I did enjoy the essay, because he makes a lot of good points however I think it should be noted that writing gains personality when people dress it up and almost make it their own. Like in 1984 and even to an extent in animal farm, he doesnt have a very distinct writing style. In the case of politics as well, while I do think there should be some kind of personality within it all it should mostly be considered that the writing needs to be understandable and actually correct. It depends what is meant by politics though, like just the discussion of politics so in books and in general or in actual politics like manifestos and speeches, even books written by politicians about their beliefs.
When I read 1984, I thought his writing style was boring, but now I see his explanation for it, even though it's still not my preference. In his view, it's unpretentious and no-nonsense.
His commentary on the vagueness of political jargon really still rings true today in all the talking points and sensationalism and division in modern Western politics. Maybe at the time of him writing the article all this was “curable” according to him, but by now I'd say we societies are definitely in too deep. I'm not sure if I agree with his view in the literary sense, as I love rich and flowery prose, but I do agree in the academic, scientific, and political sense, as we need more cold hard facts and less beating around the bush. I think its pretty interesting how he makes similar comments in 1984 about the importance of language in society. Especially concerning the alteration or use of poor language limiting critical thinking. It was also quite funny to me to see how the things he is criticizing in the essay are so prevalent nowadays, especially when it comes to official and political speeches and how they're basically just talking without saying anything concrete, or diverting from horrible realities by sanitizing the terms used. Part of the reason why I had a fun time reading is because I could clearly remember instances where the writing is so stale/overly complicated that it made reading the piece a chore. This, coupled with his direct style, makes reading such a breeze and really emphasizes what strong principles in writing can do.
It's nice to know that the same struggles with language are still here and we're still running into the same pitfalls. I love that he differentiates people who actively use this language to mask hypocritical/outright awful stances and the people who just use it by default. The essay makes you hyperaware of your bad habits, the problematic discourse, and how you can fix it at the same time.