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:
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.