Which is hotter? A scantily clad model in a red bikini or the new Piri Piri Chicken Pot Noodle?

The ADgenda: The ASA recently banned a Unilever advert. But they missed a spot.

Which is hotter? A scantily clad model in a red bikini or the new Piri Piri Chicken Pot Noodle? It was this question in a Facebook advert that landed Unilever in hot water recently and resulted in the ad being banning by the Advertising Standards Authority.

But yet at the same time a video, that was part of the same campaign, escaped punishment. It follows the bus journey of a man, frustrated with the lack of spice in his life, who picks up a pot noodle and miraculously finds himself face to face with a dancing woman. As our man begins to get excited, the girl pulls off her top but, much to the Pot Noodle eater’s chagrin, turns into a rather dishevelled man. So what’s the difference?

The ASA do give their reasons for damning one and allowing the other.  They claim the former is unacceptable because of "the presentation of the woman in a sexual pose". The latter passes the test, however, because "the female character was not presented in sexist or degrading way". But yet, whether or not the woman has clothes off or not, surely the sentiment is the same. The Piri Piri Pot Noodle = stripping/stripped woman. If this is the case, it is the fact that the woman is in a bikini and not fully clothed that got the advert banned.

But what is confusing is that another reason the ASA gave for banning the first advert was that "the blatant comparison with the food product was crass and degrading and therefore likely to cause serious offence to some visitors to Pot Noodle Facebook page." This seems to imply that the video advert does not imply a comparison with the food product. But the ASA says that the video is fine because we are aware of the "reality of the situation and that it was actually a man with whom the main character was flirting". But, surely, a realisation of this also means that we should draw a comparison between the food and the woman.

The banned advert simply makes explicit what the allowed advert implies. Banning one advert and not the other, then, serves to reveal that the content of the acceptable advert, when followed to its logical conclusion, is unacceptable. The ASA has contradicted itself.

All in all, this ASA ruling seems to follow a common trend. Explicit bad, implicit fine. Either the ASA should have allowed the comparison to stand, or it should have banned both. As it is, it has skirted the central issue.  

A still from the Unilever advert. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

The 5 things the Tories aren't telling you about their manifesto

Turns out the NHS is something you really have to pay for after all. 

When Theresa May launched the Conservative 2017 manifesto, she borrowed the most popular policies from across the political spectrum. Some anti-immigrant rhetoric? Some strong action on rip-off energy firms? The message is clear - you can have it all if you vote Tory.

But can you? The respected thinktank the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now been through the manifesto with a fine tooth comb, and it turns out there are some things the Tory manifesto just doesn't mention...

1. How budgeting works

They say: "a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade"

What they don't say: The Conservatives don't talk very much about new taxes or spending commitments in the manifesto. But the IFS argues that balancing the budget "would likely require more spending cuts or tax rises even beyond the end of the next parliament."

2. How this isn't the end of austerity

They say: "We will always be guided by what matters to the ordinary, working families of this nation."

What they don't say: The manifesto does not backtrack on existing planned cuts to working-age welfare benefits. According to the IFS, these cuts will "reduce the incomes of the lowest income working age households significantly – and by more than the cuts seen since 2010".

3. Why some policies don't make a difference

They say: "The Triple Lock has worked: it is now time to set pensions on an even course."

What they don't say: The argument behind scrapping the "triple lock" on pensions is that it provides an unneccessarily generous subsidy to pensioners (including superbly wealthy ones) at the expense of the taxpayer.

However, the IFS found that the Conservatives' proposed solution - a "double lock" which rises with earnings or inflation - will cost the taxpayer just as much over the coming Parliament. After all, Brexit has caused a drop in the value of sterling, which is now causing price inflation...

4. That healthcare can't be done cheap

They say: "The next Conservative government will give the NHS the resources it needs."

What they don't say: The £8bn more promised for the NHS over the next five years is a continuation of underinvestment in the NHS. The IFS says: "Conservative plans for NHS spending look very tight indeed and may well be undeliverable."

5. Cutting immigration costs us

They say: "We will therefore establish an immigration policy that allows us to reduce and control the number of people who come to Britain from the European Union, while still allowing us to attract the skilled workers our economy needs." 

What they don't say: The Office for Budget Responsibility has already calculated that lower immigration as a result of the Brexit vote could reduce tax revenues by £6bn a year in four years' time. The IFS calculates that getting net immigration down to the tens of thousands, as the Tories pledge, could double that loss.

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496