I recently received this heartfelt beef from Melvin Hurst from Ventnor: “Am I the only reader to bridle at the use of the word ‘tsar’ as a pseudonym for ‘supremo’ or simply ‘chief’? It is meant to signify an official or politician who has taken control of some contentious issue, presumably with the interests of the general public foremost in mind. However, the historical office on which the term is based could not have been further from that ideal. Most of the supreme autocrats of the pre-revolution Russian Empire ruled as absolute despots, while the last incumbent, Nicholas II, had complete disdain for the ordinary people. Surely a less inappropriate term can be found?”
I see what Mr Hurst means. We have a cost of living tsar, an anti-corruption tsar, a food tsar, a shipbuilding tsar (that’s the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, to you and me), a student wellbeing tsar, an ethics tsar (that was Christopher Geidt), a social mobility tsar, a children’s tsar. You get the picture. I could go on, but I won’t, as I wish to spare Mr Hurst’s feelings, but I think his point is well made. Alas, I fear that this lazy shorthand is here to stay and we’re simply going to have to grit our teeth.
Another reader, John Hopkin from Cologne, sent me the following: “At 8:15 on the Today programme, I’m pretty sure the CEO of Cornwall Airport claimed that airports and airlines were trying to ‘right-size their people’. I think he meant matching the number of people to the number of jobs.”
I’m clueless as to what this could possibly mean and am happy to settle for Mr Hopkin’s explanation. It strikes me that when so many people are having their travel plans seriously disrupted, instead being fobbed off with such mindless management speak, as a matter of courtesy, spokesmen might try a bit of lucidity for a change.
• Jonathan Bouquet is an Observer columnist
