15/01/2018 Newsnight

This is a watershed moment.

Across

the public sector of the outsourced

burst dogma has wreaked Kalinic.

Is Carillion really the beginning

of the end for public

private partnership,

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

Street minister.

Also tonight:

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

# Zombie

# Zombie #

Good evening.

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.

It's a

shame.

This boss had 30 people sent

home today including from work on

the new Google building in King's

Cross.

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

like Carillion.

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.

I

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.

The point

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.

The collapse

of Carillion is still likely to

focus minds on what could be done

better.

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

was.

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.

So

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.

It is

important to understand the context.

Eight new contracts but they only

account for 2% of our ongoing

contracts.

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?

The concern

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...

There

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

contracts...

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.

The

additional cost has been in respect

of the appointment of the official

receiver. If you point an official

receiver there is a cost associated

with that.

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

these contracts...

Why would they go

for it when they see you supporting

a company like Carillion which is

clearly about to go bust?

Those

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.

Stand

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.

They have

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

deliver.

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

allowed.

I don't think this is a

question of ideology.

It's either

ideology or incompetence.

Third of

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

perceived.

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

them.

20,000 people worrying about

their job of the first CEO is still

receiving a salary and will continue

to do so until October.

You raise

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

question...

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

fair?

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

October?

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.

Oliver

Dowden, thank you.

Nick Watt our political

editor is here.

What do you take away from today?

We

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

actually?

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 --

from Carillion.

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

companies, right?

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

remit?

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?

It is

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

successful then?

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

has delivered £750 billion worth of

investment but editors at a £200

billion cost.

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.

Unsurprisingly, industry

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

course.

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

specifically?

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

talked about.

That was 2013, five

years ago. Why has this been such a

slow burn?

There is a real struggle

I think in the fashion industry,

recognition of high status

professionals overstepping

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

overt?

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

this last?

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

plans...

So this is about ethics at

all?

It's about the brand not being

damaged. I believe people dead

because the story was rife and being

passed around.

You believe important

figures in the industry, the heads

of magazines, editors, knew this was

going on?

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.

You raised

it in 2013, how easy was it to name

names?

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.

You

understand I have to say he has

denied all those allegations but

thank you very much for coming in,

Caryn Franklin.

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

her tonight?

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

person simultaneously.

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.

An

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?

I

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

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

really sad.

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

the body.

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

it goes.

Thank you.

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.

Goodnight.