Nye Michael
@nyemichael.bsky.social
Are there examples of solving this in other countries?
I don’t mean countries that are more decentralised than us (plenty of them!) I mean countries that used to be where we are and have become more decentralised
I don’t mean countries that are more decentralised than us (plenty of them!) I mean countries that used to be where we are and have become more decentralised
January 9, 2026 at 7:31 AM
Are there examples of solving this in other countries?
I don’t mean countries that are more decentralised than us (plenty of them!) I mean countries that used to be where we are and have become more decentralised
I don’t mean countries that are more decentralised than us (plenty of them!) I mean countries that used to be where we are and have become more decentralised
I swear this happened in love island about 5 seasons running back when I watched it
January 3, 2026 at 3:31 PM
I swear this happened in love island about 5 seasons running back when I watched it
Reposted by Nye Michael
For example, the number of outpatient appts grew by 9% in 2024–25 yet the number of patients leaving the waiting list only grew by 4%. This is a big deal: if the number leaving the waiting list had grown at the same rate, the waiting list would be ~1 million lower by now.
6/11
6/11
December 9, 2025 at 8:41 AM
For example, the number of outpatient appts grew by 9% in 2024–25 yet the number of patients leaving the waiting list only grew by 4%. This is a big deal: if the number leaving the waiting list had grown at the same rate, the waiting list would be ~1 million lower by now.
6/11
6/11
Nah - the fact the Tory left accepted losing the leadership *by mistake* shows how little belief they have they could actually lead their party(+country) to success. No way would the Labour right ever roll over like that.
December 3, 2025 at 10:41 AM
Nah - the fact the Tory left accepted losing the leadership *by mistake* shows how little belief they have they could actually lead their party(+country) to success. No way would the Labour right ever roll over like that.
(Perfectly reasonable tradeoff to make tbh)
December 1, 2025 at 7:04 PM
(Perfectly reasonable tradeoff to make tbh)
The constraint on the power of delay is the Parliament Act, which as you point out the government has not yet used.
December 1, 2025 at 2:16 PM
The constraint on the power of delay is the Parliament Act, which as you point out the government has not yet used.
Come on, unconstitutional doesn’t just mean things you don’t like! As you point out later (nice Bevan qt) the Lords does have the right of delay.
It also seems what’s really happened is the govt’s been persuaded its initial policy was wrong - kind of nice for policy to be made like that!
It also seems what’s really happened is the govt’s been persuaded its initial policy was wrong - kind of nice for policy to be made like that!
December 1, 2025 at 11:47 AM
Come on, unconstitutional doesn’t just mean things you don’t like! As you point out later (nice Bevan qt) the Lords does have the right of delay.
It also seems what’s really happened is the govt’s been persuaded its initial policy was wrong - kind of nice for policy to be made like that!
It also seems what’s really happened is the govt’s been persuaded its initial policy was wrong - kind of nice for policy to be made like that!
I think it does demonstrate the fiscal rules really aren’t working as a narrative - really difficult to sell a tightening when “you’re already meeting the fiscal rules”
November 30, 2025 at 10:36 AM
I think it does demonstrate the fiscal rules really aren’t working as a narrative - really difficult to sell a tightening when “you’re already meeting the fiscal rules”
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