Do the latest deprivation figures show poorer Londoners being pushed to the suburbs?

Changing deprivation in the north London borough of Islington. Image: Alasdair Rae.

With its long history of feudal oppression, industrial workhouses and dire slums, England is no stranger to deprivation. Even today, we’re all too familiar with phenomena like “beds in sheds”, soaring food bank use and fuel poverty. So it’s hardly surprising that, whenever a new deprivation dataset is released, we tend to focus our attention on the “most deprived” places across England.

While these areas warrant urgent attention, there are also many other significant stories to be told – so, when the government released the latest Indices of Deprivation for England, I delved into the data through mapping and analysis to see what I could uncover.


But before I share my findings, it will be helpful to explain what deprivation actually is. Deprivation is measured based on a mix of indicators relating to income, jobs, education, health, crime, housing and environment. It’s a broader measure than poverty – which tends to focus on income – but there is significant overlap between the two.

By combining deprivation data from 2010 and 2015 with freely available map data, I produced deprivation maps for all 326 of England’s local authorities – all of which are available for download and re-use on my website. The overall message is clear: not much has changed.

Deprivation in Middlesbrough, 2015. Image: Alasdair Rae.

For example, 49 per cent of Middlesbrough’s neighbourhoods remain within the most deprived 10 per cent in England, compared to 47 per cent in 2010. It’s a similar story in Hull, where 45 per cent were in England’s most deprived decile in 2015, compared to 43 per cent in 2010.

Unlike poverty, deprivation is a relative measure, which means that we can also locate England’s “least deprived” areas – such as Hart, in Hampshire. Yet the patterns in these areas have also proved to be very persistent: not much has changed at either end of the deprivation spectrum.

Deprivation in Hart, Hampshire, 2015. Image: Alasdair Rae.

Of course, this persistence shouldn’t surprise us. We’re only talking about a five-year period – and even the most optimistic policymaker wouldn’t expect much to change in half a decade. In fact, they probably wouldn’t expect to see much change over a whole decade, so entrenched are patterns of deprivation and so humble the impacts of urban policy.

A special case

But there is one major exception to this rule: London. If we map out the data from the 2004 Indices of Deprivation, and compare them to the most recent results, we see some striking changes.

I looked at areas in London which were within England’s most deprived decile in both 2004 and 2015 – they appear in red on the maps below. In 2004, London had 462 of England’s 10 per cent most deprived areas. By 2015, this figure had shrunk to 274.

The disappearance of acute deprivation in Tower Hamlets? Image: Alasdair Rae.

The disappearance of many of the red areas since 2004 helps document the apparent dispersal of London’s poorest residents over little more than a decade.

These changes are most obvious in areas at the forefront of gentrification struggles, such as Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham and Camden. You can see the results of this analysis for every London Borough here.

Hold on a minute though. Shouldn’t we be applauding the elimination of London’s most deprived areas? If these changes were due to individuals escaping deprivation and poverty, then the answer would be “yes”. But I don’t believe this is the case.

Given the influx of new residents in these areas, it’s more likely to be a result of changing local populations, particularly in east London where the process of gentrification is well documented. As recent events like the Cereal Killer Cafe protests have shown, this inevitably results in conflict and resentment at a local level.

 

Are Hackney's poorer residents now better off? Image: Alasdair Rae.

At the same time, we are also seeing increases in the number of deprived neighbourhoods in some Outer London Boroughs, such as Bromley. The two phenomena may not be directly related, but I wouldn’t rule it out. It could well be that, as wealthier residents move into the more central boroughs, poorer Londoners are being pushed toward the city’s more affordable outskirts.

An increase in acute deprivation in outer London? Image: Alasdair Rae.

If we’re serious about tackling acute deprivation in our society, then we should shift our focus beyond deprivation and towards inequality itself. Thankfully, the realisation is gradually dawning that addressing inequalities on a national level should be a matter of priority. The OECD has argued that when inequality rises, economic growth falls – and that we should all be more concerned with how those on the bottom 40 per cent of incomes in society fare.


Yet this message has to date had little impact upon government policies around the globe. To address the kinds of inequalities seen in England, there first needs to be a realisation that the impacts of austerity policies tend to be very spatially uneven and often serve to intensify levels of deprivation at the local level. This message isn’t currently a popular one, but I think it needs urgent attention.The Conversation

Alasdair Rae is a senior lecturer in urban studies and planning at the University of Sheffield.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

This fun map allows you to see what a nuclear detonation would do to any city on Earth

A 1971 nuclear test at Mururoa atoll. Image: Getty.

In 1984, the BBC broadcast Threads, a documentary-style drama in which a young Sheffield couple rush to get married because of an unplanned pregnancy, but never quite get round to it because half way through the film the Soviets drop a nuclear bomb on Sheffield. Jimmy, we assume, is killed in the blast (he just disappears, never to be seen again); Ruth survives, but dies of old age 10 years later, while still in her early 30s, leaving her daughter to find for herself in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It’s horrifying. It’s so horrifying I’ve never seen the whole thing, even though it’s an incredibly good film which is freely available online, because I once watched the 10 minutes from the middle of the film which show the bomb actually going off and it genuinely gave me nightmares for a month.

In my mind, I suppose, I’d always imagined that being nuked would be a reasonably clean way to go – a bright light, a rushing noise and then whatever happened next wasn’t your problem. Threads taught me that maybe I had a rose-tinted view of nuclear holocaust.

Anyway. In the event you’d like to check what a nuke would do to the real Sheffield, the helpful NukeMap website has the answer.

It shows that dropping a bomb of the same size as the one the US used on Hiroshima in 1945 – a relatively diddly 15kt – would probably kill around 76,500 people:

Those within the central yellow and red circles would be likely to die instantly, due to fireball or air pressure. In the green circle, the radiation would kill at least half the population over a period of hours, days or weeks. In the grey, the thing most likely to kill you would be the collapse of your house, thanks to the air blast, while those in the outer, orange circle would most likely to get away with third degree burns.

Other than that, it’d be quite a nice day.

“Little boy”, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was tiny, by the standards of the bombs out there in the world today, of course – but don’t worry, because NukeMap lets you try bigger bombs on for size, too.

The largest bomb in the US arsenal at present is the B-83 which, weighing in at 1.2Mt, is about 80 times the size of Little Boy. Detonate that, and the map has to zoom out, quite a lot.

That’s an estimated 303,000 dead, around a quarter of the population of South Yorkshire. Another 400,000 are injured.

The biggest bomb of all in this fictional arsenal is the USSRS’s 100Mt Tsar Bomba, which was designed but never tested. (The smaller 50MT variety was tested in 1951.) Here’s what that would do:

Around 1.5m dead; 4.7m injured. Bloody hell.

We don’t have to stick to Sheffield, of course. Here’s what the same bomb would do to London:

(Near universal fatalities in zones 1 & 2. Widespread death as far as St Albans and Sevenoaks. Third degree burns in Brighton and Milton Keynes. Over 5.9m dead; another 6m injured.)

Everyone in this orange circle is definitely dead.

Or New York:

(More than 8m dead; another 6.7m injured. Fatalities effectively universal in Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, and Hoboken.)

Or, since it’s the biggest city in the world, Tokyo:

(Nearly 14m dead. Another 14.5m injured. By way of comparison, the estimated death toll of the Hiroshima bombing was somewhere between 90,000 and 146,000.)

I’m going to stop there. But if you’re feeling morbid, you can drop a bomb of any size on any area of earth, just to see what happens.


And whatever you do though: do not watch Threads. Just trust me on this.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.