The Mogg’s style points bring back a little elegance

The task of turning the clock back is usually a congenial one for conservatives, and so I welcome Jacob Rees-mogg’s style guide for his staff in his new post of Leader of the House of Commons.

Sam Leith Esq. (as Mr Rees-mogg now wishes all “non-titled” men to be addressed), who is the literary editor of The Spectator and a master of literary form, attacks the Mogg. He accuses him of imposing “arbitrary shibboleths” about the English language. “If you love language,” says Mr Leith, “you are aware that most rules and stylistic preferences are situational.”

In this he is correct, but I would defend the Rees-mogg view situationally: the current situation is bad. Modern official style is an ugly, deceiving mixture of the matey, the evasive and the jargon-ridden. There can sometimes be a case for the revival of the archaic – think of renaissance classical architecture or later neo-gothic. Old forms can bring new rigour and elegance.

Mr Rees-mogg’s reluctance to let public servants write to members of the public by their first name is one example. It is confusing to be addressed thus by a public body, because it gives the false impression

that it actually knows you and sees you as a friend. Formality helps to guarantee integrity.

Another Mogg point is to discourage certain words, phrases or usages – “fit for purpose”, “ongoing”, “meet with” and “yourself ” (especially as in “meet with yourself ”) – because they are canting or clichéd, otiose or obscure. We can all add to his list – “going forward”, “transparency”, “footprint”, “diversity” (when it actually means uniformity), and so on.

So congratulations to Jacob-reesmogg Esq. No, I am sorry, that is an offence against his style guide: I mean: congratulations to the Hon. and Rt Hon. Jacob Rees-mogg.

The row about the soon-to-be compulsory teaching of LGBT issues in schools is quite worrying. It could have been avoided. It is appropriate that pupils should be informed that modern Britain offers equal rights, most notably in marriage, to same-sex couples. That, after all, is a legal fact. But it is not the job of schools to preach that homosexual relationships are virtuous.

Government has made exactly this mistake before – but the other way round. Thirty years ago, the last Thatcher administration, fed up with Left-wing local authorities wasting ratepayers’ money on propaganda, was shocked by a pro-gay book for children called Jenny Lives with Eric

and Martin, about a little girl being brought up by a gay couple. It was alleged (though this was not really the case) that it was being promoted in schools.

Out of this furore came Section 28, the clause in the Local Government Bill that forbade the promotion of homosexuality in schools “as a pretended family relationship”. It soon became a by-word for intolerance. The mischief here was the idea that Parliament should dictate on such a question. It would have been much better to allow schools to make their own decisions. Supporters of homosexual rights understandably felt persecuted, though in fact nothing much happened.

Beyond the most basic outline of a curriculum, Whitehall should never have interfered in what schools teach. In a free society, each school should be free to decide for itself, within the normal bounds of legality and the requirements of public examinations. If that happened, some schools would be strongly gay-friendly; some not; and some would feel that, in curricular terms, it was not a subject on which they needed to take a stand. The British state system has always contained a large church element (which, in more recent years, has extended to a few Jewish and Muslim schools). Such schools should not be forced by law to oppose the teachings of their faith. They should be arraigned by the public authorities only if they are sectarian or extremist.

The schools bureaucracy is quite right to fear that extremists are taking advantage of the LGBT issue. More fool the bureaucrats for forcing policy through in such a way that fanatics can exploit the genuine qualms felt by many moderate, non-militant Muslim parents. I strongly suspect that a good many Christian parents feel the same.

The only people quite clearly suffering from Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister – apart from hard-line Remainers – are readers of The Daily Telegraph.

His new duties have removed him from these Comment pages, and we feel sad.

One of his great journalistic skills has been to colour often grey political issues with the bold strokes of his wit. This has made them much more comprehensible. We shall miss him, though we understand he must lay down his pen to answer his country’s call. The only people connected with this paper who might breathe a sigh of relief are the poor editors and sub-editors who have been prematurely aged by the regular lateness of his copy.

I hereby make this pledge to my readers. No matter how many people ask me, I shall always refuse to become prime minister, so that I may go on writing for you.

READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion