Oh my word!

With the drama of a confidence vote, some might claim this week has been a fascinating example of the British political machine in motion. Others might regard the same events as the unappealing capers of jackanapes in a comedy of calamities.

As you know, this column does not take sides on political issues. But I keep an ear cocked towards our elected representatives because I believe they should set an example with erudite English usage.

Sadly, too often the language skills of our best and brightest do not impress. Which is disappointing when referring to people whose job it is to discuss, decide, and disseminate.

They should be able to grasp basic, everyday idioms. But this week we have seen some pitiful misuses.

One Cabinet minister doesn’t know the difference between “draw a line under” and “a line in the sand”. Drawing a line under something means to finish and move on. A line in the sand is a challenge, setting the limit of what you will accept. These are different concepts.

Another MP hilariously misused “living high on the hog”. The phrase refers to a life of luxury, enjoying the choicest meats. It isn’t a saying about the dangers of riding a pig that is imitating a bucking bronco.

A Scottish heavyweight at Westminster seems to think “clear as mud” means “very clear”. It means the opposite.

I can’t decide if an exhortation to the prime minister to “get your acts together” was a

STEVE FINAN clever play on words referencing acts of Parliament, or a ridiculous misunderstanding of the meaning of the idiom “get your act together”.

Admittedly, idioms can be tricky. I have an Eastern European friend who speaks six languages, but hesitates to use English idioms. He points out that understanding the words isn’t enough. You need background knowledge to appreciate what “a lame duck” is. Or glean that “dead man walking” is not a reference to Frankensteinstyle reanimation.

Taken literally, those phrases don’t make sense. As idioms, they are redolent with meaning.

I also believe that idioms should not be mixed. A BBC journalist, speculating on possible PM candidates, talked of big beasts and stalking horses throwing their hats in the ring.

The worst misuse of the week was a claim that a group of MPs was “in a funk”. It was clear from the context that the speaker thought a funk was a state of uproar. But to be in a funk is to be miserable and without hope.

The least we should expect from politicians is impeccable communication skills. Otherwise they are open to accusations that they are talking nonsense. And no one would claim that, surely.

IN DEFENCE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE