Lads' mags and cheap lager: the Fosters ad belongs in the 90s

The ADgenda: This week's most offensive ad.

You'd think by now that tired old sexist stereotypes would have died a well overdue death. After all, no one benefitted from them - the well worn route of wife/girlfriend as ball and chain was offensive to women and patronising to any self-respecting male with a modicum of intelligence. In the 90s (the era of lads' mags and cheap lager) the marketing ideal seemed to be geared towards some sort of loveless existence where the very sight of your other half had you reaching for the cyanide. Women were inadequate versions of men, and the only appropriate response was to mock or have sex with them. But apparently this neanderthal view still has life in it if the new Fosters ad is anything to go by.

There are some ads that make you wish you could erase the memory from your brain the moment you've finished watching. This one falls squarely into that category as a whiney girlfriend rings the Fosters lad helpline to complain that her boyfriend never listens to her, bang on cue the "lads" give her some vague platitudes and leave her to gripe on the other side of the telephone as they continue with the important task of chugging down can after can of the brown watery stuff - necessary because this lager is so weak it would take a gallon and multiple trips to the bathroom before you started to feel even mildly woozy. She is satisfied with this diluted advice, because she is a silly woman, and ends the  call sighing something along the lines of: "I wish my boyfriend was as good a listener as you boys". Bam, fooled her, stupid women!

In the world this ad has created no one is a winner. Woman is stupid and neglected, man is bored and boorish. And both will sit at the dinner table dissatisfied and frustrated - in ad world, the battle of the sexes is raging.

Good call! Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

On Brexit, David Cameron knows exactly what he's doing

It's not a dead cat - it's about disarming the Leave campaign. 

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. That’s the calculation behind David Cameron’s latest entry into the In-Out (or Remain-Leave in new money) battle. The Prime Minister has warned that were Britain to leave the European Union, the migrant camp at Calais – popularly known as “the Jungle” – could move to Britain. But Eurosceptic campaigners have angrily denounced the remarks, saying that there’s little chance of it happening either way.  

Who’s right? My colleague Henry Zeffman has written a handy explainer of the ins and outs of the row, but the short version is: the Eurosceptic campaigners are broadly right.

But the remarks are very far from a gaffe by Downing Street or Cameron, and they aren’t a “dead cat” strategy – where you say something offensive, prompting a debate about that instead of another, trickier issue – either.

Campaigners for Remain have long been aware that immigration remains their glass jaw. The line wheeled out by Cameron has been long-planned. Late last year, senior members of the In campaign discussed what they saw as the danger points for the campaign. The first was a renegotiation that managed to roll back workplace rights, imperilling the support of the Labour party and the trade unions was one – happily avoided by Cameron’s piecemeal deal.

That the deal would be raked over in the press is not considered a risk point. Stronger In has long known that its path to victory does not run through a sympathetic media. The expectation has long been that even substantial concessions would doubtless have been denounced by the Mail, Telegraph and Sun – and no-one seriously expected that Cameron would emerge with a transformative deal. Since well before the general election, the Prime Minister has been gradually scaling back his demands. The aim has always been to secure as many concessions as possible in order to get an In vote – but Downing Street’s focus has always been on the “as possible” part rather than the “securing concessions” bit.

Today’s row isn’t about deflecting attention from a less-than-stellar deal, but about defanging another “risk point” for the In campaign: border control.

Campaign strategists believe they can throw the issue into neutral by casting doubt on Leave’s ability to control borders any better. One top aide said: “Our line is this: if we vote to leave, the border moves from Calais to Dover, it’s that simple.” They are also keen to make more of the fact that Norway has equally high levels of migration from the European Union as the United Kingdom. While In will never “own” the issue of immigration, they believe they can make the battle sufficiently murky that voters will turn to the areas that favour a Remain vote – national security, economic stability, and keeping people in their jobs.

What the row exposes, rather than a Prime Minister under pressure is a politician who knows exactly what he’s doing – and just how vulnerable the lack of a serious heavyweight at the top makes the Leave campaign(s). Most people won't make a judgement based on reading up the minutinae of European treaties, but on a "sniff test" of which side they think is more trustworthy. It's not a fight about the facts - it's a fight about who is more trusted by the public: David Cameron, or Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling or Priti Patel? As one minister said to me: "I like Priti, but the idea that she can go against the PM as far as voters are concerned is ridiculous. Most people haven't heard of her." 

Leave finds itself in a position uncomfortably like that of Labour in the run-up to the election: with Cameron able to paint himself as the only option guaranteeing stability, against a chaotic and muddled alternative. Without a politician, a business figure or even a prominent celebrity who can provide credibility on the level of the Prime Minister, any row about whether or not Brexit increases the chances of more migrants on Britain’s doorsteps helps Remain – and Cameron. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.