Nigerian security forces shoot at protesters in Lagos

Unrest has spread across African nation since early October as people protest against police brutality

Demonstrators hold hands as they gather near the Lagos State House, despite a round-the-clock curfew imposed by the authorities on the Nigerian state of Lagos in response to protests against alleged police brutality, Nigeria October 20, 2020. REUTERS

Nigerian security forces opened fire on a protest site in Lagos, intensifying violence before a 24-hour lockdown was imposed to quell rallies against police brutality.

At least three people died in the shooting, local media reported.

Demonstrations that began on October 5 have continued despite the government dissolving a police unit that has been accused of a brutal crackdown on protesters.

Thousands of mainly young people have taken to the streets of the capital Abuja, the economic centre of Lagos, and other towns, sealing off major roads and bridges, disrupting flights and bringing businesses to a standstill.

Hours before the shots were fired, the Governor of Lagos state imposed a curfew to try to quell disruptions in a region that is home to more than 22 million people.

The city also holds the headquarters of Nigeria’s biggest banks and other companies.

The southern Edo state took a similar move on Monday, after hundreds of inmates took advantage of a chaotic rally to stage a prison break.

The Lagos lockdown began after two police stations were burnt and a major motorway linking the city to the northern and south-eastern parts of the country was sealed off.

In Abuja, soldiers dispersed protesters who had gathered in parts of the city.

In the north-western Kano state, witnesses said at least two women were killed, cars were burnt and buildings were vandalised after armed men attacked demonstrators.

State police commissioner Habu Sani said the rally turned violent and five people had been hurt before calm was restored, but claimed no fatalities had been reported.

Authorities declared a 24-hour curfew in Nigeria's economic hub Lagos on October 20, 2020, as violence flared in widespread protests that have rocked cities across the country. AFP

Earlier, police Insp-Gen Mohammed Adamu ordered anti-riot police be sent in to protect lives and property.

The demonstrations have cost an estimated 700 billion naira ($1.8bn) in lost output so far, according to the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

It called for grievances to be addressed through dialogue, and for an end to the marches and street blockades that have spread to about half of the nation’s 36 states.

“Over the past 12 days, economic activities have been crippled in most parts of the country,” the chamber said.

“There is a great risk that the situation may degenerate into a case of the complete breakdown of law and order.”

Nigeria’s oil industry, the mainstay of the economy, has been unaffected and yields on the nation’s dollar bonds have risen since protests began, indicating that investors are not unduly concerned.

The fallout will worsen if the unrest drags on and violence intensifies, said Mosope Arubayi, chief economist at Vetiva Capital in Lagos.

“Locals could be scared to go to work and foreigners will fear for the security of their investment,” Mr Arubayi said.

“This will have a dire impact on the level of economic activity in the country and existing foreign investors could start exiting their position in the capital market.”

The unrest has weighed on insurance companies, the shares of which accounted for three of the five biggest declines on the Nigerian Stock Exchange on Tuesday.

An industry index fell 1.2 per cent, the most in a week.

While the government has issued a directive to its security forces not to use violence, Amnesty International accused the police of continuing to use excessive force.

Three people were killed during clashes that erupted during a march in Abuja on Monday, bringing the toll so far to 18, Amnesty said on Twitter.

Most previous uprisings in Nigeria have been quashed by the security forces.

The size of the current protests, and the fact that they have been organised on social media and have no clear leaders, have made them difficult to calm.


Updated: October 21, 2020 01:53 AM

US welcomes Russian offer to extend nuclear pact by a year

The demise of the treaty would lift all remaining restraints on deployments of strategic nuclear warheads.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin takes part in a video conference call with members of the Security Council in Moscow, Russia [Sputnik/Alexei Druzhinin/Kremlin via Reuters]

20 Oct 2020

The last US-Russia strategic nuclear arms control pact appeared on track to win a one-year extension, as Washington on Tuesday welcomed a proposal by Moscow for such an extension if both sides freeze all nuclear warhead deployments for that period.

The apparent breakthrough, coming after months of difficult talks and two weeks before the United States presidential election, appeared to narrow the gap between the sides over the fate of the 2010 New START agreement, which is due to expire in February.

The demise of the treaty would lift all remaining restraints on deployments of strategic nuclear warheads and the missiles and bombers that carry them, fuelling a post-Cold War arms race between the world’s largest nuclear weapons powers.

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signing the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) at Prague Castle in Prague on April 8, 2010 [File: Jason Reed/Reuters]The US last week rejected a Russian offer to unconditionally extend the pact for one year, saying that any proposal that did not envisage freezing all nuclear warheads – both strategic and tactical – was a “non-starter”.

But a statement published by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday suggested that the two countries’ positions had moved closer.

“Russia is proposing to extend New START by one year and is ready together with the United States to make a political commitment to ‘freeze’ the number of nuclear warheads held by the parties for this period,” it said.

State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus welcomed the Russian offer, saying in a statement that the United States appreciated Russia’s “willingness to make progress on the issue of nuclear arms control.”

“The United States is prepared to meet immediately to finalize a verifiable agreement. We expect Russia to empower its diplomats to do the same,” she said.

Her statement highlighted one of several questions the sides would have to resolve to pave the way to a one-year New START extension: how they would verify that the other was adhering to the warhead deployment freeze.

US State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus during a press conference at the State Department in Washington, US [Mangel Ngan/Pool via Reuters]The treaty can be extended for up to five years beyond its February 5 expiration with the agreement of the US and Russian presidents.

Extending the pact would mark a rare bright spot in the fraught relationship between the two countries. Failure to do so would remove the main pillar maintaining the nuclear balance between them and add yet another element of tension.

The Russian foreign ministry said the warhead freeze and one-year extension would be possible if Washington did not make any additional demands. It said the extension would give the two sides time to discuss nuclear arms control in greater depth.

Moscow and Washington have been at odds over the treaty – and other arms control issues – despite several months of talks. The United States has called for China to be included in a broader treaty that would replace New START.

But China, whose nuclear arsenal is much smaller than those of Russia and the US, has rejected that proposal.

Last year the US pulled out of a Cold War-era arms control pact banning ground-launched nuclear and conventional ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 310 and 3,400 miles (500-5,500 km), citing Russian violations denied by Moscow.

SOURCE : REUTERS

U.S. welcomes Russian offer to freeze warheads totals to extend nuclear pact by a year

By Tom Balmforth, Jonathan Landay

MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The last U.S.-Russia strategic nuclear arms control pact gained momentum toward a one-year extension on Tuesday as Washington welcomed a proposal by Moscow to prolong it if both sides agreed to freeze their stocks of all nuclear warheads for that period.

Some experts, however, said major questions would have to be resolved to strike a deal and voiced concern that U.S. President Donald Trump’s interest was motivated by a desire for a foreign policy achievement before the Nov. 3 U.S. election.

The step toward an agreement, after months of difficult talks, appeared to narrow the gap over the fate of the 2010 New START treaty, which is due to expire on Feb. 5, 2021.

The treaty’s demise would lift all remaining restraints on deployments of strategic nuclear warheads and the missiles and bombers that carry them, fueling a post-Cold War arms race between the world’s largest nuclear powers.

The United States last week rejected a Russian offer to unconditionally extend the pact for one year, saying any proposal that did not envisage freezing all nuclear warheads - both strategic and tactical - was a “non-starter”.

A Russian Foreign Ministry statement on Tuesday suggested that the two countries’ positions had moved closer.

“Russia is proposing to extend New START by one year and is ready together with the United States to make a political commitment to ‘freeze’ the number of nuclear warheads held by the parties for this period,” the ministry said.

In a statement, the State Department welcomed Russia’s offer, saying it appreciated Moscow’s “willingness to make progress on the issue of nuclear arms control.”

“The United States is prepared to meet immediately to finalize a verifiable agreement. We expect Russia to empower its diplomats to do the same,” it said.

The statement highlighted one of several questions the sides would have to resolve to achieve a one-year New START extension: how each would verify that the other was adhering to the warhead deployment freeze.

Arms control analysts doubted detailed verification procedures could be negotiated before the U.S. election and noted that a “political” commitment would not be binding.


RELATED COVERAGE
U.S. prepared to meet immediately with Russia on nuclear arms control - State Department

“It would be very, very difficult to verify such an agreement without an intrusive inspection protocol, and ... there are a lot of serious questions whether you could negotiate such a protocol in two weeks,” said Frank Rose, a Brookings Institution analyst and former Obama administration official.

“We should not be trying to negotiate something so important on the fly,” he added.

Jon Wolfsthal, a former Obama administration official now with Global Zero, which advocates eliminating nuclear arms, questioned whether there had been a breakthrough, pointing to the unresolved verification issue.

The Trump administration has proposed “more intrusive (verification) measures than anything that has been negotiated before,” including tracking Russian strategic and non-strategic warheads from when they leave production facilities, he said.

The treaty can be extended for up to five years with the agreement of the U.S. and Russian presidents.

An extension would mark a rare bright spot in the fraught U.S.-Russian relationship. Failure to do so would remove the main pillar maintaining the nuclear balance between them.

Russia said the warhead freeze and one-year extension would be possible if Washington did not make any additional demands.

Washington had called for China to be included in a broader treaty that would replace New START, a proposal rejected by Beijing, whose nuclear arsenal is much smaller than those of Russia and the United States.

Last year, Trump pulled out of a Cold War-era arms control pact banning ground-launched nuclear and conventional ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 310 and 3,400 miles (500-5,500 km), citing Russian violations denied by Moscow.

Breathtaking Hubble Image Captures a Star That's Still Being Born

MICHELLE STARR
19 OCTOBER 2020

Zooming in on a small corner of cloud 7,500 light-years away, the Hubble Space Telescope has caught a fascinating stage in the development of baby stars.

It's called J025157.5+600606, and it's just a (relatively) tiny bulge in the colossal Soul Nebula (also known as Westerhout 5) in the constellation of Cassiopeia.


But, while the section of cloud seems insignificant in the broader nebula complex to which it belongs, it's an excellent place to learn about the birth of new stars.

That's because J025157.5+600606 shows what is known as a FrEGGs - Free-floating Evaporating Gaseous Globules.

FrEGGs were only discovered a short time ago, and they require a particular set of conditions.



Where you can find J025157.5+600606. (NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA)

Stars in the large clouds of stellar nurseries are formed from cool clumps of dense molecular hydrogen that collapse under their own gravity, so stars are born nestled in thick, molecular clouds.

When a very massive, hot star starts to shine, their intense ultraviolet radiation ionises their birth cloud, creating a large, hot bubble of ionised gas called a Strömgren sphere.

FrEGGs are dense clumps of cooler gas clustered in the Strömgren sphere, and many of them are busily forming stars of their own.

The boundary between the FrEGG and the sphere is seen in the Hubble image as a glowing purple region as the heat from the hot nearby star photoevaporates the outer layer of gas.

This density loss means we can peer inside and see the new baby stars being born.


J025157.5+600606. (ESA/Hubble & NASA, R. Sahai)

Because the FrEGGs are so dense, this process doesn't stop the star formation occurring inside. But it does, ultimately, hinder it, curtailing the gas supply that would feed the star forming within.

For this reason, the stars born inside FrEGGs are relatively low mass compared to the much more massive O- and B-type stars that evaporate off their gas.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. Smaller and cooler stars have much longer lifespans than their chonkier siblings. It's even possible that this was how our Sun was born, billions of years ago.

You can view the full-size image of J025157.5+600606, and download wallpaper sizes, on the Hubble Space Telescope website.

 ENVIRONMENT

Ice Melt in Alaska Threatens to Unleash Unprecedented 'Mega-Tsunami', Scientists Warn

PETER DOCKRILL

19 OCTOBER 2020

A giant, catastrophic tsunami in Alaska triggered by a landslide of rock left unstable after glacier melting is likely to occur in the next two decades, scientists fear - and it could happen within the next 12 months.

A group of scientists warned of the prospects of this impending disaster in Prince William Sound in an open letter to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) in May.

While the potential risks of such a landslide are very serious, there remain a lot of unknowns about just how or when this calamity could take place.

What is clear is that glacier retreat in Prince William Sound, along the south coast of Alaska, does seem to be having an impact on mountain slopes above Barry Arm, about 97 kilometres (60 miles) east of Anchorage.

Analysis of satellite imagery suggests that as Barry Glacier retreats from Barry Arm due to ongoing melting, a large rocky scar called a scarp is emerging on the face of the mountain above it.

This indicates an incremental, slow-moving landslide is already taking place above the fjord, but if the rock face were to suddenly give way, the consequences could be dire.

Although it's remote, this is an area that's frequented by commercial and recreational boats, including cruise ships.

Pale scarp lines above Barry Glacier. (Lauren Dauphin/NASA Earth Observatory/USGS)

"It was hard to believe the numbers at first," one of the researchers, geophysicist Chunli Dai from the Ohio State University told NASA's Earth Observatory.

"Based on the elevation of the deposit above the water, the volume of land that was slipping, and the angle of the slope, we calculated that a collapse would release 16 times more debris and 11 times more energy than Alaska's 1958 Lituya Bay landslide and mega-tsunami."

If the team's calculations are correct, such a result borders on the unthinkable, because the 1958 episode – likened by eyewitnesses to the explosion of an atomic bomb – is often thought to be the tallest tsunami wave in modern times, reaching a maximum elevation of 524 metres (1,720 feet).

A much more recent slope failure event in 2015 in Taan Fiord to the east produced a tsunami reaching as high as 193 metres (633 ft), and the researchers say these failures can be brought about by numerous causes.

"Slopes like this can change from slow creeping to a fast-moving landslide due to a number of possible triggers," the May report explains.

"Often, heavy or prolonged rain is a factor. Earthquakes commonly trigger failures. Hot weather that drives thawing of permafrost, snow, or glacier ice can also be a trigger."

(Gabe Wolken)

Since the report's release earlier in the year, subsequent landslide analysis has suggested little or no movement of land masses on the slope, although in itself that doesn't tell us much, since research shows that the rock face has been shifting since at least 50 years ago, at some points speeding up, while slowing down at others.

While these kinds of subtle variations are still being investigated, the overall view is that the speed of glacier retreat increases the probability of more dramatic slope failures.

"When the climate changes, the landscape takes time to adjust," co-author of the letter and geologist Bretwood Higman from nonprofit Ground Truth Alaska told The Guardian.

"If a glacier retreats really quickly it can catch the surrounding slopes by surprise – they might fail catastrophically instead of gradually adjusting."

Ongoing monitoring by numerous organisations – including ADNR, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Geological Survey – is keeping tabs on developments at Prince William Sound, to track movements above the Barry Glacier, and to refine predictions of what the fallout from a mega-tsunami would be.

Tsunami projections. (Briggs et al., open letter to ADNR, May 2020)

Preliminary modelling from the May report, which hasn't yet been peer-reviewed, suggests a tsunami reaching hundreds of feet in elevation along the shoreline would result from a sudden massive failure, propagating throughout Prince William Sound, and into bays and fjords far from the source.

Perhaps the bigger takeaway is that the impacts of relatively rapid glacier retreats in the era of climate change could pose similar kinds of landslide and tsunami threats in many other places around the world, not just in Alaska.

"It's really pretty terrifying," Higman told Columbia University's GlacierHub blog in May, likening the environmental risks to volcanoes – something that humanity has understood to be a dangerous, unpredictable geohazard for much, much longer.

"Maybe we're entering a time now where we need to look at glaciated landscapes with the same kind of glasses."

The findings are available on the ADNR website.

Google screwed rivals to protect monopoly, says Uncle Sam in antitrust lawsuit: We go inside the Sherman parked on a Silicon Valley lawn

Search engine giant has officially become 1990s Microsoft

Tue 20 Oct 2020 

Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco BIO 

Analysis The US Department of Justice has launched its long-awaited antitrust action against Google, accusing the tech giant of unlawfully protecting its search monopoly through “anti-competitive and exclusionary practices.”

The action doesn't explicitly mention breaking up Google, but does ask for "structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm," which is going to send shivers down the backs of Sundar Pichai and the rest of the Alphabet team.

In a striking parallel to antitrust action taken against Microsoft back in 1998, the accompanying 64-page lawsuit [PDF] cites the Sherman Act and accuses Google of “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States.”

Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen explicitly referenced the context in the DoJ’s official announcement: “As with its historic antitrust actions against AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998, the Department is again enforcing the Sherman Act to restore the role of competition and open the door to the next wave of innovation—this time in vital digital markets.”

It is the first major antitrust action taken against the new wave of tech giants – Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook – and is likely to be just the start in a series of legal challenges to Alphabet's market power.

The Justice Dept's lawsuit is joined by 11 state attorneys general – all Republican, reflecting the dire state of partisan politics in the US. Last month, an excoriating Congressional report that also accused tech giants of abusing their market power was formally supported only by Democrats, even though both political sides are largely in agreement. We note a second group of state attorneys general, a mix of Dems and Republicans, are preparing a separate antitrust case against Google, so look out for that.

Today's lawsuit itself has a relatively narrow focus given Google’s massive scale: its search and search advertising markets. But, as the complaint notes, the impact is huge.

“Google is the monopoly gatekeeper to the internet for billions of users and countless advertisers worldwide. For years, Google has accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States and has used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising,” the DoJ charges.

An Apple a day

The lawsuit digs into the agreements that Google has with other large tech companies to make it the default search engine on computers and devices, pointing out that they are exclusionary and “collectively lock up the primary avenues through which users access search engines, and thus the internet.” It homes in on the extent of Google's monopoly in internet search:

Between its exclusionary contracts and owned-and-operated properties, Google effectively owns or controls search distribution channels accounting for roughly 80 percent of the general search queries in the United States. Largely as a result of Google’s exclusionary agreements and anticompetitive conduct, Google in recent years has accounted for nearly 90 percent of all general-search-engine queries in the United States, and almost 95 percent of queries on mobile devices.

It also pushes the issue that ultimately sank Microsoft in the 1990s over its Internet Explorer browser: Google makes its search engine the default on billions of devices, prevents the pre-installation of competitors, and in some cases doesn’t allow people to delete its software.

Of particular focus is the deal with Google and Apple where Google pays Apple billions of dollars to make Google the default search on Apple’s iOS devices. Combined with similar deals with web browser companies, phone makers, and mobile networks, Google has created “a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization,” the government argues.

Big Tech to face its Ma Bell moment? US House Dems demand break-up of 'monopolists' Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google

READ MORE

To make the antitrust charges stick and so force change, however, the DoJ will need to demonstrate that this behavior results in harm to consumers. It argues that Google’s actions “reduce the ability of innovative new companies to develop, compete, and discipline Google’s behavior.”

It goes on: “Google has foreclosed any meaningful search competitor from gaining vital distribution and scale, eliminating competition for a majority of search queries in the United States. By restricting competition in search, Google’s conduct has harmed consumers by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data), lessening choice in search, and impeding innovation.”

And further: “By suppressing competition in advertising, Google has the power to charge advertisers more than it could in a competitive market and to reduce the quality of the services it provides them.”

Google: Antitrust is so 1990s

This is something Google has hit back at straight away. Kent Walker, Google's global affairs senior veep took up just this point in a statement filed shortly after the lawsuit went public.

"Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed," he opined. "People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives.

"This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers. To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use."

He points out that paying to promote your own products is perfectly legal and that people use Google as their default search engine because it's the best. It would be easy enough to choose another vendor, he argued, since people downloaded over 200 billion apps last year to get the software of their choice.

When you tell Chrome to wipe private data about you, it spares two websites from the purge: Google.com, YouTube

READ MORE

"This isn’t the dial-up 1990s, when changing services was slow and difficult, and often required you to buy and install software with a CD-ROM," he said.

"Today, you can easily download your choice of apps or change your default settings in a matter of seconds—faster than you can walk to another aisle in the grocery store."

As for the lawsuit itself, while you could argue that the narrow focus is a good thing, there are signs that it has been rushed, which may ultimately prove to be dangerously short-sighted.

A slew of attorneys working on the case resigned last month citing pressure from the Attorney General William Barr to launch the lawsuit before election day. They wanted more time to pull the case together.

The result has been that the DoJ has fallen back heavily on its successful case against Microsoft, drawing clear parallels. But as similar as Microsoft and Google are on the surface – tech giants using their extraordinary resources to control markets – there is a world of difference between the internet of the 1990s and now.

The lawsuit feels a little outdated in that respect and may not advance a necessary shift in antitrust thinking for the new digital era. For example, the lawsuit skims over the fact that Google has been increasingly favoring its own services over competitors; for example putting its own listings above those from others like Yelp.

It also barely touches the main driver of the entire modern tech economy: data. Access to people’s data, and connecting that data to individuals, building ever-larger databases to sell to advertisers is behind much of the tech giant’s behavior, particularly when it comes to anti-competitive actions and privacy violations.

That could be a major tactical error as the antitrust lawsuit could – and arguably should – have been used to build a legal record on the issue of data which could then be moved forward to tackle other companies like Facebook which don’t fit so neatly into the traditional antitrust bucket.

Lawyers can cash in

There are also numerous examples of the lawsuit feeling a little rushed and lacking the solid foundation that you would expect from such a huge case. As one example, take this sentence:

“This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.”

There is no explanation of “especially sticky” – a phrase that the tech industry instinctively understands but which the legal system is likely to be completely confused by. The case doesn’t feel sufficiently locked down, especially when Google is going to throw every lawyer it has at the case and can afford to pick at every small point.

As for the chances of success: it should be a no-brainer. There is ample evidence of Google’s misbehavior and it should be easy to prove that one company having an effective monopoly over something as critical as searching the internet – a monopoly it aggressively protects – is not in the interests of American citizens.

But there is a world of difference between winning the case and having a real impact on the future. Google will fight extremely hard to limit the impact of the case on its business model and it is easy to see how it could still end up being the default search engine even after it is banned from pushing exclusionary agreements. The improvements could be slight.

And, if antitrust actions are not pulled further into the digital era through this Google case, it is possible that a company like Facebook could escape largely unscathed. Nevertheless, after nearly a decade of Google getting away with increasingly monopolistic actions – let’s not forget the FTC voted against its staff’s recommendation to investigate Google back in 2012 – it is good to see the US government finally act.

It’s just a shame it seems to have rushed things at the last minute for pure political reasons. ®

PS: Google's stock price is up more than 2.5 per cent at time of writing on the lawsuit's filing.

THE REGISTER

 

Let’s check in with that 30,000-job $10bn Trump-Foxconn Wisconsin plant. Wow, way worse than we'd imagined

Surreal tales from the Midwest

Tue 20 Oct 2020 // 00:58 UTC

Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco BIO 

It’s been three years since Wisconsin approved more than $3bn in incentives to bring Foxconn to the US state.

The Taiwanese monster manufacturer promised to build a $10bn plant making LCDs, requiring 30,000 workers, which was quickly reduced to 13,000, and turn Wisconsin into a Silicon Valley of the Midwest. It was a vision repeatedly promoted by President Trump.

“The eighth wonder of the world,” the hyperbolic reality TV star promised while claiming the deal was a reflection of him keeping his word to bring manufacturing back to America and make the country great again.

We last checked in two years ago, when the plant had been reduced to a twentieth of its original size, the planned job count had fallen again to 5,200, and Foxconn promised the LCD plant would open in 2020.

Back then, under fire and political pressure, with the President keen to show progress, Wisconsin’s then-governor Scott Walker using the project in his re-election bid, and growing concerns that literally nothing was happening, Foxconn saved face with a $100m grant to the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The plant should be open by now, and with the election just weeks away, The Verge has taken another look at what’s going on and… it’s not pretty.

The 30,000 -> 13,000 -> 5,200 jobs? They currently stand at 281. And according to the website’s extensive reporting, most of those workers sit around watching Netflix all day because they have literally nothing to do.

Phoney promises

It gets worse: in order to qualify for the massive incentives Wisconsin approved back in 2017, Foxconn had to meet minimum job hires. But those hires are only counted at the end of the year, which led to the company mass hiring in the last three months of the year and then laying most of the new workers off in January. The $100m grant to the Wisconsin-Madison University? It stopped at $700,000.

There is no LCD plant. In large part because the economics of it just don’t make sense: even when hiring people at $30,000 a year when Wisconsin’s median household income is about $60,000, it’s not possible to make a profit thanks to razor-thin margins. Of the $10bn promised, 2.8 per cent has been spent, and two per cent of the 20 million square-feet of promised factory has been built, according to Foxconn's own figures in its subsidy submissions.

The Wisconsin project may go down as one of the biggest political and economic con-jobs the US has ever witnessed, with both Trump and Scott pushing hype and big claims over reality. Two years ago, the fear was that the project would cost the state one million dollars for every job created; in 2020, it’s literally not possible to make that comparison because there are no actual jobs beyond hiring people to prop up the deal.

From Foxconn’s end, CEO Terry Gou is responsible for continuing to push the fantasy – ensuring repeat trips to the White House – but despite having the CEO on board, the reality is that none of Foxconn’s business arms were able to make the financial case to move to Wisconsin – and so they haven’t.

With such a high profile project and big political promises – not to mention millions of dollars in real investment from the state and local authorities in infrastructure in order to make the plants functional – Foxconn has been unable to simply walk away. And so, every time the issue returns to public consciousness, another promise is made. Foxconn still claims that at some point it will start making LCDs at the Midwest plant.

Made in China? Not for much longer, reckons Foxconn boss

READ MORE

It gets worse. Wisconsin’s current governor, Tony Evers – who beat Scott Walker in some part because of his promise to find out what was really going on with the Foxconn contract – is being stymied by the state’s Republican-held legislature which refuses to allow access to information about what is going on behind the scenes. It just so happens that one of the biggest defenders of the deal is the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, Robin Vos, who also happens to represent the district where the factory is located.

Not a chance

This year, Foxconn is supposed to hire a minimum of 1,820 workers with a goal of 5,200. Even with a hiring surge, the company cannot make it – because no one in the state believes it is anything but a fudge to get the government money. One employee charged with building partnerships with local companies told The Verge that previous failed efforts made it impossible: “Every place we tried to go, somebody from Foxconn had already been there and they’d already pissed them off,” they said.

But still the project won’t die. And this year Wisconsin is one of a small number of US states being bitterly fought over because it could help decide the presidency. Faced with his frequent and public exhortations about the deal, Donald Trump feels he has no choice than to keep pumping the hype, appearing just this month on Wisconsin TV news to claim that Foxconn had built “one of the most incredible plants I’ve ever seen,” and that if he is re-elected he will make it come good. “If we win the election, Foxconn is going to come into our country with money like no other company has come into our country,” Trump said with typical overstatement.

Meanwhile, The Verge tracked down dozens of current and former employees on the project, and outlines just how insane things became: when managers realized they had huge factory spaces and nothing to do in them, they fielded ideas for business models and considered – among other things – fish farming, exporting dairy products, storage space, and automated factories with autonomous vehicles.

But no one in Foxconn’s larger interconnected business arms would put in the money to make any of them happen because they all knew what no one will admit publicly: the entire thing is a boondoggle. Foxconn ignored requests for comment.

Gone golfing

One of the most telling details surrounds the autonomous vehicles. They were going to transport employees from the city to the plant on the outskirts of town. It was part of a new Smart Cities vision: a free, hyper-modern approach of workers moved in driverless shuttles outfitted with the latest technology; cameras and algorithms, sensors running on 5G.

The reality was quite different: a shipment of cheap golf carts from China that couldn’t be retrofitted to work autonomously. They were described by one employee as “the biggest pieces of shit.” One revised plan was to use them as security vehicles but the security company refused to pay for the carts. As so they ended up abandoned in a huge empty building being used by bored employees for races. When the batteries ran out, they were left standing where they stopped.

President Trump is supposed to have visited the plant several times to do a ribbon-cutting; first in May, then in September. But there is nothing to open. It’s empty except for abandoned golf carts. Some still hoped Trump would turn up and force the company to actually do something, even indulging in dark humor about their predicament. According to The Verge, “employees joked about having someone stationed behind a curtain, steering the president around via remote control.”

And somehow that is the perfect encapsulation of the billion-dollar farce that is Foxconn, Trump and Wisconsin. ®

THE REGISTER

RIP
Spencer Davis, bandleader with the Spencer Davis Group, dies aged 81
Guitarist who helped popularise blues and R&B in the UK died while being treated for pneumonia in hospital

R&B pioneer … Spencer Davis in 2008. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

Ben Beaumont-Thomas
Tue 20 Oct 2020 

Spencer Davis, who as bandleader with the Spencer Davis Group topped the UK charts twice in the mid-60s, has died aged 81 while being treated for pneumonia in hospital.

The group, who formed in Birmingham in 1963 and also featured Steve Winwood, had hits including Gimme Some Lovin’, Keep On Running, Somebody Help Me and I’m a Man. Along with a number of other early British pop groups, they helped popularise the sound of US blues and R&B in the UK.

Winwood left the band in 1967 to form Traffic, with Davis and others disbanding the group in 1969. They partially re-formed for two years in the mid-70s, and again in 2006, when Davis returned to international touring with the group.
  

The Spencer David Group in 1966, with Davis in pram. Photograph: John Pratt/Getty Images

Born in Swansea in 1939, Davis began learning accordion and harmonica at the age of six. Drawn to the allure of US R&B records, he took up the guitar and formed his first band the Saints with Bill Wyman, who later joined the Rolling Stones.

Davis moved to Birmingham to study German at university, and played in bands on the side, first performing American folk and traditional blues. In 1963, he and drummer Pete York recruited the 15-year-old Winwood and his brother Muff to their band, first called Rhythm and Blues Quartet, then the Spencer Davis Group.

Like the Stones, the Dave Clark Five, the Kinks and others, the Spencer Davis Group were part of the flourishing “beat” scene in the mid-60s, playing music influenced by American rhythm and blues. They, along with another Birmingham band the Moody Blues, were dubbed “Brum beat” to differentiate them from the vibrant scenes in London and Liverpool, though their popularity grew with a residency at London’s Marquee club.

Building their sound around uptempo rhythms and Winwood’s powerfully soulful vocals, their first single, I Can’t Stand It, was released in 1964. They topped the charts the following year with Keep On Running, and in 1966 with Somebody Help Me, both written by Jamaican artist Jackie Edwards. Further hits included the anthemic, Winwood-penned Gimme Some Lovin’, which was also a hit in the US, reaching No 7.

I’m a Man (1967) would be the group’s last major hit, also reaching the Top 10 in both the US and UK and later covered by the band Chicago.

Following their first breakup, Davis moved to the US and struggled financially, later complaining of punitive record contracts. “I didn’t realise what had been going on. I’d sold millions of records and hadn’t seen a penny from them,” he said in 2005.

He switched to an industry role in the 70s, working with his label Island Records to help develop artists including Bob Marley and Robert Palmer. He also helped Winwood’s solo career.

Artists paying tribute to Davis include Gary Kemp of Spandau Ballet who tweeted: “He lead a magnificent band, one of the greats of the 60s, along with Muff and Steve Winwood. Keep in [sic] Running and Gimme Some Lovin’ were R&B classics. He drove soul into the white rock sound of the time.”

Spencer Davis: Gimme Some Lovin' star dies during treatment for pneumonia

The Spencer Davis Group topped the UK singles chart twice, with Keep On Running and Somebody Help Me, and had three top 10 albums.

Tuesday 20 October 2020 22:14, UK

Image:Spencer Davis, pictured in 2009, has died aged 81

Singer and musician Spencer Davis, who founded The Spencer Davis Group, has died while being treated for pneumonia, his agent has said.

The star, who had hits with songs including Keep On Running and Gimme Some Lovin' in the 1960s, died in hospital, aged 81.

As fans paid tribute on social media, Bob Birk, his agent of more than 30 years, said in a statement sent to Sky News: "He was a very good friend.

"He was a highly ethical, very talented, good-hearted, extremely intelligent, generous man. He leaves behind his long time, domestic partner, June and three adult children.

"He will be missed."

Image:The Spencer Davis Group pictured in 1965: (L-R) Spencer Davis, Pete York, Steve Winwood and Muff Winwood

Among those paying tribute on social media was fellow musician Badly Drawn Boy, who tweeted: "Sad news. Spencer Davis. Legend."

Radio Caroline presenter Suzy Wild also tweeted: "I'm so very, very saddened to learn of the passing of Spencer Davis. He was such a lovely man, generous and kind, warm and funny, and will be much missed. RIP dear Spencer."

And the actor Philip Martin Brown tweeted: "#RIP Spencer Davis. Such happy memories of Northern Soul dancing to This Hammer."

Born in Wales, Davis formed his group in Birmingham in 1963, alongside Steve Winwood on keyboard and guitar, his brother Muff Winwood on bass, and Pete York on drums.

The BBC reported that the group was originally called The Rhythm & Blues Quartette, but changed their name when Muff highlighted that Davis was the only one who liked doing media interviews.

 

Spencer Davis, performing live on stage at Alexandra Palace, London on 2 August 1973

According to the Official Charts Company, the band topped the UK singles chart twice, with their breakout hit Keep On Running and Somebody Help Me, and had seven top 40 singles and three top 10 albums.

When Keep On Running - a cover of a song by West Indian performer Jackie Edwards - led UK charts in 1966, it overtook double A-sided Beatles single We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper as number one and the band sent a congratulating telegram to Davis.

Gimme Some Lovin' famously featured on the soundtracks of films The Blues Brothers and Notting Hill.

Keep On Running musician Spencer Davis dies aged 81

The guitarist and singer was known in musical circles as the Professor.

Spencer Davis (Paradise Artists/PA)


By Alex Green, PA Entertainment Reporter

October 20 2020 

Spencer Davis, who founded the influential beat band The Spencer Davis Group, has died at the age of 81.

The Welsh-born musician, who produced hits including Keep On Running and I’m A Man, died in hospital while being treated for pneumonia.

His agent Bob Birk told the PA news agency: “I have represented him as his agent for over 30 years.


He was a highly ethical, very talented, good hearted, extremely intelligent, generous manBob Birk, Spencer Davis's agent

“He was a very good friend. He was a highly ethical, very talented, good hearted, extremely intelligent, generous man.

“He leaves behind his long-time domestic partner June and three adult children.

“He will be missed.”

Davis, who was known in musical circles as the Professor, was born in Swansea and began learning harmonica and accordion at the age of six.

In 1960, he moved to Birmingham to read German at the University of Birmingham, where he was further exposed to burgeoning genres such as skiffle, jazz, and blues.

He formed The Spencer Davis Group in 1963, featuring Steve Winwood on keyboards and guitar, his brother Muff Winwood on bass, and Pete York on drums.

Bandmate Steve Winwood (Myung Jung Kim/PA)

They originally performed as the Rhythm and Blues Quartet and played mostly R&B covers.

Within a year, they had landed a regular gig at the famous Marquee Club on Oxford Street in London, and by 1964 had adopted the name The Spencer Davis Group.

They topped the UK singles chart twice and had seven top 40 singles, according to the Official Charts Company.

The original line-up were together for six years, with subsequent reunions featuring a variety of new players.

The track Gimme Some Lovin’ famously featured on the soundtracks of films The Blues Brothers and Notting Hill.

Music by The Spencer Davis Group is also included in the recent Helen Reddy biopic I Am Woman.

(PA)

Actor Philip Martin Brown was among those paying tribute.

He said on Twitter: “#RIP Spencer Davis. Such happy memories of Northern Soul dancing to This Hammer.”

The Brian Jonestown Massacre frontman Anton Newcombe shared a video of the band performing Gimme Some Lovin’.

He wrote: “Rest In Peace Spencer Davis.”

Horace Panter, bassist with ska band The Specials, tweeted: “One of the pioneers of those great 60s bands fusing soul and R&B into rock. Remember first hearing #thespencerdavisband as an impressionable teenager. Just got their album out so turntable beckons.”

I was not aware. Of course I was a fan. The British Invasion is my main thing. RIP Spencer Davis. Thank you. https://t.co/XZWitesw8n— Stevie Van Zandt (@StevieVanZandt) October 20, 2020

Stevie Van Zandt, best known as a member of Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band, said he was a fan of Davis, tweeting: “The British Invasion is my main thing. RIP Spencer Davis. Thank you.”

THIRD WORLD USA 

Bottle-fed babies most at risk as study shows high lead exposure in US water

Researchers say Black infants may be more at risk while about 80% of homes had detectable levels of lead in tap water

This story is co-published with Consumer Reports
Kevin Loria for Consumer Reports

Tue 20 Oct 2020
 

Christin Farmer: ‘Black children have a disadvantage before they even arrive.’ Photograph: Hiraman/Getty Images

Not long after Peter and Erica Finin moved from Michigan to Pittsburgh, they had the tap water in their new home tested for lead. It was 2017, and “the whole [lead] situation in Flint was very much in the news”, Peter says. They’d been thinking about starting a family, and wanted to be safe.


'It was everywhere': how lead is poisoning America's poorest children

In searching for testing options, Peter came across a program offered by Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF), a non-profit alliance of scientists and child health advocacy groups, and Virginia Tech.

Test results showed they had a serious lead problem, with levels high enough to potentially harm children and infants. “It made it clear we needed to get a filter,” Peter says.

The Finins were one of nearly 800 families across the country included in a study, released on Tuesday, of people who had their water tested by HBBF. That included 97 households in New Orleans, and 688 from elsewhere in the country.

Nearly 80% of the homes outside of New Orleans had detectable levels of lead in tap water, and 40% had levels that exceeded the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended limit on lead in drinking water in schools. Perhaps most concerning, 15% had levels high enough to potentially cause at least a half-point drop in IQ in infants who are exclusively bottle-fed with formula mixed with tap water.


There’s no amount of lead that’s safe Jane Houlihan

Results for New Orleans, in each case, were slightly worse, and were analyzed separately so the city’s results wouldn’t distort the national ones.

Lead in drinking water remains a critical issue in the US, despite attention brought by the crises in Flint and other cities, says Jane Houlihan, research director for HBBF. “There’s no amount of lead that’s safe,” she says, adding that children “have one chance to develop a healthy brain and lead erodes that chance”.

Consumer Reports has long been concerned about the effects of lead, particularly on children, whose brains and bodies are still developing. “This report underscores CR’s previous research showing potentially harmful levels of lead in some foods and drinks babies and toddlers consume,” says James E Rogers PhD, director of CR’s food safety research and testing. “It’s critical that the government and industry address this public health challenge immediately.”
A potent neurotoxin

Lead is ubiquitous, found in some soil, toys and ceramics, as well as some paint found in homes built before 1978, when lead paint was banned.

But drinking water is a major source. While lead pipes were outlawed in 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 6-10m homes in the US still get water through water service lines that predate the ban. Lead can also come from the water supply itself, or from a home’s plumbing, faucets or fixtures.

Ingesting even small amounts of lead over time can lead to lasting health problems because it accumulates in the body, says Dr Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician and professor at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, who first publicized the issue of elevated blood levels in children in Flint, Michigan and was not involved in the HBBF study. Those problems include reduced IQ and academic performance, as well as attention deficit disorder and behavior problems.

Dr Mona Hanna-Attisha at her office in the Hurley children’s center in Flint on 15 January 2016.
Photograph: The Washington Post/Getty Images

But while lead exposure can be dangerous for anyone, it’s especially concerning for infants fed powdered formula that’s mixed with tap water. “If the water in the home has high levels of lead, a bottle-fed baby is the family member at greatest risk because they drink a far greater volume of water per pound of body weight than older children or adults,” Houlihan says.

“That’s what kept me up the most at night in Flint,” where breastfeeding rates were low, Hanna-Attisha says. The first four to six months, when infants consume nothing but breastmilk or formula, is key to neurodevelopmental growth, she says. “Lead is a potent, irreversible neurotoxin,” she says. “No matter what you do, it’s impossible to get rid of a child’s lead exposure if it’s there.”

Since pediatricians generally don’t screen infants for lead until they are one year old, and water in homes isn’t necessarily tested for lead, relatively little is known about the extent of lead exposure in these first vulnerable months of life, Hanna-Attisha says.

“It’s terrible to think we have not addressed this,” she says.

The new HBBF study helps quantify that harm, as it includes a risk analysis showing how lead in these first months could cause lifetime IQ point loss for babies who consume only formula.

According to the CDC’s 2020 Breastfeeding Report Card, just 26% of babies in the US are exclusively breastfed through six months of age. That means most infants probably drink at least some formula during their first months of life. And US retail sales of powdered formula, which is usually less expensive than liquid, are estimated to be more than 10 times greater than those of liquid.
Widespread contamination

The homes in the HBBF-Virginia Tech study were located in 343 cities and towns in 46 states and were built between 1840 and 2019.

Despite the country-wide distribution, the study is not nationally representative. Participants all wanted to have their lead levels checked, many because they had reason to think their water could be contaminated. Still, Houlihan says, “I was surprised lead was detected in so many homes.”  

 Photograph: Consumer Reports

Only 21% of the homes had no detectable amounts of lead in the water. While older homes were slightly more likely to have lead, 70% of homes built after 2000 still had some.

In nearly 40% of the homes, at least one sample exceeded 1 part per billion (ppb), the AAP’s recommended limit for drinking water in schools.
Special risks to Black infants

Black infants may be at higher risk from lead in tap water, according to HBBF’s report. That’s primarily because they are more likely to be formula-fed. Twenty-six per cent of Black infants are never breastfed, compared with 16% of Hispanic babies, 13% of non-Hispanic white infants and 10% of Asian babies, CDC figures show.

Overall, Black children are more likely to be exposed to lead, worsening inequities from birth.

“Black children have a disadvantage before they even arrive” says Christin Farmer, the founder of Birthing Beautiful Communities, a group that provides childbirth and parenting education to Black women in Cleveland. She says that in that city, maps showing financially stressed and disadvantaged neighborhoods overlap with maps showing high levels of lead poisonings.Quick guide
Why is there a crisis with America’s water?Hide


Issues include contaminated water, concerns that millions face obstacles to access safe, clean running water, a growing affordability crisis, plus rising alarm about the billion-dollar bottled water industry’s use of public water sources at low cost.
Contaminated water

While drinking tap water is often the best and safest option for people in the US, some communities, often those with vulnerable or marginalized residents, face health risks from drinking water that has been affected by some form of contaminant.
Lead and other metals. Possible contaminants include heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel or mercury. As the Environmental Protection Agency notes on lead: “[It]... can enter drinking water when plumbing materials that contain lead corrode.” Lead is harmful to health, especially for children whose neurological development can be hurt if exposed. Flint, Michigan made headlines around the world in 2015 for lead poisoning after authorities switched its water supply to the polluted River Flint. 

Forever chemicals. In recent years, concerns have grown about the risks of “forever chemicals”, or pfas, impacting water supplies, with potentially more than 110 million Americans at risk. Some of these chemicals have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight and other health problems. Some of the highest levels have been found in cities including Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans. 

Nitrates, radionuclides. Other threats of contamination come from nitrates fertilizers with communities at risk from agricultural runoff, radionuclides which can end up in drinking water because of mining, fracking and oil drilling. There is also some growing concern about disinfection byproducts added to water to treat bacterial contamination.
Water affordability

The US is experiencing a growing water poverty crisis as aging infrastructure, environmental clean-ups, changing demographics and the climate emergency fuel exponential price hikes in almost every corner of the country.

Exclusive analysis by the Guardian published in June 2020 of 12 US cities shows the combined price of water and sewage increased by an average of 80% between 2010 and 2018, with more than two fifths of residents in some cities living in neighbourhoods with unaffordable bills.

The consequence is millions of ordinary Americans are facing rising and unaffordable bills for running water, and risk being disconnected or losing their homes if they cannot pay.

Separate research has found more than two million people in the US lack running water and basic indoor plumbing. – Mark Oliver and Nina Lakhani
Was this helpful?

Poorer families face greater hurdles fixing the problem, too, since homeowners are often required to pay at least part of the cost of replacing the pipes and, in many cases, don’t own the properties anyway, Hanna-Attisha says.

This is the case even though getting rid of lead in water would save money in the long run, according to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Pew Charitable Trusts. It found that removing leaded drinking water service lines leading to the homes of children born in 2018 would protect more than 350,000 kids, and yield $2.7bn in future benefits – more than the estimated cost to replace the lines.
Fixing the problem

Houlihan, Hanna-Attisha, and other experts say the EPA’s actionable limits on lead are too high to be safe, and that the laws that regulate the use of lead are too weak for children’s health.

The EPA says that, for health purposes, the lead level in drinking water should be zero. While water utilities are always required to take some steps to prevent contamination with lead and other heavy metals, they must take greater action, notably replacing lead service lines, only if 10% of samples taken from homes by a water system test above 15 ppb.

When asked about the discrepancy between its action level and health recommendation, the EPA tells CR that the action level isn’t meant to establish a safe level of lead, but is instead supposed to measure the effectiveness of corrosion control in water systems.

The EPA says its new rule provides a comprehensive approach to reducing lead in drinking water and disputes the idea that rule changes would slow lead pipe replacement. “Very few water systems have conducted lead service line replacement programs,” the agency says, noting that “most systems above the action level did not achieve 7% in any year,” because of loopholes in the current system.

While HBBF’s findings are worrisome, Houlihan emphasizes that parents don’t need to panic. And she notes that while there are no safe lead levels, the threat of lead shouldn’t stop parents from feeding their babies in whatever way works best for them, whether by bottle or breastfeeding. For bottle-fed babies, there are steps parents can take to lower their children’s exposure to lead in drinking water, she says.

Using a water filter is easy and affordable, and experts recommend one which is certified to remove lead.

Ana Cook, who lives in a Milwaukee suburb, took that step after discovering serious lead levels in her water when she was pregnant. “I immediately stopped drinking the water at our house,” she says, until the filter was installed.

You should also unscrew and rinse out the “aerator”, a small screen at the end of a faucet, every few months, Hanna-Attisha says, since lead particles from corroded pipes can get trapped there.

The EPA also recommends flushing your water lines for 45 seconds before drinking water to clear out water that’s been stagnant in the line, and always using cold water for drinking, cooking and baby formula since hot water can cause metals to leach from pipes.


This story is co-published in partnership with Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with any advertiser on this site

Outsourcing could work if it went to companies who value people over profit

From test and trace to care homes, it’s time to bring public services back in house and award contracts to social enterprises

‘England’s test and trace system has been described as barely functional.’ Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters
Tue 20 Oct 2020 

England’s “world-beating” test-and-trace service has failed to materialise. Riddled with problems since its inception, it has been described as barely functional, with demand up to four times that of capacity and 90% of tests failing to hit the 24-hour turnaround target.

But the problems with test and trace go far deeper than the incompetencies of this government. Over the last 30 years, Britain has shifted from having a market economy to being a market society where large swathes of public services are outsourced to the private sector. NHS test and trace is a prime example of this model, with management consultants such as Deloitte and Serco running large parts of a system where shareholder value appears to have trumped the needs of our frontline services.

Let’s be clear: the money we spend on our public services is not equivalent to other spending decisions we make. Of course price and quality are important, but public services exist to serve citizens, not consumers. They embody vital public values, including democracy and a shared sense of the common good.

Our public services should never have become a gravy train for highly paid consultants and shareholders who are more interested in dividend returns than the needs of people and communities. Yet here we are: with a small number of large firms dominating this market and delivering high returns for their investors while driving down the quality of the services they’re paid to provide.

Outsourcing was the brainchild of Margaret Thatcher’s government, which introduced compulsory competitive tendering in the early 1980s. The government viewed this policy, which forced local authorities to open up in-house services such as cleaning, catering and maintenance to private competitors, as a way to neuter strikes, downsize council and NHS workforces, and ultimately cut costs. White collar workers in the NHS and local authorities suffered the often dramatic reduction in salaries that accompanied this shift.

A growing litany of failures have stemmed from this policy decision. In early 2018, the British multinational company Carillion declared insolvency and started to liquidate its assets. Carillion, whose business model was described in a report for UK parliament as an “unsustainable dash for cash”, derived £1.7bn per year on revenue from public-private partnerships to run services for the NHS, Ministry of Defence and rail projects such as HS2. The company’s collapse cost the UK taxpayer an estimated £148m and resulted in the loss of around 2,300 jobs.

In 2019, meanwhile, the multinational security service company G4S was permanently stripped of its contract to run Birmingham prison after the government was forced to take control of the failing jail, which had earned the reputation as one of the most violent prisons in England and Wales.

And in adult social care, years of outsourcing has created a system where billionaires and private equity barons extract profits from our care home services. It’s no surprise that the four biggest care providers measured by revenue have the worst Care Quality Commission inspection ratings for safety, or that many carers don’t receive sick pay or the living wage.

Outsourcing has also changed the way we view public services. In the 1990s, Britain’s competitive tendering regime emphasised the role that cost should play in public service delivery. Civil servants and local government officers increasingly chased “value for money”, awarding contracts to companies offering the lowest price, regardless of whether they had any experience in areas such as contact tracing or prison management. Meanwhile the opaque nature of some tendering arrangements, and the often impenetrable structures of many large companies, make it difficult to scrutinise the terms and flows of money involved.

What’s needed is a fundamental shift in values in how we deliver public services. Many local authorities have recognised the problems with outsourcing and are starting to bring services such as refuse collection and recycling back in-house. Councils are finding that “insourcing” can reduce costs, retain public money within the public sector and enshrine the values of democracy and accountability. When Liverpool city council insourced a number of its services in 2015, it saved £1.4m and created 100 new jobs in the local area.


Private equity and care: a sector propped up by debt
Read more

But current arrangements can’t be changed overnight. There are now significant funding restrictions that prevent local authorities from insourcing, especially in England. After 10 years of austerity, funding for local public services is almost half what it was in 2010. Local authorities need a new, generous funding settlement. At the very least, revenue support grants to local authorities and levels of investment in the NHS should return to what they were pre-2010.

Moreover, the economic and social devastation stemming from the pandemic means that every single pound of public money must be used wisely. While many services should arguably be insourced, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Local authorities may want to involve organisations and individuals that aren’t part of the state but have similar values and make a positive contribution to the delivery of public services – such as awarding contracts to co-operatives or socially driven, not-for-profit organisations.

A system of “social licensing” would help. This would stipulate the kinds of businesses that could gain access to public sector markets. Businesses that extract profit from the public sector and siphon this to private shareholders and CEOs would be barred from applying – whereas those that enable good outcomes from public spending, such as cooperatives, social enterprises and community businesses, could compete for contracts. Social licensing should also mandate organisations that bid for public contracts to pay fair tax and the living wage.

The free market, as John Maynard Keynes once put it, is “not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous – and it doesn’t deliver the goods”. Today, as England deals with the consequences of a failed test-and-trace system that should never have been outsourced, these words could hardly be more apt.

• Tom Lloyd Goodwin is associate director of policy and Neil McInroy is the chief executive of the Centre for Local Economic Strategies