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
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: whatever you hear, don't forget - there is an alternative

The goverment's programme of cuts is a choice, not a certainty, says Jolyon Maugham.

Later today you will hear George Osborne say there is no alternative to his plan to slash a further £20bn from lean public services by 2020-21. He will also say that there is no alternative to £9bn cuts to tax credits, cuts that will hit the poorest hardest, cuts of thousands of pounds per annum to the incomes of millions of households.

But there is.

As I outlined here the Conservatives plan future tax cuts which benefit, disproportionately or exclusively, the wealthy. Suspending those future tax cuts for the wealthy would say, by 2020-21, £9.3bn per annum.

I also explained here that a mere 50 of our 1,156 tax reliefs cost us over £100bn per annum. We don't know how much the other 1,106 reliefs cost us - because Government doesn't monitor them. And we don't know what public benefit they deliver - because Government doesn't check.

What we do know, as I explained here, is that they disproportionately and regressively benefit the wealthy: an average of £190,400 per annum for the wealthiest.

And we know, too, that they include (amongst the more than 1,000 uncosted reliefs) the £1bn plus “Rights for Shares Scheme” - badged by the Chancellor as for workers but identified by a leading law firm as designed for the wealthiest.

Simply by asking a question that the Chancellor chooses to ignore - do these 1,156 reliefs deliver value for money - it is entirely possible that £10bn or more extra in taxes could be collected without any loss of  public benefit

To this £19bn, we might add the indiscriminate provision - both direct and indirect - of public money to wealthy pensioners.

Those above basic state pension age enjoy a tax subsidy of up to 12% on earned income.

Moreover, this Office for National Statistics data (see Table 18) reveals that the 10% of wealthiest retired households - some 714,000 households - have gross pre-tax and pre-benefit private income of on average £43,983. Yet still they enjoy average cash benefits from government of £11,500 per annum.

Means testing benefits to exclude that top 10 per cent of retired households would save £8.2bn per annum. And why, you might wonder aloud, should means testing be thought by the government appropriate for the working age population, yet a heresy for retired households?

Add in abolition of that unprincipled tax subsidy and you'll save even more. 

So there are alternatives. Clear alternatives. Good alternatives. Alternatives that enable those with the broadest shoulders to bear some share of the pain. Don't allow yourself to be persuaded otherwise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues.