The weirdest sentence to me in the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was this: ‘It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current peers.’ I had no idea what grandfathering was.
The weirdest sentence to me in the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was this: ‘It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current peers.’ I had no idea what grandfathering was. Could it be like mothering or babysitting? On looking it up, I discovered that a grandfather clause was a device used in the southern states of America to prevent black people from voting. ‘It is proposed [in Maryland] to remodel the Constitution so as to exclude colored men from voting,’ says an illustrative quotation from 1903 in the Oxford English Dictionary. ‘The usual Southern method is followed, “grandfather clause” and all.’ The ruse was to impose a property qualification or literacy test for all who sought votes, but to exempt those whose grandfathers had voted. That meant no blacks.
The verb grandfather is unknown to the OED outside American use, but I suppose the grandfathering reference in the coalition agreement is an exemption for sitting peers from constitutional qualifications (election, croneyism) yet to be announced.
David Cameron is a good public speaker, so it is odd that once his allies put words on paper they become so awkward. But if he and Nick Clegg are in a marriage of convenience, they seem not to have any trouble committing. In their coalition agreement they ‘commit to holding a full strategic security and defence review’. Until quite recently one could only commit things (such as oneself and adultery). Since the 1980s, commit has become intransitive and its connotations principally marital: ‘To resolve to remain in a long-term (monogamous) relationship with another person,’ says the OED. ‘To demonstrate such resolution through a willingness to marry, have children, etc.’ Over the past few months politicians have been committing to all sorts of courses of action, if seldom performing them. It is not a pretty turn of phrase.
The agreement also promises: ‘Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.’ The kind of waste is not, of course, the same kind that is to be cut out of government activities to save money. Nor does the waste actually come about ‘through anaerobic digestion’. Fortunately it is clear that the anaerobic digestion is not proposed for us human beings, for we Archers listeners have heard all about anaerobic digesters. But never mind what the sentence means; the tone is upbeat, thanks to the word huge. Elsewhere in the seven-page agreement nestle five strongs, two robusts and two tackles. New politics, new language.
Comments