:01:31. > :01:34.denigrate working-class people on television? To simply replace a
:01:35. > :01:39.whole section of British society with ugly stereotypes? I suppose it
:01:40. > :01:44.would have been about a decade ago, when the unapologetic shrillness in
:01:45. > :01:47.the criticism of the poorer end of society really sank in. I remember
:01:48. > :01:51.one particular judgment being delivered by an Oxford student, in a
:01:52. > :01:54.crisp, well-spoken English accent: a young man loudly berating, quote,
:01:55. > :01:59."those Vicky Pollards "rampaging around council estates."
:02:00. > :02:04.By then, Matt Lucas and David Walliams' comedy series Little
:02:05. > :02:08.Britain had become a national TV phenomenon. It was a show laughed at
:02:09. > :02:11.by people from all backgrounds. Its catchphrases yelled in the nation's
:02:12. > :02:14.playgrounds. And yet, here was someone from a pampered background
:02:15. > :02:18.treating a grotesque caricature of a single teenage mum on a council
:02:19. > :02:24.estate as though she was a real person and not the comic stereotype
:02:25. > :02:27.you saw just a moment ago. And that privileged Oxford undergraduate
:02:28. > :02:30.wasn't alone. James Delingpole, a journalist who once argued he was a
:02:31. > :02:32.member of the most discriminated against group in society, "the
:02:33. > :02:34.white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge-educated
:02:35. > :02:42."middle-class male" made a similar point in a Times newspaper article.
:02:43. > :02:47.Under the headline, A Conspiracy Against Chavs? Count Me In, he noted
:02:48. > :02:50.- "The reason Vicky Pollard caught the public imagination is that she
:02:51. > :02:58."embodies, with such fearful accuracy, several of the great
:02:59. > :03:03."scourges of contemporary Britain. "Aggressive all-female gangs of
:03:04. > :03:07.embittered, "hormonal teenagers. Gym-slip mums who choose to get
:03:08. > :03:09.pregnant as a career option. Pasty-faced, lard-gutted slappers
:03:10. > :03:14.who'll drop their knickers in the blink of an eye." Strong meat
:03:15. > :03:17.indeed, and with a side order of misogyny. For a moment, put aside
:03:18. > :03:21.what the controversial term "chav" symbolises, something that would
:03:22. > :03:25.later engross me. I was shocked at how a TV caricature - who,
:03:26. > :03:29.hilariously, once swapped one of her kids for a Westlife CD - was no
:03:30. > :03:33.longer being treated simply as a bit of a laugh and an absurd figure of
:03:34. > :03:36.fun. Rather, here, apparently, was a real person who was emblematic of
:03:37. > :03:41.hundreds of thousands of young British women of a certain class.
:03:42. > :03:43.And, more shocking still was a YouGov poll conducted in 2006 at the
:03:44. > :03:48.Edinburgh International Television Festival. Attended by the cream of
:03:49. > :03:51.Britain's television producers, it transpired that over 70% of them
:03:52. > :03:58.believed Vicky Pollard was an accurate representation of so-called
:03:59. > :04:01."white working-class youth". I mention this not as a statistical
:04:02. > :04:04.cheap shot at all British television producers, many of whom I know are
:04:05. > :04:10.intelligent, responsible programme-makers. But because, it
:04:11. > :04:12.seems to me, that over the last couple years, such ludicrous
:04:13. > :04:16.misunderstandings and, critically, a new era of austerity in modern
:04:17. > :04:22.Britain, there has now grown a significant strain of malignant
:04:23. > :04:24.programming. And these programmes, either consciously or unwittingly,
:04:25. > :04:27.suggest that now, in 2013, on British television, it's open season
:04:28. > :04:35.on millions of working-class people and some of the poorest people in
:04:36. > :04:41.society. Take, for example, a recent three-part Channel five series. Each
:04:42. > :04:44.episode is entitled as follows - Shoplifters And Proud, Pick Pockets
:04:45. > :04:45.And Proud and, completing the seemingly criminal trilogy, On
:04:46. > :04:57.Benefits And Proud. Big families on benefits need big
:04:58. > :05:00.houses. Heather Frost and her 11 kids are no
:05:01. > :05:01.excerption. You have dinners today. You have
:05:02. > :05:05.packed lunches tomorrow. They're in line for this impressive
:05:06. > :05:12.new home. But for now, two neighbouring
:05:13. > :05:14.three-bed council houses are where you'll find Heather and all those
:05:15. > :05:20.kids. Sophie.
:05:21. > :05:22.Then Toby, Angel, Jay, Chloe, Paige, Emily, Beth, Ruby, Daisy, and stinky
:05:23. > :05:34.Tilly! Here, the tried-and-tested formula
:05:35. > :05:38.is to feature a handful of very extreme examples, such as unusually
:05:39. > :05:41.large families on benefits. Some participants are likely sourced from
:05:42. > :05:44.tabloid news stories or from earlier appearances on the Jeremy Kyle Show
:05:45. > :05:49.and guaranteed to make the viewers' blood boil. And, of course, the
:05:50. > :05:52.implicit suggestion is that all recipients of benefits are work-shy
:05:53. > :05:58.scroungers living the high life at the taxpayers' expense. It would
:05:59. > :06:01.seem that some viewers knew what to expect and had organised a petition
:06:02. > :06:04.with around 3,000 names which were sent to Channel five in advance of
:06:05. > :06:11.transmission, demanding that the episode not be screened. The root of
:06:12. > :06:16.this phenomenon, I chronicled in my book, Chavs - The Demonization of
:06:17. > :06:19.the Working Class. I wanted to challenge the mantra that dominated
:06:20. > :06:23.the '90s and early noughties, that "we're all middle class now" - to
:06:24. > :06:27.quote Tony Blair. And that the old working class had vanished and all
:06:28. > :06:31.that was left was a feckless rump living on so-called "sink estates".
:06:32. > :06:35.And it was the word "chav" which was supposed to sum this class up. The
:06:36. > :06:38.term "chav" is itself heavily contested. Originating from the
:06:39. > :06:42.Romani word for child, "chavi", there has also been a number of
:06:43. > :06:45."backronyms" invented to sum up its meaning, such as Council Housed And
:06:46. > :06:48.Violent, Council Housed And Vulgar. And, of course, it is used
:06:49. > :06:50.exclusively against people from a working-class background, with many
:06:51. > :06:52.unpleasant connotations - fecklessness, tackiness, bigotry,
:06:53. > :06:58.having multiple children with multiple partners, anti-social
:06:59. > :07:01.behaviour, and so on. Disturbingly, a study in 2011 by polling company
:07:02. > :07:03.BritainThinks, found that those people who identified themselves as
:07:04. > :07:07.middle class increasingly used the term "working class" as a pejorative
:07:08. > :07:18.word with the same connotations as "chav". I wanted to examine
:07:19. > :07:20.everything from the poor-baiting of the tabloids to the obvious
:07:21. > :07:25.political opportunism which resulted. And to look at the role
:07:26. > :07:30.television played in stoking the chav myth. Obviously, early examples
:07:31. > :07:35.of TV chav types were comedian Harry Enfield's Wayne and Waynetta Slob.
:07:36. > :07:38.And, of course, programmes such as the Jeremy Kyle Show, where the
:07:39. > :07:41.dysfunctional, troubled lives of people from largely poor backgrounds
:07:42. > :07:46.were served up as "aren't they awful" entertainment. Here is a
:07:47. > :07:49.brief, and not untypical, excerpt from Kyle's programme displaying
:07:50. > :07:54.what one judge described as "human bear-baiting".
:07:55. > :08:00.Are you close to your daughter? No. You didn't bring her up, did you?
:08:01. > :08:03.No. Auntie Dawn brought you up. This
:08:04. > :08:14.story gets more concerning. Dawn's on The Jeremy Kyle Show! You're a
:08:15. > :08:17.liar! I've done everything for that baby.
:08:18. > :08:23.You've brought nothing. You've brought nothing. It's a lie. I told
:08:24. > :08:27.you to buy a bottle. Don't swear it.
:08:28. > :08:31.A blue bottle for a boy and pink for a girl.
:08:32. > :08:34.I went away for five days, and what do you do?
:08:35. > :08:39.And you were jumping in bed... I'm a tramp? We're trying to bring
:08:40. > :08:45.them kids up. I couldn't care less! I brought ten kids up. I don't give
:08:46. > :08:48.two huffs by the end of it, Jason! Unsurprisingly, many - myself
:08:49. > :08:55.included - have questioned the cynical agenda of this series. The
:08:56. > :08:58.reason I'm addressing you tonight is I feel there has recently been a
:08:59. > :09:01.step change. That on television, not only have these similar chav
:09:02. > :09:03.caricatures increased but they have now replaced accurate
:09:04. > :09:06.representations of everyday working-class people. And these
:09:07. > :09:09.working people are becoming invisible. This should be a cause
:09:10. > :09:12.for concern not just for programme-makers, but for all of us
:09:13. > :09:15.who believe that no viewers deserve to have their - supposed lives
:09:16. > :09:21.marginalised or singled out for public ridicule. So, I ask you this
:09:22. > :09:24.- why is it increasingly difficult to find honest portrayals of
:09:25. > :09:26.working-class people on television? What has encouraged this
:09:27. > :09:31.increasingly toxic atmosphere which seems to surround vast swathes of
:09:32. > :09:34.Britain's population? While previous Labour governments have not been
:09:35. > :09:38.blameless, since the Coalition came to power in 2010, there has been a
:09:39. > :09:43.more determined effort to slash the welfare state. Benefits that go to
:09:44. > :09:48.working people, disabled people and unemployed people alike have been
:09:49. > :09:51.cut back. Politicians of the right and left have casually spoken about
:09:52. > :09:54.skivers and strivers, of the work-shy hiding behind curtains, of
:09:55. > :10:05.the unemployed getting more benefits than people in work. Little of it is
:10:06. > :10:08.based in fact. But it seems to me that this offers a licence to
:10:09. > :10:10.programme-makers who may wish to make more sensationalist programmes.
:10:11. > :10:13.There has been an accompanying barrage of media coverage,
:10:14. > :10:15.intentionally hunting down the most extreme, shocking examples of
:10:16. > :10:25.so-called "scroungers", passing them off as though they are just the tip
:10:26. > :10:27.of the iceberg. Most damaging has been television's recent wave of
:10:28. > :10:30.so-called "poverty porn" documentaries. Curiously, the term
:10:31. > :10:32.seems first to have become prevalent in 2009 when describing the
:10:33. > :10:34.beautifully filmed squalor of the Mumbai slums in Danny Boyle's
:10:35. > :10:39.award-winning film Slumdog Millionaire. Nearer home, the term
:10:40. > :10:42.seems to be shorthand for documentaries which airbrush out the
:10:43. > :10:47.tough realities of the poor, to substitute them with sensationalist,
:10:48. > :10:50.extreme caricatures. I assume the "porn" element is supposed to
:10:51. > :10:53.suggest the guilty pleasures to be had from viewers looking down on
:10:54. > :11:08.these "entertaining" figures of ridicule. Channel 4's Skint is a
:11:09. > :11:11.case in point. It was sold as an observational documentary centred on
:11:12. > :11:14.a community living on the Westcliff estate in Scunthorpe as they
:11:15. > :11:18.attempted to get by on benefits. It turned out to be a particularly
:11:19. > :11:21.unpleasant piece of voyeurism. From the chummily patronising commentary
:11:22. > :11:24.delivered in a Northern accent by Finchy from the comedy The Office,
:11:25. > :11:28.the stereotypes come thick and fast. 'If you're unemployed and want
:11:29. > :11:32.money, it comes from one of two places, 'the Social or a bit on the
:11:33. > :11:35.side.' Most people just sign on or are on the dole or sell drugs.
:11:36. > :11:38.People get roped into it, don't they?
:11:39. > :11:42.It's an easy thing to do. If you sign on and haven't got money, if
:11:43. > :11:44.you sell drugs, it's an easy way out. It's just sitting on your cars
:11:45. > :11:47.and selling. 'If you're not into selling drugs,
:11:48. > :11:50.phones or shoplifting, there's just your benefits to get by on.
:11:51. > :11:54.'There's people think you're loaded if you're claiming for a big family.
:11:55. > :11:58.'The more kids you have, the more money you get, that's for sure. 'But
:11:59. > :12:01.it still don't go very far.' Skint...
:12:02. > :12:04.Predictably, the series' bleak mix of crime, broken homes and drugs
:12:05. > :12:08.earned it the title "The Real Shameless". Here, once again,
:12:09. > :12:11.exaggerated, fictional television characters are portrayed as
:12:12. > :12:17.apparently real stereotypes by lazy, tabloid media. Channel 4's long
:12:18. > :12:20.running series Shameless is not, like Skint, some straightforward
:12:21. > :12:25.case of the privileged mocking those without power. Its creator, Paul
:12:26. > :12:28.Abbott, had a turbulent childhood as a working-class boy in Burnley, and
:12:29. > :12:33.originally intended the series to be a gritty, semi-autobiographical
:12:34. > :12:37.drama. It was transformed into a comedy with larger-than-life
:12:38. > :12:40.characters. For example, one of the main characters develops into a
:12:41. > :12:43.bright university student. But with each successive series, it has
:12:44. > :12:46.become cruder in portrayal, especially when the spotlight falls
:12:47. > :12:50.on the notorious antihero of the series, Frank Gallagher.
:12:51. > :12:55.Tickets this way for the Chatsworth Express Come and watch pikeys making
:12:56. > :12:58.a mess Of the lives they were given by him upstairs And kids they're
:12:59. > :13:01.convinced aren't actually theirs What sounds on Earth could ever
:13:02. > :13:12.replace Kids needing money, or wives in your face?
:13:13. > :13:15.Cos this, people reckon, and me included Is why pubs and drugs were
:13:16. > :13:23.kindly invented To calm us all down, stop us going mental.
:13:24. > :13:28.These are Chatsworth Estate's basic essentials.
:13:29. > :13:31.Me, I'm worth every penny for grinding your axes.
:13:32. > :13:39.You sheet on our heads, but you pay the taxes!
:13:40. > :13:46.Amusing? Perhaps. But the Frank Gallagher character has been used by
:13:47. > :13:49.various newspapers as the poster boy for Britain's feckless poor. Abbott
:13:50. > :13:51.would be appalled, but Gallagher has probably been quite effective in
:13:52. > :13:55.influencing public support for recent welfare cuts. It seems to me
:13:56. > :13:58.that some TV producers, perhaps unthinkingly, have fallen in line
:13:59. > :14:01.with a broader political agenda, helping fuel support for the
:14:02. > :14:06.slashing of the welfare state by demonising its "undeserving"
:14:07. > :14:09.recipients. The fact that most social security spending goes on
:14:10. > :14:12.pensioners who've paid in all their lives...
:14:13. > :14:15.That most working-age benefits go to people actually in work, and that
:14:16. > :14:18.there are 6.5 million people chasing full-time work in this country...
:14:19. > :14:23.Well, you'd never think this, watching these increasingly shrill
:14:24. > :14:27.and extreme reality TV shows. And so, TV has helped harden popular
:14:28. > :14:31.attitudes towards the poorest in the country. And this at a time when the
:14:32. > :14:34.political elite are implementing policies that, according to the
:14:35. > :14:39.Child Poverty Action Group, will drive over a million children into
:14:40. > :14:44.poverty. But what does the term "working class" mean in Britain
:14:45. > :14:48.today? Throughout the '90s and the noughties, the mantra - again, thank
:14:49. > :14:51.you, Tony - "we're all middle class now". That the old working class had
:14:52. > :14:54.vanished, because they'd all pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.
:14:55. > :14:59.Except, of course, for a few feckless types splashing out their
:15:00. > :15:03.benefits on widescreen TV sets... That is, when they weren't voting
:15:04. > :15:06.for the BNP. One of the stock arguments is that the working class
:15:07. > :15:10.had vanished with the old industries. But what we really saw
:15:11. > :15:18.was a dramatic shift from an industrial working class to a
:15:19. > :15:21.service-sector working class. Today there's far more part-time and
:15:22. > :15:25.zero-hour workers and many will have to jump from job to job in the same
:15:26. > :15:28.year. They're often blighted with poverty pay, with millions having to
:15:29. > :15:31.have their wages topped up with tax credits. But these people are all
:15:32. > :15:35.but invisible on television. The reality of their lives is rarely
:15:36. > :15:37.seen. There's also been a lot of talk about an "underclass", a
:15:38. > :15:40.dehumanising term. Right-wing American political scientist Charles
:15:41. > :15:43.Murray defined the "underclass" as a "new rabble" that had been created
:15:44. > :15:45.by the collapse in the family and demanded economic penalties for
:15:46. > :15:48.single mothers. Murray's theories received a warm welcome from
:15:49. > :15:51.sections of the British right and clearly influenced the debate here.
:15:52. > :15:54.Almost by definition, people who might be characterised by others as
:15:55. > :15:57.being the so-called "underclass" may simply be suffering pressures and
:15:58. > :16:00.difficulties of an acute kind. Here's a short excerpt from the BBC
:16:01. > :16:04.documentary series, People Like Us, which focused on a struggling group
:16:05. > :16:08.of locals from the North Manchester suburb of Harpurhey.
:16:09. > :16:12.'Nicola is a single parent to one-year-old Crystal and tonight,
:16:13. > :16:19.her mum is supposed to be baby-sitting.' Have you seen a book
:16:20. > :16:23.in my house? We can't read or write, we don't know where to send it to
:16:24. > :16:27.you, the book is going in the bin. Do what you want...
:16:28. > :16:31.Me mam's got a personality where she changes. She's not a very nice
:16:32. > :16:34.person to get along with. No. Hey, Nicola!
:16:35. > :16:37.What? You left a parcel behind. Get her
:16:38. > :16:41.ready for bed. She's grown bigger this time.
:16:42. > :16:44.Make sure she's got a clean nappy and put her in bed.
:16:45. > :16:49.Why should you get out early and leave the child to us? I don't think
:16:50. > :16:54.so, we've got things to do. Have you now?
:16:55. > :16:56.Yeah, we do. And what's that? Not sitting in here all night
:16:57. > :16:59.baby-sitting. I'm not baby-sitting.
:17:00. > :17:01.Get her ready, get her jammies on and settle her down and I'll
:17:02. > :17:04.baby-sit. That's too much!
:17:05. > :17:12.What do you mean, "That's too much"? Why can't you baby-sit my child
:17:13. > :17:18.until I go out? You should wear a condom.
:17:19. > :17:24.Uncomfortable viewing from People Like Us.
:17:25. > :17:27.Was it properly explained to the people of Harpurhey what the effect
:17:28. > :17:29.of welcoming cameras in to their homes might be? And that
:17:30. > :17:33.unemployment, drug-taking and anti-social behaviour would become
:17:34. > :17:35.the focus of the series? As it was, some 200 Harpurhey residents
:17:36. > :17:38.attended what was an angry meeting when the first series aired. Their
:17:39. > :17:42.complaint was that People Like Us gave a "biased and distorted" view
:17:43. > :17:45.of the area. Also that local children were being bullied in
:17:46. > :17:49.school as a result of the programme. And even that people had pulled out
:17:50. > :17:52.of buying houses there as a result. A local council worker, Richard
:17:53. > :17:55.Searle, whose daughter appeared on the programme, argued that, "The BBC
:17:56. > :17:57.should not be propagating this harmful and misleading image of the
:17:58. > :18:01.working class". But how do you define what working
:18:02. > :18:04.class is? My view is an old-fashioned one. It's those who
:18:05. > :18:10.have to work for someone else in order to live. And they don't have
:18:11. > :18:13.control over the work that they do. I think that's most people, whether
:18:14. > :18:16.you're a supermarket worker, nurse or secretary. It also includes
:18:17. > :18:19.workers driven into unemployment because of a lack of jobs. What's
:18:20. > :18:21.interesting is the number of people who identify themselves as
:18:22. > :18:24.working-class has remained stubbornly the same, however much
:18:25. > :18:29.the mantra of "we're all middle class" has been drummed into people.
:18:30. > :18:32.A study by the polling group BritainThinks suggested that people
:18:33. > :18:36.looked at class through the prism of culture. When asked to come up with
:18:37. > :18:39.a symbol of being middle class, some suggested...the cafetiere. There's a
:18:40. > :18:43.popular sense that, for example, you read a tabloid newspaper or watch
:18:44. > :18:47.soaps, well, you're working class. If you listen to Radio 4 and read
:18:48. > :18:51.The Times, you're middle class. We may wish to be classless but it
:18:52. > :18:54.seems that we Brits still get our vowels and our knickers in a twist
:18:55. > :18:57.when the subject arises. The BBC launched their online Class
:18:58. > :19:00.Calculator earlier this year after surveying 161,000 people. The
:19:01. > :19:02.suggestion was that the existing upper, middle and working class
:19:03. > :19:07.divisions no longer reflected modern British occupations or lifestyles.
:19:08. > :19:10.The survey suggested that there were now seven groupings, including new
:19:11. > :19:15.additions such as the "precariat" - roughly speaking, the financially
:19:16. > :19:19.insecure proletariat. Public interest was such that an
:19:20. > :19:23.astonishing six million of us used the calculator to find our place in
:19:24. > :19:26.society. It also seems that television series on class come like
:19:27. > :19:31.buses, in threes, as if acknowledging our anxieties.
:19:32. > :19:34.Recently, noted Corporation chin-strokers such as Melvin Bragg
:19:35. > :19:41.and Andrew Neil considered the subject, respectively, in Class And
:19:42. > :19:44.Culture and Posh And Posher. But when Paul O'Grady tackled the
:19:45. > :19:46.working class in his recent compelling series, the word "class"
:19:47. > :19:49.was perversely removed from the title by anxious executives, leaving
:19:50. > :19:58.it emasculated as Paul O'Grady's Working Britain. Fascinatingly, it
:19:59. > :20:01.would fall to a self-proclaimed "transvestite potter" to playfully
:20:02. > :20:02.tease out some the differences in British class, using taste as the
:20:03. > :20:13.key. Everything about Sunderland you just
:20:14. > :20:15.love. The history as well. Our mining history, the shipyards'
:20:16. > :20:20.history, what's all gone now, but we're still living the tradition. My
:20:21. > :20:24.dad's still a coalminer to this day. What else does Sunderland got to be
:20:25. > :20:28.proud of apart from the football now? Well, the heritage...
:20:29. > :20:31.That's the past. Yeah, well, we're proud as we're
:20:32. > :20:35.still here. We're still all together. We might have nothing now,
:20:36. > :20:39.but we've still got this kind of generosity what we did have in the
:20:40. > :20:43.old days. Is that the industry, generosity, you think?
:20:44. > :20:45.And call centres, know what I mean?! Turner Prize-winning artist Grayson
:20:46. > :20:51.Perry there getting among the people.
:20:52. > :20:54.Perry seemed to be equally intrigued by tattooed lads from Sunderland as
:20:55. > :20:58.mansion dwellers in the Cotswolds. Somehow, by taking a less dogmatic
:20:59. > :21:01.and a more open cultural route, he managed not to patronise those he
:21:02. > :21:08.met and also to celebrate the diversity of British class. But I'm
:21:09. > :21:11.not sure that the truth about class isn't more brutal. I think class is
:21:12. > :21:15.ultimately about wealth and power, and where you are in the pecking
:21:16. > :21:19.order. An aristocrat who watches the X Factor is still an aristocrat. The
:21:20. > :21:23.postal worker who goes to the opera is still working class. And it seems
:21:24. > :21:26.to me that now, the poorer sections of society and the working class
:21:27. > :21:30.certainly don't have the power to influence how they are portrayed on
:21:31. > :21:32.television. Was there ever a time when working-class lives, in all
:21:33. > :21:36.their complexities, not only found expression on television but also
:21:37. > :21:39.gripped the nation's viewers? If there was a mythic golden age, it
:21:40. > :21:43.was precipitated in the late '50s and early '60s by kitchen sink
:21:44. > :21:47.dramas such as Billy Liar, A Kind of Loving and A Taste Of Honey which
:21:48. > :21:52.were then progressing from play or novel to feature film. Television
:21:53. > :21:55.would be just a beat behind this vanguard. But by the early '60s,
:21:56. > :22:00.vibrant working-class voices would be making themselves heard properly
:22:01. > :22:04.on TV for the first time. Of course, the years after World War II had
:22:05. > :22:06.already rung the changes in British society. A majority Labour
:22:07. > :22:09.government demonstrated its belief in collective solutions to deal with
:22:10. > :22:13.social problems which weren't regarded as the fault of the
:22:14. > :22:16.individual. And, crucially, there was a strong and growing trade union
:22:17. > :22:21.movement to represent working people. It was only a matter of time
:22:22. > :22:25.before this once invisible class, and their stories, would appear on
:22:26. > :22:29.television, in number. In 1960, a new 13-part drama series, made by a
:22:30. > :22:32.north of England company called Granada Television for the fledgling
:22:33. > :22:37.ITV channel would have a seismic effect on the box. Here were the
:22:38. > :22:39.lives of sympathetically portrayed, three-dimensional working-class
:22:40. > :22:44.characters on screen for the first time.
:22:45. > :22:50.Did you go down to the labour today? I'm not due till tomorrow. You just
:22:51. > :22:52.don't want work! Did you see the adverts in the
:22:53. > :22:56.newspapers? What papers? We only get the one in
:22:57. > :22:59.the morning and there's nothing in that. You could've gone to the
:23:00. > :23:03.reading room. Here am I working myself to death and you can't even
:23:04. > :23:06.look at a newspaper. What sort of job would they have for me?
:23:07. > :23:09.There's plenty of jobs for them that look for them.
:23:10. > :23:11.They ask you want experience you've had.
:23:12. > :23:13.You've had experience. Not the right kind.
:23:14. > :23:17.Just drop it, will you? No, I won't. It's the same every time.
:23:18. > :23:20.Look, you know why I can't get a job! You've been out of that place
:23:21. > :23:23.seven weeks now. Oh, don't let's wrap it up. If you
:23:24. > :23:26.mean prison, say it, everyone else does.
:23:27. > :23:29.You can't go on like this. What am I supposed to do?
:23:30. > :23:34.Tell me that. Why did it have to be me who had a son like you?
:23:35. > :23:38.The matriarchal majesty of Elsie Tanner there, as played by Pat
:23:39. > :23:41.Phoenix. Despite initial concerns Coronation Street might be just too
:23:42. > :23:44.dull, the series quickly became a phenomenon, and for many years, was
:23:45. > :23:46.the most popular programme on British television. Its creator,
:23:47. > :23:50.Tony Warren, had initially contacted the BBC about the series. But he
:23:51. > :23:53.heard nothing back. Hardly surprising, given that Auntie was
:23:54. > :23:57.viewed as largely middle class and a source of "improving" television.
:23:58. > :24:00.ITV, of course, was looked down upon as the home of less-improving
:24:01. > :24:03.working-class entertainment. Some 50 years later, soaps still offer the
:24:04. > :24:06.largest number of supposed working-class characters on
:24:07. > :24:08.television. But it's debatable whether this microcosm of
:24:09. > :24:11.shopkeepers, cafe owners and pub landlords truly represents the
:24:12. > :24:17.beleaguered British working class of 2013. And the increasingly
:24:18. > :24:19.hysterical story lines in EastEnders and the like suggest that
:24:20. > :24:26.ratings-chasing is much more important than creating any social
:24:27. > :24:29.truth within the drama. Although the BBC could get fidgety about class,
:24:30. > :24:33.from the early '60s and then for the next couple of decades and beyond,
:24:34. > :24:35.the Corporation would go on to create numerous classic comedy
:24:36. > :24:42.series, often based on working-class figures.
:24:43. > :24:51.Come on, sit down. Where's my machine? It'll be all right now. All
:24:52. > :24:57.right, here we go! Done it at last. Now, we're off and running.
:24:58. > :25:13.I don't believe it! Oh, you wish to become a blood
:25:14. > :25:17.doner? -- donor. I certainly do. I've been thinking about this for a
:25:18. > :25:20.long time. Something for the benefit of the country as a whole. "What
:25:21. > :25:22.should I be?" I thought. "Become a blood doner or join the Young
:25:23. > :25:26.Conservatives?" Think of all the great stags of the
:25:27. > :25:30.past. Think of all the lads whose memory you're letting down. Think of
:25:31. > :25:33.Bob Shearer who went to the wrong church. And Tony Charles who was
:25:34. > :25:36.sick in the vestry. John Webb and the stomach pump. Was that in vain?
:25:37. > :25:40.More fool them! I'll be quite frank with you, Dad.
:25:41. > :25:44.I'm not prepared to go on living in a house without a bathroom. I don't
:25:45. > :25:47.think you realise how degrading it is. It's uncivilised. Cor blimey,
:25:48. > :25:52.the Greeks had baths 2,000 years ago!
:25:53. > :25:58.And that's only a snapshot. More often than not, these sitcoms were
:25:59. > :26:02.scripted, unsurprisingly, by working-class writers. For example,
:26:03. > :26:15.Steptoe And Son was created by Ray Galton and Alan Simpson. John
:26:16. > :26:18.Sullivan wrote Only Fools And Horses and Carla Lane began a celebrated
:26:19. > :26:21.career writing on The Liver Birds. And this from within a rather
:26:22. > :26:24.middle-class organisation. The BBC seemed at once nervous of, and
:26:25. > :26:27.trying to do the right thing by, a working class which its management
:26:28. > :26:31.sometimes didn't seem to fully understand. But the sound of
:26:32. > :26:39.laughter seemed to soften the divisions of class. A couple of
:26:40. > :26:42.years ago, Danny Cohen, then Controller of BBC ONE, said he
:26:43. > :26:45.thought there were too many middle-class sitcoms and not enough
:26:46. > :26:48.working-class ones. It was obvious he was looking wistfully over his
:26:49. > :26:51.shoulder to this golden age for blue-collar comedy. You might say
:26:52. > :26:55.that working-class comedy was the Trojan horse left in the car park at
:26:56. > :26:59.the old Television Centre. But the BBC of the '60s was still under the
:27:00. > :27:01.influence of the Reithian mantra which promised to "educate, inform
:27:02. > :27:04.and entertain". So, the Corporation could also prove to be an incubator
:27:05. > :27:07.for gritty, issue-based working-class drama. Again, the
:27:08. > :27:18.background of its key creators was crucial. The doors of the BBC opened
:27:19. > :27:22.to a phalanx of bright, working-class young men, and it did
:27:23. > :27:24.seem to be mostly men, who worked their way up the Corporation to
:27:25. > :27:28.become writers, directors or producers. The list is as long as it
:27:29. > :27:31.is impressive, including luminaries such as Tony Garnett, Ken Loach,
:27:32. > :27:34.Dennis Potter and Alan Clarke. These were just some of the committed
:27:35. > :27:37.film-makers at the BBC who were unafraid to court controversy,
:27:38. > :27:40.grabbing both headlines and great reviews. Their work would likely
:27:41. > :27:43.appear on The Wednesday Play or later, Play For Today. Occasionally,
:27:44. > :27:46.as with the celebrated Cathy Come Home, watched by 12 million viewers,
:27:47. > :27:49.the drama might even lead to questions in Parliament. Something
:27:50. > :27:52.almost unthinkable now. By the late '70s, the openings for ideologically
:27:53. > :27:54.committed dramatists were narrowing. But that didn't mean that the
:27:55. > :27:58.powerful possibilities of the so-called "teleplay" had diminished.
:27:59. > :28:01.A case in point is The Spongers. Written by Jim Allen and first
:28:02. > :28:05.transmitted in 1978, it looks back on the Jubilee of '77. As producer
:28:06. > :28:09.Tony Garnett recalled, he and Allen had decided that, as the BBC was
:28:10. > :28:11.bound to indulge in, "an orgy of loyal sentimentality" during the
:28:12. > :28:19.Silver Jubilee, they thought they would make their own contribution to
:28:20. > :28:28.the celebrations. # And as the time goes by. # You
:28:29. > :28:33.stay by my side... From the Council. Oh, blimey,
:28:34. > :28:38.trouble. Mrs Crosby, actually, I'm a certificated bailiff.
:28:39. > :28:44.I've come to... You are Mrs Crosby? Yeah. There's ?262 owing, I must
:28:45. > :28:48.advise that I've got to collect this now.
:28:49. > :28:52.I haven't got it. ?262. I haven't got it.
:28:53. > :28:54.Mmmm...subversive. Avoiding didacticism and stereotype, director
:28:55. > :28:57.Roland Joffe's camera follows single mother of four, Pauline, as she
:28:58. > :29:01.struggles to survive on dwindling state benefits. A subject as
:29:02. > :29:12.relevant now as it was then. Now, you're in trouble with your
:29:13. > :29:19.rent arrears. With my what? Rent arrears.
:29:20. > :29:22.Yes, that's right. The bailiffs are... Yes, you're owing...
:29:23. > :29:26.?262? And if I don't pay it, they'll take
:29:27. > :29:29.away my furniture. What has been happening to the rent
:29:30. > :29:33.allowance we've been paying you each week? We pay you money. Your rent is
:29:34. > :29:52.calculated, as part of your allowance. And you seem to be
:29:53. > :29:57.spending it on other things, yes? You try keeping a home and three
:29:58. > :30:01.kids on what I get. I bet you couldn't manage it. You should have
:30:02. > :30:03.a try. But that's not the point, Mrs Crosby.
:30:04. > :30:07.We've been paying the rent and we expect it to be spent on that. That
:30:08. > :30:09.is the point cos I'd rather feed them than pay the rent and it's only
:30:10. > :30:13.two weeks. That's probably because you're a bad
:30:14. > :30:16.manager. Surely you should be able to do it. I can't, I'm sorry, I just
:30:17. > :30:19.need more money. Despite the bleakness of the
:30:20. > :30:21.mother's situation, the unfolding drama and the sense of injustice
:30:22. > :30:24.still grips us. Perhaps we could have a little more
:30:25. > :30:28.of this in 2013, please? The Spongers went on to win one of the
:30:29. > :30:31.most prestigious of television awards, the Prix Italia. By the
:30:32. > :30:35.early '80s, the political left was on the back foot and the era of the
:30:36. > :30:38.committed drama seemed to be drawing to a close, with one notable
:30:39. > :30:40.exception. The Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher took over
:30:41. > :30:44.government in 1979 and by 1982, unemployment had climbed to a
:30:45. > :30:48.then-astonishing three million. Then the catchphrases on everyone's lips
:30:49. > :30:51.were "Gi's a job!" And "I can do that!" The source was a desperate,
:30:52. > :30:54.unemployed character called Yosser Hughes who appeared in writer Alan
:30:55. > :30:56.Bleasdale's five-part elegy for the working man, Boys From The
:30:57. > :30:59.Blackstuff. Apart from Yosser, Bleasdale adeptly created a variety
:31:00. > :31:05.of working-class characters, each with their own opinions.
:31:06. > :31:11.Give me a job as a start. I could do that.
:31:12. > :31:15.Look, there is a bit of work for plasterers at the moment. Oh,
:31:16. > :31:19.yeah(?) So, how come you're here on ?14 a day?
:31:20. > :31:23.I'm blacklisted. You're blacklisted? What for?
:31:24. > :31:26.I start strikes. Not a bad reason.
:31:27. > :31:30.I'm also in the WRP. Didn't we use to have them during
:31:31. > :31:34.the war(?) Tin hats and gas masks and knock at your door if you didn't
:31:35. > :31:40.draw your curtains(!) The Workers Revolutionary Party.
:31:41. > :31:43.Oh, aye, I remember them. They were at our factory gates the day we
:31:44. > :31:47.closed down. Full of brotherly love and "fight the good fight" and all
:31:48. > :31:48.of that. We still closed down, though.
:31:49. > :31:54.Yeah, but Snowy's different, aren't you, Snowy? No the same as all those
:31:55. > :31:57.others in that Workers Revolutionary Party. Right, that, innit? You're
:31:58. > :32:05.the only one who's working class. The Boys From The Blackstuff, which
:32:06. > :32:08.struck a nerve and found large audiences in 1982. Where once The
:32:09. > :32:11.Boys From The Blackstuff or The Spongers seemed to be part of the
:32:12. > :32:15.television ecology, now such dramas seem as rare as hen's teeth. What
:32:16. > :32:19.producers of the '60s and '70s understood was that there was some
:32:20. > :32:21.kind of moral obligation for television to show healthy and
:32:22. > :32:23.constructive class portrayals. This stemmed from the prevailing
:32:24. > :32:29.faith in television's transformative power in its early days. Producers
:32:30. > :32:33.were aware of television's capacity to shape society and to shine a
:32:34. > :32:39.light on the issues that affected parts of that society. Often their
:32:40. > :32:42.audiences may not necessarily have been familiar with these issues but
:32:43. > :32:46.they still came to the plays in large numbers. Here it might be
:32:47. > :32:51.appropriate to yoke together two cliches. "Television is a powerful
:32:52. > :32:56.medium" and "With great power, comes great responsibility". By the early
:32:57. > :33:01.'80s, some trends suggested some erosion in this belief in collective
:33:02. > :33:05.responsibility. Television producers would turn increasingly to what were
:33:06. > :33:08.known as "cops, docs and frocks". Cop shows, documentaries and costume
:33:09. > :33:18.dramas, a formula which still seems prevalent today. My impression is
:33:19. > :33:21.now, in contrast to the numbers of working class people who entered the
:33:22. > :33:24.television industry in the '60s, '70s and '80s, is that such
:33:25. > :33:27.opportunities have shrunk. It now seems that it's largely those young
:33:28. > :33:31.people who are supported by the Bank of Mum and Dad who can afford unpaid
:33:32. > :33:36.internships in the industry. Anecdotally, this feels true, but
:33:37. > :33:39.don't take my word for it. At the end of last year a survey by the
:33:40. > :33:42.British Academy of Film and Television Arts found that young
:33:43. > :33:52.people were being needlessly discouraged from pursuing a career
:33:53. > :33:54.in television. I quote: "With talented young people from lower
:33:55. > :33:57.socioeconomic backgrounds, and women, "at particular risk of being
:33:58. > :34:01.lost". This serious imbalance means that not only is creativity lost to
:34:02. > :34:03.the industry, it also means that the likelihood of truthful, first-hand
:34:04. > :34:05.portrayals of working-class life are less likely, no matter how
:34:06. > :34:09.well-meaning, say, middle-class programme makers may be. It also
:34:10. > :34:13.means that empathy for those less fortunate may be in short supply. Is
:34:14. > :34:15.it a healthy television culture which treats its sometimes
:34:16. > :34:18.disadvantaged members, such as Britain's travelling community, as
:34:19. > :34:21.if they are a strange breed to be prodded through the bars of their
:34:22. > :34:37.cages? My Gypsy Christening is the latest offering in Channel 4's
:34:38. > :34:41.long-running series on Gypsy life. And once again, it seems that
:34:42. > :34:44.travellers old and young are there to be patronised.
:34:45. > :34:47.'For many Travellers, the subject of childbirth is strictly off-limits,
:34:48. > :34:50.even among adults. 'Sex education is almost unheard of and instead,
:34:51. > :34:53.Naisha has been taught to think of babies as consumer goods.' Where do
:34:54. > :34:56.babies come from? My mum goes into the hospital and
:34:57. > :35:01.buys the baby. And Jesus brings it there and then me mam goes and picks
:35:02. > :35:11.it up and gives the doctors the money and then brings it back home.
:35:12. > :35:17.Are babies expensive? Yeah. Thousands of pounds.
:35:18. > :35:20.One of the most powerful challenges to this prevailing narrative was
:35:21. > :35:23.BBC's Poor Kids, which offered a less patronising insight into the
:35:24. > :35:26.lives of a handful of the 3.5 million children growing up in
:35:27. > :35:29.poverty in one of the world's richest nations. As the programme
:35:30. > :35:38.billing noted, these children were "under-represented, under-nourished
:35:39. > :35:40.and often under the radar". Here was a platform for the children
:35:41. > :35:47.themselves, allowing them to communicate their own experiences in
:35:48. > :35:58.their own words. SHE SINGS: # My mummy's got no
:35:59. > :36:06.money. # My mummy's got no money. # At all At all.
:36:07. > :36:10.'The gap between rich and poor in the UK is now wider than at any time
:36:11. > :36:13.since the Second World War.' It doesn't get any better.
:36:14. > :36:16.It gets worser and worser as the days go on.
:36:17. > :36:20.'We asked four children to show us what life is really like growing up
:36:21. > :36:21.in Britain today below the poverty line.' Shopping, debt.
:36:22. > :36:24.Shopping, debt. Shopping, debt, shopping debt, shopping debt,
:36:25. > :36:29.shopping, debt. There's all sorts of things that
:36:30. > :36:35.happen bad around here in my life. Money is the main priority. I always
:36:36. > :36:39.worry about it. A more considered take on Poor Kids.
:36:40. > :36:42.It'd be easy, but facile, to claim that the reality of working-class
:36:43. > :36:45.Britain has been entirely driven from our TV screens, that the
:36:46. > :36:48.programmes which remain have simply become modern versions of the
:36:49. > :36:53.medieval stocks, there for us to pelt their subjects with our
:36:54. > :36:56.disapproval. But it would be unfair, too. When Big Brother launched in
:36:57. > :36:59.the UK in 2000, it had a revolutionary quality about it - a
:37:00. > :37:02.social experiment using a multi-camera set-up to observe 11
:37:03. > :37:07.strangers crammed into a house for several weeks. Of course, it quickly
:37:08. > :37:10.became a genre of TV that hunted down the extreme, the freakish and
:37:11. > :37:15.the unsympathetic for our supposed entertainment. But Channel 4's
:37:16. > :37:17.latest multi-camera reality show, Educating Yorkshire, provided a
:37:18. > :37:21.much-welcome development in the genre. Here were teachers and
:37:22. > :37:27.students in an everyday community in Dewsbury, getting by and trying to
:37:28. > :37:33.do their best. This was astute, dedicated programme-making. Using 64
:37:34. > :37:37.cameras and editing down 2,000 hours of film rushes, the end result was
:37:38. > :37:40.an often moving series which allowed viewers to empathise with these
:37:41. > :37:45.young people as they prepared themselves for adult life.
:37:46. > :37:52.BELL RINGS Come on, people, get moving, please!
:37:53. > :37:55.I came to this school knowing exactly what I wanted to achieve.
:37:56. > :37:57.Yes, improve exam results. Yes, make behaviour better.
:37:58. > :38:00.You cheeky bitch. But the most important thing for me is that
:38:01. > :38:04.alongside everything else we give them, they walk out of here as
:38:05. > :38:07.decent human beings who are ready for the world and if that doesn't
:38:08. > :38:14.happen, we have failed them. Stop crying, you moangy bugger.
:38:15. > :38:17.'But when you deal with teenagers, life's never straightforward.' Did
:38:18. > :38:25.you stamp on his head? I don't know, I might have done.
:38:26. > :38:29.Right, thank you. 'We filmed over a year to find out
:38:30. > :38:31.what life is really like in one of our secondary schools.' There comes
:38:32. > :38:34.a tipping point. I'll have to ask him to leave.
:38:35. > :38:36.Good. 'For the teachers...' Let's have a
:38:37. > :38:39.massive year seven hug. '..and the kids...' If he doesn't
:38:40. > :38:48.apologise, he'll spend the rest of his natural life in detention.
:38:49. > :39:00...at the very start of adult life. Do you like my eyebrows? Shaved my
:39:01. > :39:02.eyebrows off. This may have been a rare, realistic
:39:03. > :39:06.portrayal of working-class teenagers, but all the more welcome
:39:07. > :39:09.for it. Importantly, viewers wanted to see Educating Yorkshire in big
:39:10. > :39:11.numbers. Cumulative figures for some individual episodes reached almost
:39:12. > :39:14.five million viewers. The irony is that if certain television
:39:15. > :39:16.executives or journalists are sniffy about programmes predicated on
:39:17. > :39:19.working-class life, be they documentary or sitcom, they might
:39:20. > :39:23.not be best judge of what the public will respond to. The theatrical,
:39:24. > :39:26.scabrous and energetic working-class Irish comedy, Mrs Brown's Boys, was
:39:27. > :39:29.denounced by critics as being "crass" and "lazy trash". Yet one
:39:30. > :39:31.episode grabbed an astounding 11 million viewers last Christmas.
:39:32. > :39:35.Representations of working-class life should be many and various.
:39:36. > :39:40.Television must be more honest about the portrayal of working people. I'm
:39:41. > :39:42.not arguing that there aren't bad, difficult things in working class
:39:43. > :39:47.life, but don't demonise, report accurately and don't make poverty
:39:48. > :39:50.porn. There are some good programmes out there, but we need to remind
:39:51. > :39:55.ourselves constantly of the potential pitfalls and the
:39:56. > :40:07.dishonesty of cynical agendas. So what's the solution? Some might come
:40:08. > :40:10.away from this and think, "Ah, he wants to swap demonization of the
:40:11. > :40:12.working class and poor for glorification instead." But that
:40:13. > :40:16.other extreme, after all, would be to patronise, to turn people living
:40:17. > :40:18.in poverty into saints and to ignore what can be morally complex,
:40:19. > :40:21.ambiguous and disturbing problems. That's the last thing I'm calling
:40:22. > :40:24.for. Rather, it's simply to move away
:40:25. > :40:27.from focusing on the most extreme and unrepresentative stories and
:40:28. > :40:31.passing them off as the mainstream. The big problem with, say, Shameless
:40:32. > :40:34.or On Benefits And Proud, is that there aren't enough counterbalances.
:40:35. > :40:37.There are ten million people living in social housing in this country,
:40:38. > :40:41.and yet it seems only dysfunctional residents seem to appear on our TV
:40:42. > :40:44.screens. We need more television programmes that at least reflect the
:40:45. > :40:47.reality that most of Britain's poor are in work and still trapped in
:40:48. > :40:54.poverty, challenging the myth that work is an automatic route out of
:40:55. > :40:58.poverty. It means exploring the reality of what our welfare state is
:40:59. > :41:01.- that most of it is actually spent on pensioners who paid in to their
:41:02. > :41:07.pensions for most of their lives, and that most working-age benefits
:41:08. > :41:10.go to people in work. It means looking at the desperation of many
:41:11. > :41:14.unemployed people searching for work, like the 645 people who
:41:15. > :41:18.applied for a single job as an administrator at Hull University
:41:19. > :41:21.earlier this year. It surely means providing a platform for those
:41:22. > :41:24.living in poverty to communicate their own experiences in their own
:41:25. > :41:30.way, not edited to sensationalise and humiliate. It doesn't mean
:41:31. > :41:33.pretending that dysfunctional people don't exist, but it surely means
:41:34. > :41:40.balancing them with a more accurate cross-section of the community. This
:41:41. > :41:42.would mean a challenge to the dogma that issues like poverty and
:41:43. > :41:45.unemployment are individual failings, rather than social
:41:46. > :41:52.problems that should concern all of us. If we want television to provide
:41:53. > :41:58.a more honest, accurate portrayal of life outside the privileged bubble,
:41:59. > :42:02.it means cracking open the industry. It risks becoming a closed shop for
:42:03. > :42:05.those from pampered backgrounds. We need to abolish unpaid internships,
:42:06. > :42:09.which increasingly mean that only those who can afford to live off
:42:10. > :42:12.their parents can get a foot in the door. We have to challenge the
:42:13. > :42:13.growing emphasis on requiring expensive post-graduate
:42:14. > :42:20.qualifications, which are less and less accessible to those without the
:42:21. > :42:23.financial means. Now more than ever, we need a new wave of paid
:42:24. > :42:26.scholarships and traineeships to allow ambitious television producers
:42:27. > :42:28.of all backgrounds - from Glasgow, Middlesbrough, the Rhondda Valley,
:42:29. > :42:37.Manchester, wherever, to have a chance to have their stories told.
:42:38. > :42:40.Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your time. Good night.