This is what a real 'Benefits Street' might look like.
On Monday Channel 4 aired the first episode of a new programme called Benefits Street. The show is set on a street where 90 per cent of the people living there apparently claim some form of benefit.
Here is a short clip so you get the gist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr8jGiIp2MI
The clip is short but I’m sure you get the picture: the residents of ‘Benefits Street’ (actually James Turner Street in Birmingham) live as they do because they don’t have jobs. And they don’t have jobs because they can’t be bothered to get the, Or, so the programme seems to suggest.
That is, after all, what benefits are for isn’t it, the unemployed?
The point the producers of Benefits Street appear to have missed, however, is that the vast majority of people on benefits are about as far removed from some of the characters featured in the programme as it is possible to be.
Not only in the sense that they are ordinary people rather than troublemakers, but in that they aren’t unemployed at all.
Were it a real Benefits Street, it might look something like this (click to zoom):
(HT: New Economics Foundation)
In other words, the vast majority of people ‘on benefits’ are elderly. Pensions make up a whopping 42.3 per cent of the welfare bill. It’s pensioners who predominate on Benefits Street, not drug-addled, foul mouthed yobs.
The next largest recipients of welfare are those who do work but who are on low incomes. George Osborne’s ‘strivers’, in other words, who make up 20.8 per cent of the welfare budget through things like working tax credits.
The working poor are an increasingly common feature of 21st century Britain. In December the Joseph Rowntree Foundation revealed that over half of the 13 million people living in poverty are actually from working families.
Next up are the sick and disabled, who constitute 15.5 per cent of the welfare budget. They do sometimes take drugs; but it’s usually for pain relief, rather than to get high.
At the end of the street we finally reach the unemployed, who make up just 2.6 per cent of total welfare spending. Not 90 per cent, not even 10 per cent; but 2 per cent. That’s it. It isn’t so much a street as a potting shed in the garden of a small terraced house at the end of the row.
Looking again at my terrible photoshop mock up of a ‘Benefits Street’ it’s clear that, like the producers of the programme, I’ve created a woefully inaccurate representation of the true state of affairs. A real ‘Benefits Street’ would look a lot more like this:
Look at them. I hope it makes you as angry as it does me. Bloody scroungers.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
52 Responses to “What a real ‘Benefits Street’ would look like”
David Sanderson
If you think this programme was biased you should read the views of New Zealand ACT party blogger Clint Heine, he opposes minimum wage, supports benefit cuts and has even advocated compulsory sterilisation, incredibly he is ‘working’ In this country with the most vulnerable people in society, vile person.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
Because it is in one of just 57 wards in the country where non-working households are over 50%. It’s not the slightest bit representative and Channel 4 knows it.
Sorry but it’s not ‘the Left’ who are making things up. It’s impossible to debate with those who would rather invent opinions for others like ‘they pretend people like this don’t exist, that fraudsters and scroungers don’t exist’ and variations of.
GO
@ Sparky
“it was created by a labour government”
I’ve never really understood where this perception comes from. A few facts for you:
– The number of unemployed people *fell* under the last Labour government, from an average of around 2.5 million through the 80s and 90s to an average of around 1.5 million in the 00s.
– The number of people unemployed for more than a year more than halved from over 800,000 under Major to under 400,000 under Blair.
– The rise in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit was halted in the early 00s and then reversed.
It’s the Tories who, for all their tough talk, have always been prepared to tolerate more people being out of work for longer (since this helps keep wages low and inflation down). And even Cameron has admitted, I think, that past Tory governments allowed people to languish on sickness benefits as a way of keeping the unemployment figures down, with no real efforts to get the people claiming those benefits back into work.
Ignore the rhetoric and look at the figures. The Tories are the party of welfare because the Tories are the party of high unemployment and low wages.
Daley Gleephart
Low income 20.8% – Man wearing denim breeches.
christof_ff
Did anyone from Channel 4 ever claim that Benefits Street was representative? Is it not possible to look at a small sub-set any group?
Also, whilst pensions are technically benefits, pensioners are not amongst most people’s definition of cbenefits-claimants’.