James Ball | The Spectator columnists & writers

Brexit isn’t to blame for sewage dumping at sea

Facing inflation rates in excess of 18 per cent, a painful recession, and the prospect of electricity bills costing more than a mortgage, the UK’s troubles are mounting. But weighing on our minds almost as much is the fact that we seem to be pumping unprecedented levels of sewage into the sea. This would be far from ideal – to say the least – at any time of year, but coming in the peak of August, just as families are out trying to enjoy the beach, the issue is understandably hitting home. But while it’s true that there have been days of huge sewage discharge into the sea, there has also been an awful lot of garbage talked as to why it’s happening. This has all helped to fuel the social media narrative and keep the issue so near the top of the political agenda.

The Edition

Blue Murder

47 min listen

The Edition

Blue Murder

47 min listen

In this week’s episode:The knives are out in the Tory leadership fight, who looks likely to make the final two?Fraser Nelson writes this week’s cover piece about the Tory leadership race. He’s joined by the Telegraph’s Allison Pearson (0.49).Also this week:Mary Wakefield challenges Stonewall's guidelines for parents with trans children. One of these parents is Tammy Plunkett, a former nurse, life coach and author of Beyond Pronouns (21.43).And finally: James Ball reviews Matthew Ball’s The Metaverse: And How It Will Revolutionise Everything for the magazine this week. He is joined by Sid Venkataramakrishnan from the Financial Times to discuss the future of the Metaverse (36.21)Hosted by Lara Prendergast & William MooreProduced by Natasha FerozeSubscribe to The Spectator today and get a £20 Amazon gift voucher: www.

What is the metaverse, actually?

There is a concept in tech and innovation – branded by an expensive consultancy company, naturally – known as the Gartner Hype Cycle. Any innovation, be it NFTs (a means of owning ‘unique’ digital art), blockchains (the technology powering crypto-currencies like bitcoin), self-driving cars or wearable tech, will go through distinct (buzzword-heavy) stages before it is adopted by the mainstream. First, it will head to a ‘peak of inflated expectations’, before entering the ‘trough of disillusionment’. As people then work out what the tech might actually deliver it climbs the ‘slope of enlightenment’ to the ‘plateau of productivity’. It’s an idea that definitely fits lots of the technologies that we use today – think of the mobile internet, for example.

Will there ever be a reliable lie detector?

For as long as we have been human we have looked for some way of telling when we are being told the truth. We tried dunking witches, only to find that buoyancy is not connected to the supernatural. We tried torture, but discovered that people will eventually say just about anything to make it stop. We experimented with scopolamine and sodium pentathol, to learn that ‘truth serums’ do little more than make their targets susceptible to suggestion. And we’re still trying – with scientists pushing MRI scans and ECGs alongside AI as a ‘brain fingerprinting’ technique. The jury is out as to whether the latest ideas will prove any more reliable than those that went before. It was investigating brain fingerprinting that prompted Amit Katwala, a senior contributor to WIRED, to write Tremors in the Blood – named for the 1730 quote from the novelist and spy Daniel Defoe, who believed guilt always caused such a tremble.

Russia had nothing to do with Brexit

In light of Russia’s abhorrent invasion of Ukraine, certain corners of the internet have become obsessed – yet again – with Russia’s supposed involvement in the 2016 Brexit referendum. The connections are always left necessarily tenuous: there is very little in the way of logical reasoning that could really connect the two. Plenty of pro-Brexit figures have been hawkish on Russia since long before the 2016 referendum. Plenty of liberal remainers have, intentionally or not, acted as apologists to Russian wrongdoing. There is nothing to suggest Brexit enhanced Russia’s ability to invade Ukraine, either. The EU is not Europe’s primary security alliance, Nato is. And while the UK can be accused of falling woefully short when it comes to refugees and sanctions, it has always been one of the leading countries in supplying weaponry and training to Ukraine – as Ukraine’s president Zelensky has said on multiple occasions.

What motivates Peter Thiel apart from the desire for more wealth?

If you’ve only heard one thing about Peter Thiel (and many have heard nothing at all) it is that he is a believer in the power of young blood. The tech multibillionaire and founding investor of the surveillance company Palantir is a public advocate of parabiosis, an experimental field of biology investigating whether transfusions of blood from young people to older ones can stall or even reverse ageing. Rumours that Thiel himself has received such transfusions have persisted for years. When asked about them directly in a rare interview, he replied simply: ‘I’m not a vampire.’ Max Chafkin’s The Contrarian makes for deeply uncomfortable reading. This meticulous biography of big tech’s leading conservative figure (Thiel was a prominent Trump backer, and spoke at the 2016 Republican convention) is full of moments that would startle those with the hardiest constitutions.

Priti Patel’s war on encryption is doomed

The modern world has an unfortunate habit of making life difficult for those working to keep us safe. For the police, security services and others, so many inventions seem to be created just to make it more difficult for them to see who’s up to no good. Take envelopes, for one. Envelopes make it much fiddlier to see what’s in the letters we send to one another – and they could show anything: that envelope could contain financial fraud, revenge porn, or even be plotting a murder. What is it hiding? Modern Britain is unreasonable to state snoopers in so many other ways too. Inconsiderately we put locks on our doors, with no regard for how much more difficult this will make things if the authorities need to get into our home.

TikTok intifada: the role of new media in old conflicts

In Israel last month, a video on the social media platform TikTok encouraged users to film themselves assaulting Orthodox Jews. That video became a spark that ignited outrage across the country. A band of Jewish extremists, Lehava, organised a march in response. They clashed with Arab groups at Damascus Gate. In a situation that was already a tinderbox, things escalated from there. Why did it happen? Why would any ordinary person get pleasure from assault? ‘There is a competition for likes and views,’ a 15-year-old victim told an Israeli news organisation. ‘A video of an Arab slapping an ultra-Orthodox man will get you both.’ A violent riot set off by teenage longing for likes. Welcome to the TikTokisation of global politics.

The Edition

TikTok intifada: what’s the role of new media in old conflicts?

34 min listen

The Edition

TikTok intifada: what’s the role of new media in old conflicts?

34 min listen

Life on Earth is too tame for eccentric American billionaires

For many of us, Elon Musk is a hard man to like. He’s the richest man in the world (or second richest, as he and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos whirr back and forth in top spot), but acts online like a bratty teenager astonished by his own intelligence. He proposes underground tunnel networks as a transport solution for Miami (which is a swamp less than 10ft above sea level), moots takeovers of his companies with 420-themed weed jokes and hypes cryptocurrencies. Yet as you read Liftoff you can see what so many people find to admire in the man — at least for a while. The story of SpaceX’s early days is an extraordinary one, of a company started with $100 million of the money Musk made from his previous start-up, PayPal (from which he had been ousted as CEO), and which everyone wrote off as the vanity project of an eccentric dotcom millionaire.

Cashing in on Covid: the traders who thrive on a crisis

When we think of those lurching moments last spring when it became clear that much of the world, not just one or two regions, would grind to a halt, for most of us it is anything but a fond memory. But the traders of Glencore probably remember the time differently: they saw it as an unprecedented opportunity to cash in. Anticipating a global slowdown, they bought up all the space they could to store oil, including tankers capable of holding 3.2 million barrels. When the markets caught up with the scale of the pandemic, the price of oil dropped to zero and below, and in they swooped. They took the oil for free, stored it at sea, and sold it a few months later. While we worried about our livelihoods, Glencore’s traders made $1.

The Edition

Papers please: what will immunity passports look like?

40 min listen

The Edition

Papers please: what will immunity passports look like?

40 min listen

On this week's episode, we talk vaccine passports (1:10), Nord Stream 2 (14:55) and the appeal of chess (30:50).With entrepreneur Louis-James Davis, journalist James Ball, analyst Wolfgang Münchau, academic Kadri Liik, chess columnist Luke McShane and chess streamer Fiona Steil-Antoni.

The problem with ‘immunity passports’

Just a few months ago it was not certain that we would find a vaccine for Covid-19. Now, we have three, with potentially more on the way — and the rollout of the Pfizer jab due to begin next week. It’s an extraordinary achievement for the research community, our best hope of restoring normal life and a bloody relief after a year of disappointments. But the government, at least, should beware of geeks bearing gifts. To get us to herd immunity, they have to persuade somewhere between 60 per cent to 90 per cent of us to get vaccinated. You can see Boris Johnson’s problem. If he makes vaccination completely voluntary, we may never hit the target we need for herd immunity. It’s not just anti-vaxxers. Some people who are usually amenable to vaccines will worry about a ‘rushed’ new one, and fear that the speed of its development means corners were cut.

The EU’s muddled approach to encryption

The EU would like you to know that it doesn’t want to ban encryption. In fact, it correctly recognises that encryption is absolutely essential for our privacy and financial safety on the internet. That’s why a draft resolution – due to be tabled in front of EU leaders at a pivotal summit later this month – spends paragraphs extolling the virtues of online encryption, before setting out the EU’s complaint: they would really like to be able to read encrypted messages. And they want technology companies to do something about it. On the surface, the EU’s argument might seem quite reasonable: most of us would generally believe that with warrants or similar safeguards, authorities should be able to read the messages of serious criminals or terrorists.

The real story of Cambridge Analytica and Brexit

In July 2018, Elizabeth Denham – the woman in charge of enforcing the UK’s laws on data protection – appeared on the Today programme, and made a stark allegation. 'In 2014 and 2015, the Facebook platform allowed an app… that ended up harvesting 87 million profiles of users around the world that was then used by Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 presidential campaign and in the referendum,' she told the show’s seven million listeners. The UK’s Information Commissioner – who is in charge of enforcing data protection rules – Elizabeth Denham, said this as she announced her intention to fine Facebook £500,000 for its role in failing to protect users’ data. She had provided an apparently pithy summary of what’s often referred to – in the UK at least – as 'the Cambridge Analytica scandal', or the 'Vote Leave' scandal has led UK newspapers and bulletins week after week, led to parliamentary investigations, the biggest ever regulatory investigation by the UK’s data watchdog, criminal inquiries, and more.

The Russia report proves it – Britain’s spies have failed

As the long-overdue intelligence and security committee report into Russian interference in the UK is finally published – after a needless and politicised delay – most eyes are (rightly) focused on claims around Brexit, Russian infiltration of the British establishment and killings on UK soil. But there’s a section of the report that, while less immediately startling, must not be missed and it comes as the report discusses potential threats to UK elections, referendums and our broader political process. There’s some reassurance in the fact that our low-tech election system, which is still primarily based on manually counting paper ballots marked by pencil (or pens, if you bring your own), is remarkably hard to hack directly.

Sunak’s Job Retention Bonus is a catastrophe

Such is the polarised state of the UK in 2020 that to unite the policy wonks of the left and the right a government policy must be either magnificent, or magnificently stupid. Unfortunately for the otherwise fêted chancellor Rishi Sunak, his policy to encourage companies to keep their furloughed workers in employment has managed to fall into the second category. Like many truly stupid policies, the Job Retention Bonus sounds quite sensible when it’s first set out: for every furloughed employee who is brought back to work and who still has a job by the end of January 2021, the government will pay the company that employs them a £1,000 bonus. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable – why not reward companies for sticking with their workers? If a business is struggling, making it a bit more financially viable to keep someone in a job seems a good deal all round.

Unplugging Huawei will be harder than it looks

There is nothing some Conservatives like talking about more than Huawei. Each new development in global politics is a new chance to talk about the Chinese telecoms giant and the rollout of 5G. China and the US having a trade row? Huawei. Coronavirus originating in China? Huawei. The day of the week rhymes with Huawei? Perfect. Reports of a new review by the UK's National Cyber-Security Centre (NCSC) on Huawei and security have, then, found a welcome audience among Conservatives looking for an excuse to pull the plug. But even the new NCSC review shows things are more complicated than they first appear: the agency is warning that US sanctions on Huawei might force the UK to use insecure third-party replacement spare parts, making it a security risk.

Anatomy of a fiasco: how Britain’s pandemic defences failed

In October, a panel of 21 experts from across the world gathered for the first of what promised to be a series of reports assessing readiness for pandemics. ‘Infectious diseases know no borders,’ warned the Global Health Security Index. ‘So all countries must prioritise and exercise the capabilities required to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to public health emergencies.’ Every country was called to be transparent about its capabilities ‘to assure neighbours it can stop an outbreak from becoming an international catastrophe’. Two countries were held up as the best examples: Britain and the United States. If a league table were drawn up of countries that most failed to contain Covid deaths, the US and the UK would be pretty near the top.

The UK isn’t taking the risk of contact tracing fraud seriously

Experts have a get-out clause of which politicians can only dream when they are speaking from the podium at press briefings. While ministers are expected to be able to answer questions on any matter, there and then, and have details at their fingertips, advisors can escape most tricky questions with a simple few words: that’s outside my area of expertise. That makes it all the more baffling that when asked by journalists about the risk of fraudsters exploiting the government’s new track and trace system, not one, but two deputy chief medical officers decided to comment and belittle the risks involved. Deputy chief medical officer Dr Jenny Harries was particularly sanguine. ‘I think it will be very obvious in the conversation you have with them that they are genuine in that regard,’ she told journalists and the viewing public.

Britain’s contact tracing conundrum

If there is hope, it lies in contact tracing. The countries that have successfully managed Covid-19 outbreaks and reopened without second peaks (at least so far) have done so through extensive track and trace infrastructure to prevent recurring outbreaks, sometimes after instituting general lockdown. The UK plan is no different: for weeks, ministers have been talking up efforts to build a UK infrastructure to handle the difficult task of rapidly testing every suspected case of Covid-19, and then quickly contacting everyone they may have recently come into contact with, and testing them too. The effects of these efforts where they work can be dramatic: South Korea had a recent outbreak caused by a single individual going to a series of nightclubs, which could have led to a second peak – but contact tracers found more than 5,000 individuals and managed to isolate more than 30 people infected by the super-spreader.

The R-number – and the danger of false certainty

Not much about Boris Johnson's Sunday night television address was clear. The one definite new measure – one which will shape coverage for weeks to come – is the UK's new ‘COVID Alert Level’, a five-stage measure that the prime minister said would be determined primarily by ‘the R’ – the rate at which the virus grows. There's just one problem with that. It’s a figure few people think we have any real ability to track day-to-day. In making its decisions, the government has very little scope for error: it knows lockdown comes at a huge economic toll. But it also knows that spotting a rise in cases just a few days too late could end in calamity, if it lifts restrictions too early. The R number was presented as a solution to that, something whose precise measurement will determine government policy.

Can we trust Neil Ferguson’s computer code?

Newspapers aren’t the place to debate expert advice on a crisis. Advisors advise, ministers decide. We should keep politics out of science. These three cries – and numerous variations upon them – have become common refrains as the UK’s increasingly fractious debate on the lockdown, the science behind it, and the best way to lift its various restrictions rolls on. At first, they sound completely reasonable and unarguable: people are stepping up to the plate to help the government make life-or-death decisions in a time of crisis. That’s an admirable thing to do. What’s more, they’re doing it with years of expertise in their field behind them. Of course we should leave them to their work, and let them help guide our course.

The perverse world of immunity passports

Usually, if a government is reported to be working on a new policy reliant on sweeping new – largely untested – surveillance technology, we’re in the world of sci-fi or dystopias. At a minimum, we would expect the rollout of state surveillance to be the central issue at play, the focus of debate and objections, at the heart of a major national conversation. It says a lot, then, that even for many of us concerned about civil liberties, that when it comes to so-called 'immunity passports' these concerns – though serious – are largely secondary. That’s how significant an issue such a document could become. The moment that possession of a document saying a person has had Covid-19, or has gained immunity to it in some other way, grants its owner some form of significant freedom that others are denied, the world changes.

The price of oil just hit $0 a barrel. What’s going on?

If you’ve ever wanted to own a barrel of oil, today might be your lucky day – for the first time in modern history, there are traders across the world who’ll let you have it for free. On Monday evening the price of oil futures plummeted, with one key oil price in the USA hitting $0 per barrel shortly after 7pm UK time. It sounds unbelievable – and illogical. Why go to such great efforts to extract oil, which was selling for $60 a barrel just three months ago – only to give it away for free? How did we get here?The collapse in the world economy has led to a collapse in demand for oil, and pretty big problems for those who are trying to sell it. Oil doesn’t work like a share in a company – it’s not something you can just hold on to, waiting for the right sale price.

Modelling coronavirus is an imperfect science

We don’t know if our model for estimating immigration into the United Kingdom works. It’s a long-standing dataset, produced by the Office for National Statistics – one of the best at what it does in the world. The model measures people entering and leaving the UK, something tracked at ports and airports. It’s a model of high political interest and concern. And despite all of that, we’re still not sure it’s good enough to be classed as a gold-standard ‘national statistic’. In the modern era, almost any number we ‘know’ – be it population, immigration, unemployment, inflation, or GDP – is actually an estimate produced by complicated statistical modelling. Coronavirus is no exception. The decisions currently being made by the UK government on our response to the virus, which have potentially seismic impacts, are being informed by advanced modelling.

Don’t be deceived by Covid stats – we know a lot less than the numbers suggest

There is a concept at least as old as computing itself — Charles Babbage, the father of the field, expressed the sentiment, if not the words themselves — ‘garbage in, garbage out’. The idea is not a complicated one: no matter how advanced the calculation machine, no matter how good the statistical model, no matter how intricate the formulae, if the data on the way in isn’t reliable, the calculation that comes out will be suspect at best — and is liable to be outright wrong. We are regularly told that figures for economic growth were wrong and have to be dramatically revised. So what hope do we have of predicting coronavirus? There is no reason to doubt either the skill or the dedication of the academics working to produce figures and forecasts to shape the response to the virus.

We Remainers need to stop trying to convince ourselves the referendum was stolen

Anyone looking at the Independent’s front page the other day – or at least its electronic mock-up, made primarily for social media and TV paper reviews – will have seen a bombshell of a headline: 'Illegal Facebook spending "won 2016 vote for Leave”'. That’s a seismic claim if it can be confirmed: the once-in-a-generation vote to leave the EU was won through what we now know was an illegal overspend of £500,000 or so. Except the Independent adopted an old newspaper trick: the biggest news is in quotes, suggesting that it’s not the newspaper claiming it, but rather someone else. At first, that someone looks credible. It is from a witness statement submitted to the high court by Professor Philip Howard, the director of the respected Oxford Internet Institute.

Pandora’s Box

On 25 April 2005, Jawed Karim sent an email to his friends announcing the launch of a new video site — intended for dating — called youtube.com. Within 18 months, the site was being used to view 100 million videos a day. Last year it had more than a billion users, watching five billion videos every day, with creators uploading 300 hours of video to YouTube every minute. Given this almost incomprehensible scale, it’s fitting that the word Videocracy — the title of YouTube Head of Trends Kevin Allocca’s history of the site — evokes the idea of an authoritarian dystopia. Like any approved account from such a regime, its analysis never strays far from the realms of the vapid or tepid. YouTube, and the democratising wave of social network websites that rose alongside it, has had many positive influences on the world, which Videocracy describes at length, if joylessly: creators could bypass middlemen and gatekeepers; remix culture could flourish as an artform in its own right; and people with niche interests that would never be served through mainstream television could find something to please them.

Wednesday

Thursday

Wednesday

Thursday

Wednesday

Thursday

Monday

Thursday

Thursday

Thursday

Thursday

Thursday

Thursday

Sunday

Tuesday

Thursday

Tuesday

Thursday

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Friday

Monday

Monday

Saturday

Saturday

Saturday

Thursday