Might as well go through all of these, point by point.
“Organisation are SINGULAR”.
The use of all-caps is considered to be shouting, and will often be taken as a sign of derangement. Use sparingly.
Regarding the choice of plural or singular for organisations, most guides indicate that you can choose either, but don’t flip-flop within a document. It seems fair enough for JRM to make this choice as a house style.
“All non-titled males - Esq.”
Completely fucking barmy and fogeyish, and you’ll make your staff look ridiculous. It would be very tiresome to see Esq after the name of all non-titled males in a long document that mentions many people.
“There is no . after Miss or Ms”
“M.P.s - no need to write M.P. after their name in body of text”
“Male M.P.s (non-privy councillors) - in the address they should have Esq., before M.P. “
“Double space after full-stops”
This remains a reasonable choice. Although most in the UK have moved to single spaces, there still exist British style guides that recommend two. It is a harmless choice that can be dealt with in software settings.
“No comma after ‘and’”
Why? As noted by Oeco above, the Guardian article about Rees-Mogg includes a comma after an ‘and’ that seems in context to be a good choice. This is one from Strunks, I think. It’s a downvote from me.
“CHECK your work”
This is very good advice.
“Use imperial measurements”
The UK uses a mixture of imperial and metric units. In general public use, road distances are in miles, acres are used for land areas, but fuel is sold by the litre, medical doses in milligrams, drinks (other than beer!) are sold in millilitres.
It seems a mistake for JRM to decide that the House of Commons will start referring to the price of fuel in pounds per gallon, grains of paracetamol allowed in a tablet, and 16.9 fluid ounce bottles of lemonade. In the absence of a broader demetrication program, his staff and MPs are likely to be baffled.
With regard to the list of banned words: if JRM’s intention is to caution against overuse of these words, that’s fair enough. Banning them seems a mistake.
It is nice to shake things up by using various intensifiers, rather than saying “very” fifty times in one document, but there are times when “very” will be the very thing required. Days ago, Rees-Mogg himself issued a statement saying, “It gives Boris Johnson a very significant mandate...”
Fair to caution against overuse, no need to ban.
This is an odd inclusion. Is there anything wrong with the phrase “ongoing investigation”? What’s he playing at? This will very often be the perfect word.
I can see why he doesn’t want this word in formal press releases and such.
There are certainly times when another word would be better.
What the actual hell? This will often be the right word to use, in many contexts. I don’t see what he’s getting at.
“God has given us a grand opportunity to show our worth as architects of a new state and let it not be said that we did not prove equal to the task.”
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal...”
“Too many ‘I’s”
I think that trying to eliminate the second person reflexive pronoun would be difficult. It is an essential component of our language and there is nothing that can replace it. Lose yourself in the moment. Stand up for yourself.
I’m going to be kind to JRM and assume that what he wants to eliminate is the use of reflexive pronoun as a form of emphasis. If so, fair enough.
I am assuming that what JRM is objecting to is the phrase “a lot” meaning much. It’s a bit informal, so fair enough.
I am assuming that what JRM is objecting to is the use of “have got” to mean “own” etc. It’s very common, but if he thinks that it is too informal for House business, fair enough.
A useful word in several contexts. I don’t know what his problem is, here.
“‘invest’ (in schools etc)”
This one is a political decision. Using the term invest with regard to public facilities emphasizes the returns that the country gets from making these expenditures, and he wants to portray them as costs only.
“No longer fit for purpose”
There are usually better ways to say this, and it is getting a bit stale. Fair enough.
“I am pleased to learn”
This is also a bit stale, so fair enough.
I am assuming that JRM regards the “with” as redundant. Almost fair enough, but I would note that adding “with” makes it clear that you’re not saying you encountered this person for the first time. “I met the President of France today” might, in the minds of some, suggest that he had not previously met the President of France.
Eh. Ascertain is fine. Don’t overuse, though.
Why? It’s a useful word and nothing else can quite replace it. “Our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.”
“I note/understand your concerns”
This one is also a bit stale, so fair enough.
All up, about 10 of these are _just plain wrong_ and the rest range from “fine, whatever” to “correct”.