Is the Barclaycard advert sexist?

ADgenda: this week's most offensive advert.

‘Tis now the season: sugar, spice and everything nice is the recipe for not only little girls and mulled wine, but also a hearty yuletide advert. John Lewis’ snowmen made the debut performance; funny how an icy embrace can warm the heart so. And of course, the heart strings are directly connected to the purse strings, so the industry has cracked the formula of a persuasive Christmas ad. But this Barclaycard ad took the sugar-and-spice formula a bit too seriously. Despite what you may think, Barclaycard, the recipes make up little boys and little girls do NOT influence what toys they want to get. That comes down to traditional gender roles - and that’s “roles”, not the pastry kind.

As an advert that seems relatively well thought through (I could’ve been entirely persuaded by the “flipping dogs” quip), it’s surprising that they could muddy the Barclays reputation further still. The father is shopping for his son’s present, when a Barbie approaches. Now, it’s already a dangerous area to slip in “they’re plastic” as an implied reason to disregard her flirting, but they then follow into the shark-infested waters of “on your bike dolly, it’s for his son”. Here is a newsflash, Barclays: there are no toys that are intrinsically boyish or girly. By perpetuating views like this, children are still discouraged from associating with things outside their gender frame. We still live in a world where boys can be punished for dressing up as girly things, and parents consult psychiatrists if they see their girls as “tomboys”. We have enough gender-related restrictions inflicted on adults; the very least we can do is not pass them on to children.

The Barclaycard ad. Photograph:
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.