Who would have thought it? Cutting people's benefits, when there are almost 14 times as many jobseekers as jobs, hasn't sent them all rushing back to work and is causing misery for those families at the sharp end of austerity. The Chartered Institute of Housing's report into the impact of the benefit cap in one area of London confirms what any reasonable person would have guessed. But the headline, that the cap is struggling to meet its aims of encouraging people into work and saving taxpayers' money, is I think rather generous.
Rather than breaking ground with any real analysis of this government's welfare reform or new insight into life on benefits, Nick and Margaret chose to cater to the lowest common denominator. Rehashing unhelpful myths about "benefit scroungers", this series reinforced exactly the kind of prejudices it claimed to combat.
The research conducted by Ipsos MORI not only highlights a stark public ignorance it goes some way to demonstrating the growing thirst for blood in Britain, brought on by a media crafted war against benefit cheats and of course the apparent on-going struggle against Islamification; manufactured battles the public clearly think we are losing.
According to the BBC's programme information: "Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford want to discover how much benefit is enough to live on and if work is worth it." The experiment promises to bring both groups together an effort to 'learn' their stories. Except, there's one huge problem with this premise - it presupposes the idea that anyone unfortunate enough to be unemployed pays no taxes.
We all know how fond Iain Duncan Smith and the Department for Work and Pensions are of stretching the truth and using more spin than Graeme Swann on a roughed-up pitch. So it was no surprise that Wednesday's announcement on the next phase of universal credit came sprinkled with the usual Duncan Smith fairy dust.
Allowing someone to claim unemployment benefit only three days after losing their job quite obviously did not crash our economy and is not holding back the long-awaited recovery. What else to conclude, however, from George Osborne announcing yesterday yet more ways of turning the screw on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?