Jonathan Calder has rightly protested the use, yet again, of “Tsar” to describe a new government appointment – in this case Alan Milburn on social mobility.
It’s particularly daft in the case of social mobility because the Tsars were just about the exact opposite of social mobility in action: hereditary roles which brought huge political power and mammoth financial wealth. That’s about as far away from social mobility as you can imagine.
The equivalent in other areas would be a crime-fighting appointment where the poster is called ‘gangster’ or an NHS ‘Poisoner’.
So as Jonathan says, it’s about time the Tsar cliché, never appropriate and always with the wrong overtones, was laid off.
Keep up with the latest news and analysis
about the Liberal Democrats with my
free monthly email newsletter.
I scour hundreds of blogs and dozens of media outlets for the best news and analysis - so you don't have to. It's completely free and you can leave the list at any time. So why not give it a try today?
You might also be interested in...

RT @markpack New post: Why don't we have an NHS Poisoner? http://bit.ly/a9YjpA
RT @markpack New post: Why don't we have an NHS Poisoner? http://bit.ly/a9YjpA
On the ridiculousness of the Tsar label RT @markpack New post: Why don't we have an NHS Poisoner? http://bit.ly/a9YjpA