Streeting, the newly elected MP for Ilford North, said. “They have both run very optimistic, hopeful, positive campaigns.”

But if Corbyn falls, it does not follow that the modernisers will rise. “The question is: how do we stop it happening again if he does go?” a senior frontbencher said. “He’s got no interest or incentive to change the voting method. We could lose nurse and end up with something worse.” If the road back to power is long for Labour, it is longest of all for the Blairites. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 03 September 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Pope of the masses