The unbearable lightness of Special K

The Adgenda: this weeks most ridiculous advert.

The new Kellogg’s advert for Special K sets out to be poignant in its first line: “from the day we are born, we are defined by a number”. If only this were the whole story; a number is pretty easy to hide. Nobody writes their measurements on their forehead before they leave the house, nor does Facebook demand a kilogram quantity as you fill in your details. We (and of course, though the advert failed to specify, this means “women”) are more defined by appearance and proportion of our bodies. However, it rambles on, asking “but is a number inspiring?” as if when women consider their size as anything other than numerical they immediately float with inspiration. Yes, maybe weight should be lost based on how we feel over how we weigh, but unfortunately how we feel rather depends on how we compare to the standard model of beauty – a standard ironically portrayed by the clingy red dress on the Special K box.

The ad claims “we believe in a more powerful motivation”, following with a stream of inspirational buzz-words that all translate into an irrational desire to fit into that red dress they love so much. And their inspiration knows no bounds: surely if they throw in a couple of other cultures and languages, it’ll show us that women across the globe should all go out of their way to feel accepted for their body shape! They seem to think they’re playing a valuable part in women’s fight to be seen as more than just a splodgy shape of either suitable or unsuitable proportions. Congratulations, you’re focusing on how women feel about themselves rather than how they look, have a cookie for ending female body issues once and for all! Nope. If how women feel about themselves still has to depend on how heavy they are, you’re not creating any sort of magical self-acceptance. “What will you gain when you lose?” I don’t know, what do you expect? Confidence, possibilidades, or perpetuated gender ideals? 

“From the day we are born, we are defined by a number” Photograph: Getty Images

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496