Nye Michael
@nyemichael.bsky.social
Haha okay - the active is always clearer. Writers might want to be ambiguous sometimes (as Orwell says) and sometimes they might have good reason for doing so
November 25, 2025 at 6:18 AM
Haha okay - the active is always clearer. Writers might want to be ambiguous sometimes (as Orwell says) and sometimes they might have good reason for doing so
If for number 2 you don’t want to name Vincenzo Peruggia for some ethical reason that’s fair, but “Vincenzo Peruggia stole the Mona Lisa in 1911” is a clearer sentence
November 24, 2025 at 4:31 PM
If for number 2 you don’t want to name Vincenzo Peruggia for some ethical reason that’s fair, but “Vincenzo Peruggia stole the Mona Lisa in 1911” is a clearer sentence
3 and 4 could easily be in the active and yes I think slightly preferable. 1 2 and 5 you would have to include more information, and that’s probably good too!
(I was nearly convinced that 1 should be passive - but couldn’t you just say “the solar system formed”, delete the was?)
(I was nearly convinced that 1 should be passive - but couldn’t you just say “the solar system formed”, delete the was?)
November 24, 2025 at 4:30 PM
3 and 4 could easily be in the active and yes I think slightly preferable. 1 2 and 5 you would have to include more information, and that’s probably good too!
(I was nearly convinced that 1 should be passive - but couldn’t you just say “the solar system formed”, delete the was?)
(I was nearly convinced that 1 should be passive - but couldn’t you just say “the solar system formed”, delete the was?)
Beat me to it!
(“No, my wife gave them to me” is still shorter”)
(“No, my wife gave them to me” is still shorter”)
November 24, 2025 at 2:47 PM
Beat me to it!
(“No, my wife gave them to me” is still shorter”)
(“No, my wife gave them to me” is still shorter”)
Mmm… Can you give an example of where you can use the active but shouldn’t?
November 24, 2025 at 1:00 PM
Mmm… Can you give an example of where you can use the active but shouldn’t?
But in contrast to Neil’s claim that it’s meant for weaker writers, I think that rule’s optimistic. He himself doesn’t use common figures of speech because he competently comes up with his own; “like cavalry horses answering the bugle”. For lesser writers avoiding dying metaphors is more realistic
November 24, 2025 at 11:14 AM
But in contrast to Neil’s claim that it’s meant for weaker writers, I think that rule’s optimistic. He himself doesn’t use common figures of speech because he competently comes up with his own; “like cavalry horses answering the bugle”. For lesser writers avoiding dying metaphors is more realistic
If the long word is the right one it sounds like a short one won’t do! Never use the passive *when you can use the active* is an important disclaimer. For familiar figures of speech I’d agree his meaning isn’t clear - he explains it much better in his paragraph on ‘dying metaphors’
November 24, 2025 at 11:07 AM
If the long word is the right one it sounds like a short one won’t do! Never use the passive *when you can use the active* is an important disclaimer. For familiar figures of speech I’d agree his meaning isn’t clear - he explains it much better in his paragraph on ‘dying metaphors’
You may well be familiar already, but I think it’s best never to miss an opportunity to share Orwell’s best work
www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-f...
www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-f...
Politics and the English Language | The Orwell Foundation
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
www.orwellfoundation.com
November 23, 2025 at 9:57 PM
You may well be familiar already, but I think it’s best never to miss an opportunity to share Orwell’s best work
www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-f...
www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-f...
got through is aid cuts - where it was very directly communicated the money was going to defence!
(I believe Paul Johnson complains this wasn’t true - one wasn’t really paying for the other - but they still sold it to the PLP!)
(I believe Paul Johnson complains this wasn’t true - one wasn’t really paying for the other - but they still sold it to the PLP!)
November 17, 2025 at 3:14 PM
got through is aid cuts - where it was very directly communicated the money was going to defence!
(I believe Paul Johnson complains this wasn’t true - one wasn’t really paying for the other - but they still sold it to the PLP!)
(I believe Paul Johnson complains this wasn’t true - one wasn’t really paying for the other - but they still sold it to the PLP!)
There’s a belief that the electorate will prefer tough decisions if the government pretends it has no alternative (‘fiscal black hole’) rather than arguing for its choices.
I suppose it did work for Cameron+Osborne but they laid the ground in opposition, whereas the only tough choice Starmer’s…
I suppose it did work for Cameron+Osborne but they laid the ground in opposition, whereas the only tough choice Starmer’s…
November 17, 2025 at 3:12 PM
There’s a belief that the electorate will prefer tough decisions if the government pretends it has no alternative (‘fiscal black hole’) rather than arguing for its choices.
I suppose it did work for Cameron+Osborne but they laid the ground in opposition, whereas the only tough choice Starmer’s…
I suppose it did work for Cameron+Osborne but they laid the ground in opposition, whereas the only tough choice Starmer’s…
Every announcement of new spending (particularly defence) that’s not involved even a signal of tax rises has been a missed opportunity
November 17, 2025 at 3:01 PM
Every announcement of new spending (particularly defence) that’s not involved even a signal of tax rises has been a missed opportunity
Okay my post did not age brilliantly.
But while “keep borrowing down through inefficient tax fiddles” it still remains better than “just borrowing more”, and yet I find it relatively easy to see someone favouring the latter getting 80 MP nominations
But while “keep borrowing down through inefficient tax fiddles” it still remains better than “just borrowing more”, and yet I find it relatively easy to see someone favouring the latter getting 80 MP nominations
November 14, 2025 at 8:03 AM
Okay my post did not age brilliantly.
But while “keep borrowing down through inefficient tax fiddles” it still remains better than “just borrowing more”, and yet I find it relatively easy to see someone favouring the latter getting 80 MP nominations
But while “keep borrowing down through inefficient tax fiddles” it still remains better than “just borrowing more”, and yet I find it relatively easy to see someone favouring the latter getting 80 MP nominations
Okay but not every cabinet minister is an “obvious upgrade” on Starmer are they?
The last contest ‘whoever else gets nominated’ was Lucy Powell whose fiscal policies would be catastrophic - unconvinced the chances we’d get another economics denialist are zero.
The last contest ‘whoever else gets nominated’ was Lucy Powell whose fiscal policies would be catastrophic - unconvinced the chances we’d get another economics denialist are zero.
“Don’t put up income tax, NI or VAT”…in the same interview “spend more money”. While I think the Labour leadership should have thought more intelligently (read: at all) about how to get out of their tax pledges, can see why they made them!
Labour should stick to manifesto pledges on tax, deputy leader says
The government has repeatedly refused to rule out increasing income tax in this month's Budget.
www.bbc.com
November 13, 2025 at 10:10 PM
Okay but not every cabinet minister is an “obvious upgrade” on Starmer are they?
The last contest ‘whoever else gets nominated’ was Lucy Powell whose fiscal policies would be catastrophic - unconvinced the chances we’d get another economics denialist are zero.
The last contest ‘whoever else gets nominated’ was Lucy Powell whose fiscal policies would be catastrophic - unconvinced the chances we’d get another economics denialist are zero.
I regret to inform you other countries have phonics debates too. Eg France
(Nice summary here)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics...
(Nice summary here)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics...
Phonics - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
November 11, 2025 at 9:52 PM
I regret to inform you other countries have phonics debates too. Eg France
(Nice summary here)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics...
(Nice summary here)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonics...
I think the problem is “money”, no?
November 11, 2025 at 8:20 AM
I think the problem is “money”, no?
7p on income tax plus 8p off NICs brings in what, £14 billion?
November 8, 2025 at 12:07 PM
7p on income tax plus 8p off NICs brings in what, £14 billion?
…when was there a 50%+1 rule?? (Skimmed the article and couldn’t see this bit)
November 7, 2025 at 10:15 PM
…when was there a 50%+1 rule?? (Skimmed the article and couldn’t see this bit)
At risk of re-litigating a previous argument though, I find it a lot easier to see Burnham blocked if Rayner is running. There are groups that prefer her as leader and others who would see her as more beatable so would prefer her on the ballot
November 2, 2025 at 11:10 AM
At risk of re-litigating a previous argument though, I find it a lot easier to see Burnham blocked if Rayner is running. There are groups that prefer her as leader and others who would see her as more beatable so would prefer her on the ballot
You currently literally can’t bet on Rayner on skybet (unlike all these people!) so I don’t think the point that she should be considered among the favourites still is ‘standard’ (but imv is correct)
November 2, 2025 at 11:04 AM
You currently literally can’t bet on Rayner on skybet (unlike all these people!) so I don’t think the point that she should be considered among the favourites still is ‘standard’ (but imv is correct)
Ordinary landlords also don’t get fined for this! In Southwark they get warning and and no consequence as long as they get the license within 21 days.
www.standard.co.uk/business/mon...
www.standard.co.uk/business/mon...
October 31, 2025 at 9:50 AM
Ordinary landlords also don’t get fined for this! In Southwark they get warning and and no consequence as long as they get the license within 21 days.
www.standard.co.uk/business/mon...
www.standard.co.uk/business/mon...
What does ‘being more active’/making these producers appear look like?
October 30, 2025 at 1:49 PM
What does ‘being more active’/making these producers appear look like?