The ADgenda: Levi's jeans

This week's most offensive advert.

It's often exhausting watching adverts. The constant focus on self-improvement wears you down swiftly until you're left contemplating the futility of making that cup of tea because how will that make you sexier/funnier/skinnier/smarter? It's an age old method and we all know it only too well - make the consumer feel inadequate and they will latch onto any quick-fix solution, no matter how silly.

A new way of life is offered by everything from your hifi to your toilet roll. But with all these new ways of living on offer surely the outcome is a society of severely confused individuals with a bad case of identity crisis? Levi's are here though to force their idea of success upon our tiny minds. By buying a pair of their jeans you're not just presenting your bum in its best light - oh no no - you're buying into a whole way of life. Your world view will change for the better - you'll become more spontaneous, more enigmatic, more self-assured, and far better-looking. You'll freefall off tall buildings just for the hell of it, before prancing in the rain all the while maintaining your dead-eye pout. Because you're wearing a pair of Levi's.

Just like the Beat poets of yesteryear a side-effect from this new way of life may well be a touch of mental instability - you'll say. every. word. very. loudly. and. jerkily. because. you. are. edgy. but. also. starting. to. feel. a. bit. paranoid. and. you. are. wearing. Levi's. So as you prowl the streets muttering a string of words that sound clever but are actually utter gibberish while hastily doing up your shirt because, oops, you're so busy embracing your new outlook that you forgot to dress yourself in a decent manner this morning - congratulations, you've turned into that person. The one who passers-by cross the street to avoid.

Levi's advert. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Theresa May won't exclude students from the net migration target

The Prime Minister believes the public would view the move as "a fix". 

In a letter to David Cameron shortly after the last general election, Philip Hammond demanded that students be excluded from the net migration target. The then foreign secretary, who was backed by George Osborne and Sajid Javid, wrote: "From a foreign policy point of view, Britain's role as a world class destination for international students is a highly significant element of our soft power offer. It's an issue that's consistently raised with me by our foreign counterparts." Universities and businesses have long argued that it is economically harmful to limit student numbers. But David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, refused to relent. 

Appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Hammond reignited the issue. "As we approach the challenge of getting net migration figures down, it is in my view essential that we look at how we do this in a way that protects the vital interests of our economy," he said. He added that "It's not whether politicians think one thing or another, it's what the public believe and I think it would be useful to explore that quesrtion." A YouGov poll published earlier this year found that 57 per cent of the public support excluding students from the "tens of thousands" target.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has also pressured May to do so. But the Prime Minister not only rejected the proposal - she demanded a stricter regime. Rudd later announced in her conference speech that there would be "tougher rules for students on lower quality courses". 

The economic case for reform is that students aid growth. The political case is that it would make the net migration target (which has been missed for six years) easier to meet (long-term immigration for study was 164,000 in the most recent period). But in May's view, excluding students from the target would be regarded by the public as a "fix" and would harm the drive to reduce numbers. If an exemption is made for one group, others will inevitably demand similar treatment. 

Universities complain that their lobbying power has been reduced by the decision to transfer ministerial responsibility from the business department to education. Bill Rammell, the former higher education minister and the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire, said in July: “We shouldn’t assume that Theresa May as prime minister will have the same restrictive view on overseas students that Theresa May the home secretary had”. Some Tory MPs hoped that the net migration target would be abolished altogether in a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

But rather than retreating, May has doubled-down. The Prime Minister regards permanently reduced migration as essential to her vision of a more ordered society. She believes the economic benefits of high immigration are both too negligible and too narrow. 

Her ambition is a forbidding one. Net migration has not been in the "tens of thousands" since 1997: when the EU had just 15 member states and the term "BRICS" had not even been coined. But as prime minister, May is determined to achieve what she could not as home secretary. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.