With Emily Maitlis. A look at Carillion and the future of public private partnership. Plus banning sugar in adverts, sexual abuse in the fashion industry and Dolores O'Riordan.
Browse content similar to 15/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
This is a watershed moment.
the public sector of the outsourced
burst dogma has wreaked Kalinic.
Is Carillion really the beginning
of the end for public
the economic model that's dominated
government policy for decades?
There is no evidence of chaos and
the government is working very hard
indeed across all Whitehall
departments to ensure that the
liquidation of Carillion takes place
in an orderly manner which does not
disrupt public services.
Or is it just a bump in the road
for a policy that can't
in practice be reversed?
We'll ask this Downing
Ten different classmates!
This is how they used
to sell sweets to kids.
And this is now.
You cannot see very strong
advertising but once you start
getting into the games and into the
stories you can see very close
association with the toys children
receive when they get tender eggs.
Are advertisers gaming
the rules on selling sugar?
And we remember the Cranberries
singer Dolores O'Riordan
who died today aged 46.
# In your head
# In your head
# Zombie #
Should the government be giving
a company that's issued
three profit warnings millions
and millions of pounds' worth
of further contracts?
The question sadly,
is a rhetorical one.
Shortly after dawn this morning,
Carillion declared itself bust.
It had racked up debts
of more than £900 million,
and a pension deficit
of nearly £600 million.
And even though the first
warning came in July,
the second in September
and the third just two months ago,
back in November, the government
continued to ply them with work.
Is it enthusiasm for the public
private ideology, or incompetence -
that the financial ill health
of such a huge company had
been so badly misread?
Carillion started out as the
construction arm of tarmac in 1999.
Since then it has built a lot. GCHQ
in Cheltenham. High-speed one and
Heathrow terminal five for example.
But it also provides services
managing 200 operating theatres and
11,800 beds for the NHS for example.
Or providing cleaning and meals for
hundreds of schools. In short
Carillion is big. In 2016 had
recorded £5.2 billion in revenues, a
third of which, 1.7 billion, came
from UK Government contracts. It is
partly those government construction
contracts which got it into trouble
with cost overruns on two hospitals
and £745 million Aberdeen bypass.
Warning lights have been flashing
for a while, in July it had to
announce an £850 million hit to its
contracts and suspend its dividends.
By last Friday its share price
plummeted by 90%. After crisis talks
with bankers and the Cabinet Office
over the weekend it collapsed this
morning with £900 million in debt
and a £587 million deficit leaving
43,000 employees globally and
hundreds of subcontractors wondering
what will happen next.
That's the overview.
Our business editor Helen Thomas
has been taking a look
at the challenges ahead.
Trains and planes from beautiful art
to the beautiful game. Carillion had
a hand in many parts of UK life.
Today the big battle was how to
manage the fallout from its
collapse. Employees and
subcontractors were asked to report
for work as normal today. The
government wants to make sure
crucial services continue before
contracts are passed to competitors
or taken in-house. Huge
public-private construction projects
like the Aberdeen bypass or work on
each is too will be taken over by
joint-venture partners. But some
firms involved in the non-government
work expected take a hit.
This boss had 30 people sent
home today including from work on
the new Google building in King's
We were turned away from four
jobs, so those people had to go
home. They are trying to replace
them on other jobs we have got. But
if you are in the government side
you are OK because they will look
after you. For us personally we have
payments due of £200,000 and that
will be in line with the company
The collapse will
also cause bigger questions about
the government use of outsourcing.
Critics say it's another example of
a private company taking its
profits, paying dividends in bonuses
and then leaving the public sector
to clean up when things go wrong.
The industry would disagree, they
say Carillion wasn't raking it in,
in fact it was bidding to
aggressively. Some would argue that
is because the government, its
biggest customer, has only cared
about recent time, price. An
independent report last year for the
business services Association called
it a race to the bottom. Our system
where aggressive price based tenders
and the drive to cut costs in the
time of austerity risked
compromising quality of service,
workers terms and conditions,
corporate profits and potentially
the political and commercial
sustainability of the market.
think we see played out in front of
us that the construction business
model is not working and we need to
address that. You look at the profit
margins of the top ten contractors
it is about 0.8%. Those who are
doing well would declare about 2%
margins and that is not sustainable
for the level of risk they take and
we need to fix that model. It means
more collaborative working, engaging
the supply chain earlier. Not having
individual bespoke contract which
make things even more
make things even more complicated.
It was the coalition government
which expanded the use of
outsourcing and pushed hard to get
taxpayers a better deal.
of bringing in private companies to
do something the government would
otherwise do is to take advantage of
the fact that private companies are
often, not always, more efficient.
And to try to transfer some of the
risk of those projects to those
companies from government and the
kind of risk Bustinza costs being
higher than you might have
anticipated and so on. I think the
government has got better and better
at doing this and driving down the
profit margins of those companies
for taxpayers benefit.
of Carillion is still likely to
focus minds on what could be done
More imagination in the
commissioning process. Better
oversight of the companies as they
are doing their job. And better
intelligence sharing amongst
Whitehall departments so that we
learn from each other's mistakes.
It's kind of telling to me that at
the last general election, I could
not see a single mention of
outsourcing in any shape or form in
either of the party 's manifesto
Insiders told a sneak
outsourcing had in some places like
probation become too niche. Overly
complicated contracts make it
impossible to price work properly.
Others argue groups like Carillion
are part of the problem. Not enough
companies bidding and the government
reliant on a handful of big names.
This relies on the market for the
services, outsourcing works well
when there is a market there.
Government, several government in
sequence have allowed the emergence
of giants conglomerates which do all
kinds of services, Carillion is one
of those. There is not the
competition and ability to pass the
services onto another company that
the whole thing relied on so to me
that is where some of failure lies.
As the sun sets on Carillion's
business it might be the outsourcing
market which needs refurbishment.
A little earlier I spoke to Cabinet
Office Minister Oliver Dowden.
I asked him how the government
let Carillion go bust.
The government when it receives its
first profit warning from Carillion
took contingency measures. The
principal measure we took was to
ensure all new contracts were
joint-venture contracts. That means
the risk is shared with other
companies and on those contracts
they continue to be delivered.
you knew then in July you would need
a contingency plan?
Of course if the
profit warning is given in respect
of a company, people that contract
with it have to take appropriate
measures. You would not expect us to
stop contracting with them as you
are not expect any other company to
stop contracting with them but you
would expect us to take precautions.
There were three profit warnings and
as far as we understand eight new
contract awarded despite that.
important to understand the context.
Eight new contracts but they only
account for 2% of our ongoing
It doesn't matter, either
you are looking at the
you are looking at the financial
health of a company which does
enormous work for our whole country
you are not, you are carrying on
blindly. This was a company that try
to delay the payment to its
contractors by three months instead
of 30 days. This was a company being
short sold in 2013, a company that
HSBC divest it a million shares
worth over the last 12 months. This
is a company whose corporate debt
was downgraded to junk, how many
more signs did you need?
for taxpayers in respect of this was
with the company deliver on the
contracts? Reconstructed them as
joint ventures and they have
continued to deliver. The taxpayer
has only paid out on what they have
delivered on, there has not been a
loss to the taxpayer as the result
of structuring those joint...
has been no extra cost to taxpayers,
are you sure?
There is a cost in
expect of the appointment of the
official receiver, but all the
All of these delays
will cost the taxpayer more, right?
Anything increased and having to
bring in other contractors will cost
the taxpayer more so don't say there
is no extra cost to taxpayers.
additional cost has been in respect
of the appointment of the official
receiver. If you point an official
receiver there is a cost associated
If you remove competition
from the sector and allow the same
firms to charge more for the
contract how is that a good deal?
It's important we have more
competition and that is what we have
sought to do. When the government
came to power in 2010 we set a
target of 25% of all government
contracts being awarded to small and
medium-sized enterprises. We set
another target for this government,
we are encouraging more small and
medium-sized enterprises to bid for
Why would they go
for it when they see you supporting
a company like Carillion which is
clearly about to go bust?
contracts have been agreed and they
have been delivered upon but there
are a huge number of other PFI
contracts going on quite well at the
moment. We have over £60 billion
worth of contracts clearly there is
an issue with Carillion but the
evidence we have seen today is that
the impact on the delivery of public
services has been minimal.
back and tell me in the clear light
of day it made sense to carry on
giving Carillion almost £2 billion
more of contracts when it was in
such bad health?
As I said those
contracts first of all only
accounted for 2% of the overall
contract in relation to Carillion
and in respect of those contracts...
It was still £2 billion.
been delivered upon, taxpayers
received services in respect to
them. And majority are structured as
joint ventures so the other
joint-venture parties are stepping
up to the plate and continuing to
There is a concern that you
are so wedded to the ideology of
using the private sector it cannot
be seen to be failing, it's just not
I don't think this is a
question of ideology.
ideology or incompetence.
these contracts were awarded under
the last Labour government, a third
under the coalition and the third
under this government. They have
been proven to the liver
successfully. Over £60 billion worth
of contracts agreed. If you look at
the picture as we speak now those
services continued to be delivered.
There has not been a disruption to
the users of those public services.
The public takes the risk and the
private companies take all the
profits. That is how this is
It's hard to say that the
private company has not taken the
cost, those people who have bought
shares in Carillion are unlikely to
receive the money back in respect of
20,000 people worrying about
their job of the first CEO is still
receiving a salary and will continue
to do so until October.
two important points, in respect of
people being worried about their
jobs this is a regrettable situation
but those people working in respect
of the public sector can be assured
we will continue to pay out on those
contracts. They should carry on
going to work as normal. In respect
of your concerns about the payments
which I been made to the person in
For workers to hear they
should carry on going to a job and
they look at Richard house, former
CEO still receiving a
CEO still receiving a salary and
will do so until October, is that
There are serious questions to
be answered. But that has to be done
by the official receiver. They are
looking into this and I don't want
to prejudice those independent
enquiries by the official receiver
into exactly the sort of points.
Minister I asked you a question, is
it fair, from where you are sitting,
is it fair that the CEO who fail to
turn the company into something that
can provide jobs and services is
still getting paid a salary until
Of course it is not fair
and of course I understand people's
concerns over the rest but it is a
matter which has to be considered by
the process for doing it and it's
not helpful to prejudge it.
Dowden, thank you.
Nick Watt our political
editor is here.
What do you take away from today?
have rare agreement among senior
Labour and Conservative people that
this may well be a defining moment
for this country. You were playing
earlier that clip from Jeremy
Corbyn, saying this is a watershed
moment and we should end up -- end
rip-off private desires is in. I was
speaking to one senior Tory thinker
who said this is really bad for us,
the Conservative Party, he said. He
said it plays into the metanarrative
that we are Tories are about
protecting our private sector
friends come even though, is this
person said, most of this process
started under Tony Blair.
So who do
you think is under pressure tonight
Their lot of questions
about Chris Grayling, because he has
Transport Secretary approved and HS2
contract for a Correlli Consortium
just after had issued that -- eight
Carillion Consortium. The Transport
Secretary is like the cavity of the
cat, he always escapes, how longer
can this go on. Important to say
Chris Grayling's department so that
was a three strong consortium and
the other parties in that contract
will cover any cost overruns or any
delay. But real pressure in the
Treasury. They are taking a very
deep breath tonight, because as the
government says, this is not a
bailout of the company, but it is a
lifeline to those areas where there
are public contracts from Karelian,
and that, the Treasury are saying,
will cost them a lot of money --
Labour MP Stella Creasy has long
campaigned against how
the government awards
its large contracts.
She is with us now. Nice to see you.
Your leader Jeremy Corbyn, we played
the clip at the beginning, called
this a watershed moment, but the
outsource of first dogma may now be
over. Do you think it is a moment
when everything changes?
I hope so,
I have been particularly concerned
about private finance contracts for
many years because I had seen the
impact first and in my local
hospital at whips cross. I call them
the legal loan sharks of the public
sector. It is an incredibly
expensive way to borrow. We were
told the reasons for using these
companies is that you would transfer
the risks that might come from
Public Company is to the private
sector. What the Carillion issue
does is it blows apart that myth.
But it doesn't clear up what happens
next, does it? The government
doesn't have the expertise to manage
these projects, the construction
knowledge. They are not really going
to disentangle themselves from these
No, and it was
very noticeable in the house that
when the minister was pressed
particularly about PFI contracts,
and committing not to give a penny
more to these companies and try to
give these services back in house
committee can give an answer,
because they don't know. You look at
these contracts, there is as much
power for the banks and the lenders
as there is for the public sector in
it. Outsourcing has gone up 125%
under this government and it is very
clear that government doesn't have
the skills and the expertise to
manage that volume of private
contracts and other taxpayer will
pay the price.
So you wouldn't want
to see Jeremy Corbyn, where
everything became with an estate
We have to look at these
contracts because a lot of the
clauses would mean it would cost a
hell of a lot of money to bring them
in-house. That is why I have been
calling for a windfall tax on the
PFI companies. It has been clear
they have benefited from corporation
tax being reduced. There is a very
strong case for the public sector in
try to get some value for money out
of these contracts to introduce a
windfall tax, and to get these
companies go there only a few of
them around doing it, around the
table at the Treasury. Why I don't
understand is why the Treasury has
not done any of this thinking?
not as if a windfall tax would have
made Carillion work any better, the
last thing that company needed was
an extra tax, right?
But it would
have made Carillion think about how
it manages its public contracts. I
am struck by the fact that in June
last year the NHS must have known
that there was in difficulty with
the Royal Liverpool hospital, get in
July we saw the Department for
Transport giving them a whole series
of contracts of they issued a profit
warning. One arm of government is
not talking to the other or we are
giving these companies contracts
because they cannot afford to fail.
What makes you think that having the
whole project under that government
umbrella would be any more
The first thing you
have to do is develop a Domesday
book, and some people have talked
about this, we know what it is we
owe and to whom, because the
Treasury doesn't even hold that
information century, Sarita Devi
know how much we are in hock with.
The government wants to tell you PFI
has delivered £750 billion worth of
investment but editors at a £200
The keeper coming in.
Ten years ago it was fat.
Now public health
enemy one is sugar.
This year marks the introduction
of the sugar tax -
we've already seen some
of the naming and shaming
of companies that aren't prepared
to reduce sugar content.
This programme has been looking
into whether companies are adhering
to the new rules of online sugar
advertising that emerged six months
ago - and our enquiries have been
changing corporate policy,
as James Clayton reports.
About 50% of all the sugar consumed
in the UK comes from this,
British sugar beans,
and for factories like this
one behind me, well,
business is booming.
But the government is trying
to make us eat less sugar.
In April this year, the sugar tax
will come into force,
Public Health England will name
the companies that have
and haven't reduced their sugar
and fat content in March,
and strict new rules
around advertising to
children came in last year.
But the reaction by companies
to these measures has
been, well, varied.
Hurry, hurry, it's the Crazy Crocos!
Back in the day, advertising rules
were a lot more relaxed.
Ten years ago, a review found that
80% of all food advertising
expenditure in children's airtime
on terrestrial channels was for
foods high in salt, sugar or fat.
Well, everybody knows,
Frosties taste great!
In 2008, rules were brought
in to stop these kind of adverts
being shown on children's TV,
rules that were extended
to cover online advertising
and material six months ago.
The Milky Bars are on me!
What does that mean?
Well, here is the Chief Executive of
the Advertising Standards Authority.
So just be clear, if you are
advertising to children,
and you're advertising for sweets
or junk food, you shouldn't be
allowed to advertise
to those children?
That's right, that's right,
and children are defined
as anyone who's under 16,
so it's children, and actually it's
young people, as well.
But Newsnight has been given
examples of online material that
campaigners believe push those rules
to the limit.
The Kinder brand makes chocolate
products aimed at children,
and their website, Magic Kinder,
has a series of games
also aimed at children.
Some have referred to these kinds
of games as adver-games,
and questioned whether they should
be allowed at all.
So what we've got here
is the Magic Kinder website,
so "magic" is the dominant word,
but "Kinder" is there
as well, and you can
see their games, targeting 3+, 5+.
Now you can't see very
strong Kinder advertising,
but once you start getting
into the games, and into
the stories, you can see
very close association,
with the toys that children receive
when they get Kinder Eggs.
I think they're not upholding
the spirit of the rules.
It seems to me that many of them
are playing around in the grey areas
of what is targeting
adults or children.
Adver-games are caught
by exactly the same ban
on advertising to children,
when it comes to products that
are high in fat, salt and sugar,
as any other form of advertising is,
so you should not be,
if you are a company with a brand
that is high in fat,
salt or sugar, you should not be
producing an adver-game for that
brand that targets children,
that appeals to children.
The big question here, then,
is does this constitute
an adver-game at all,
or are they simply fun
video games for kids?
In a statement to
Newsnight, Kinder said...
No products are visible,
but the toys in them are.
Since Newsnight told Kinder
we were doing the story,
the company has said it will now
place an age restriction
on the games.
The Advertising Standards Authority
is looking into the websites.
There are other areas, too,
that are difficult to police.
Take the Chewits Facebook page.
You have to be over 13
to have a Facebook account,
and here Chewits aren't paying
for advertising, they're just
updating their home page,
but what about posts like this one?
The important thing here is to make
sure if you are an advertiser
and you are using Facebook,
as a communicating channel
to get through to people,
is to make sure that you are not
you are not targeting under-16s
with your advertising
for your products that are high
in fat, salt or sugar.
And of course also to make sure that
you are complying with the tougher
content rules for ads,
even assuming you're not doing that.
Chewits told Newsnight that the vast
majority of people interacting
with the Chewits page are over 16.
There's not much doubt that
advertising to children works.
A YouGov poll, commissioned
by Cancer Research UK,
and given to Newsnight,
found that 11-to-19-year-olds
with high ad exposure were almost
three times more likely to have
diets high in salt, sugar and fats.
And where did the survey
find that those young
people watched those ads?
Well, on daytime TV,
sports channels, reality TV,
and, most commonly,
on entertainment shows.
So if you look at viewing figures
of the programmes most
popular with children,
it is that Saturday night
family viewing slot.
Those advertising breaks
are absolutely crammed full
of junk food adverts,
so we found in a study
where we looked at adverts around
The Voice, and Hollyoaks
and The Simpsons, that of the food
and drink in the adverts,
60% of them were for junk food.
So what we would like to see
is a nine o'clock watershed
on junk food marketing.
But for some, this
is a step too far.
You know, a lot of these
foods appeal to adults,
and these companies have a right
to advertise their foods to adults.
These programmes, the Saturday night
programmes, are watched
by massive adult audiences,
and I think it is perfectly fair
that they should be allowed
to advertise to them.
It is not just family shows that
are in the cross hairs
of sugar campaigners.
The rules on advertising to children
on TV haven't changed for ten years,
and some believe those rules
should be tightened.
Coco Pops is not allowed to be
advertised on children's TV,
but Coco Pops Granola,
a less sugary variant
of Coco Pops, can be.
This kind of falls into a grey area,
because, on one hand,
Kellogg's have created a product,
and reformulated a product,
which reduced the amount of sugar
so that it is OK to be advertised
on kids' TV, and we
want to encourage big
corporations like Kellogg's
to reformulate their products.
On the other hand, it allows them
to get the Coco Pops brand
in front of children,
on children's TV, and Coco Pops
are one of the unhealthiest
breakfast cereals on the market.
Hey, want to try my
new Coco Pops porridge?
But how do we heat up the milk?
Kellogg's is changing
its cereals, though.
Coco Pops will see a 40%
reduction in sugar this year,
and the company says
it is completely appropriate
for Coco Pops Granola
to advertise in kids' airtime.
Half the sugar us kids eat
and drink each year comes
from snacks and sugary drinks.
Public Health England
will publish its updated nutrient
profile later this year,
and they're expected
to tighten rules on sugar.
That would mean products
like Coco Pops Granola,
in its current formula,
may not be able to advertise
in kids' media in the future.
You'll be hearing a lot more
about sugar this year,
and it's not just in advertising.
doesn't like the sugar tax
or stricter advertising rules.
The Food and Drink Federation
prefers a voluntary
sugar reduction target.
It sounds like a lot
of where you guys are is, actually,
you quite like the status quo,
and you don't want anything
to change, is that fair?
I would love the status quo,
but it is not what we have got,
what we have got is a world
of constant change.
I mean, we have had endless
new initiatives on public health
the last few years...
So you want nothing to change?
What I want is a little bit
of stability to complete the work
that we are currently on...
So it's just, "trust
us, we'll do it"?
Well, the government set
us a challenge, it's
given us a deadline,
it said if we don't hit that,
it will consider doing more.
That's a perfectly reasonable
position for government to take.
So let's see where we get
to in 2020 before we start
doing other new things.
But the lesson from advertising
is clear: companies are reluctant
to change until they are told
to do so.
Unless the food and drink industry
shows progress on reducing sugar,
the government may well look
to get even tougher.
Mario Testino and Bruce Weber
are the latest names to be shunned
by fashion magazines
after allegations of sexual abuse.
They both deny the claims but
Conde Naste publications -
including Vogue - has said it
will not be working with them
in the foreseeable future.
Once again, it shines a spotlight
on an industry that has
often seemed closed.
It raises a more visceral
and fundamental question,
how does the fashion industry
operate and how much protection
is there for those who work in it?
I'm joined by Caryn Franklin -
Broadcaster, fashion commentator
and former fashion magazine editor.
Nice to have you here. Does any of
this surprise you, any of the
allegations or the response to it so
far, allegations which are denied of
Not of the latest names, I
have been writing about predatory
behaviour since 2013. A lot later
than some had been talking about it.
In the fashion industry
Yes, by photographers.
I was receiving stories on social
networking from models who told me
there are stories and they named
photographers who are now being
That was 2013, five
years ago. Why has this been such a
There is a real struggle
I think in the fashion industry,
recognition of high status
boundaries when there is getting the
shot that everybody thinks they
want. We have a culture that
hypersexual eyes is young people and
thinks nothing of it. Not all of us
agree with that sober is
countercultural conversation around
that. But campaigns, multi-billion
pound campaigns are often created
around that sort of arousal factor,
the excitement factor which involves
objectification of women and
increasingly young men.
Is at the
same set of circumstances that we've
seen in the movie industry,
vulnerable figure at the centre and
huge amounts of money and power on
the top or is it something even less
There is a similarity of
course but what you have got as an
extra imbalance is you have got a
very young, inexperienced model who
is not given a voice, who is
expected to be compliant and remain
silent and serve the shoot with
their body and do as they are told.
Monetarily you are in a very
precarious position as you don't
know when the next contract is
coming as a model.
A young male
model I spoke to said he suspected
his agent had sent him to the
photographer specifically to be
preyed upon, under the guise that he
was going for a test at his home.
Nothing was happening at the studio
but the photographer wanted to see
him and this could lead to a big
campaign. The conversation is on the
part of model agents that this could
be a big money earner not just for
you but for us.
So when you see
Conde Naste publications singly will
no longer take the work of Mario
Testino for example who has denied
these allegations, how long does
I don't know the answer
to that. What has changed is the
fashion industry is not riding the
crest of big budgets in the way it
was. All brands are looking to make
sure they can survive. The expansion
So this is about ethics at
It's about the brand not being
damaged. I believe people dead
because the story was rife and being
You believe important
figures in the industry, the heads
of magazines, editors, knew this was
There has been a lot of
conversation and generally people
felt powerless. It took independents
like me and others to be talking
about it but also to be ignored
because we don't have that kind of
power to action change.
it in 2013, how easy was it to name
I raised the appalling
spectre of Terry Richardson who was
creating situations where young
women felt hugely coerced to behave
in a sexualised way. But he was also
documenting himself engaging in a
range of behaviours that were very
unprofessional. That, to a certain
extent, was deemed to be edgy and
out there and was supported despite
the fact that many young women were
saying they felt appalled and
unprotected when they walked into
the situation. This was a
conversation that took place over
quite a few years and I even
resorted to pressure rising art
directors not to work with Terry
Richardson. I would have one-on-one
conversations with them.
understand I have to say he has
denied all those allegations but
thank you very much for coming in,
The Irish President has tonight paid
tribute to The Cranberries
singer Dolores O'Riordan
following her death in London.
He called her the voice
of a generation for anyone who grew
up in Ireland in the 1990s,
and for all those who
loved her overseas.
# But I'm in so deep,
you know I'm such a fool for you,
# You've got me wrapped
around your finger,
# Do you have to let it linger?
# Do you have to, do you have to,
do you have do let it linger?#
The Cranberries sold 40 million
records worldwide and became best
known for their album,
No Need To Argue,
which went to number one
in Australia, France and Germany,
and number six in the United States.
Eoghan McDermott worked on the Irish
version of The Voice
with Dolores O'Riordan.
It is nice of you to join us, this
must have come as a huge shock and I
am wondering how you are thinking of
It is a shock first and
foremost. I think we covered a lot
on the radio show the news as it
broke and I think the overwhelming
sentiment from people coming in was
exactly that, shock because she was
so young and a mother and now the
focus is on the music and the
Cranberries and the legacy but she
is a mother of three children as
well. So, sorrow but also a lot of
people, particularly women reaching
out and seeing how amazing they
found Dolores, how great it was in
the 90s, pre-the Internet being so
dominant just to have a feisty and
frustrated angry and intelligent,
flawed but brilliant header went to
so it reflects on the music and the
It was her
voice, known for their mix of rock
and folk but predominantly it was
that voice which resonated with the
public wasn't it?
Yeah, and again I
think the reflection today was on
the Cranberries and Dolores as they
voiced of the Cranberries, people
have paid tribute to the big songs
like Linger and Zombie, songs which
reached across political and
cultural lines and these days bands
like Cranberries would be played on
indie rock or alternative stations
but at the height of their powers
they were on the present. They also
broke America which is the holy
grail for any band which has English
as their first language.
extraordinary thing to be able to
look back on. You work with her at
the The Voice, tell us how you will
remember her, watching was like?
think when she was announced as a
coach on The Voice nobody could
believe it. Everyone was genuinely
shocked, we got to know her a
little. She admitted she had never
seen the show, the Irish or, any of
the shows anywhere in the world so
we asked why she did it and she said
my girl likes it and said I should
do it so I did it. The other
coaches, we had Sharon from the
chorus, other Irish acts who have
sold millions of records but when
Dolores was announced people were
flabbergasted, she had that legacy
and that weight. As a person very
low-key, very warm, an producible
the producer of the programme said
on the radio today but in the best
possible way. She took direction
from nobody and was a liability in
the warmest way.
A real coup for
them to get her. We often think of
the massive worldwide success and
the 40 million records but coming
back to her Irish identity was
absolutely crucial to her wasn't it?
Yeah, she was from Limerick which
very wrong way had a bad reputation
in the 90s which it has now
outgrown, it is a beautiful and
vibrant city. As well as being, it's
great to celebrate Hometown hero was
doing well but I think she really
lifted a city which had gotten an
unfair rap. Some of the songs from
the Cranberries will forever be
included in the pantheon of great
songs, their legacy forevermore is
sealed which makes it all the more
tragic because she was only 46 and
as people know was in London for a
recording session so there must have
been new music on the horizon. She
was back with the Cranberries and
she had a side project. There was a
lot more to come and it's just
Thank you for talking to
us tonight, we really appreciate it.
Just before we go...
Nick's back - Nick,
a word on a momentous
day for Momentum -
Nick, tell us...
The founder of Momentum and
supporter of Tony Ben led a
landslide victory on to the National
Executive Committee of the Labour
Party will stop three of his
supporters are on that committee and
it's a historic day for the Labour
Party because they left for so long
written off as a marginal force now
effectively are in the majority on
Interesting story in The
Times tomorrow seeing the so-called
centrist Labour MPs, if you can go
ahead and deselect some of these MPs
then they would resign the Labour
whip and set as their own bloc in
parliament but we will see. They
have made these threats in the past,
they are not in the ascendancy in
the Labour Party so we will see how
That's it for today,
which is of course Blue Monday,
the saddest day of the year.
The mathematics behind
the concept was created in 2005
by a psychologist called
Cliff Arnall, after a travel company
commissioned him to prove that
everyone should cheer up
by booking their summer
holidays round about now.
Cliff proved it all a bit too
convincingly, and a pseudo
science legend was born.
We got in touch with him today
to see what he now thought
about his discovery and he told us -
quote - "Don't believe
a word of it."
But of course we do.
And so we leave you with this -
Cliff Arnall's immortal
Blue Monday proof equation.