AIBU to not know the correct way to address an MP in a letter/email?

[JetTail]

Out of curiosity, and also to ensure that I am not automatically 'cancelled' as some sort of ignoramus (this is relevant, as I'm about to question his nonsense about claiming all great epitomes of historical lunacy are being cancelled), I'm wondering how to address someone who signs off a letter with the following: Rt Hon Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP.

Do I write:

Dear Mr. Bigballs

Or

Dear Rt Hon Mr. Bigballs?

or

Dear Rt Hon Bigballs?

or

Something else?

Yours

The soon to be Dishonoured Nelly No-balls

He's not my MP. My MP is a Sir. This dude is Chair of a party. I'm writing in response to an email he sent to me as a member of that party, not as a constituent.

@StringFellow

Cant remember to be honest. They have a very weird job title, it essentially means secretary, but it's like 4/5 words long instead.

For ordinary correspondence- Dear Mr Bigballs is fine

If inviting him to an event or to be a speaker then you could go with Dear Rt Hon Mr Bigballs.

But most won't care and most will only be read by their assist so don't worry about it.

The Rt Hon Mr (or other title) initials then surname, MP. You can include the for their relevant constituency.

@JetTail

Also, can I ask, whether I am correct in thinking the following sentence in nonsensical - i.e. not that it's silly, but rather that the word inimicable in this sentence makes no sense? Open to correction...

"But wherever they are found …
… they pursue a common policy…

… inimicable … to freedom."

Honestly, writing in big words even you don’t understand isn’t going to persuade anyone of anything.

Try and think of the simplest way to say what you want to say.

And be prepared that your carefully crafted argument will probably be dismissed out of hand by someone who has already made up their mind about what they think of the issue.

As he's an MP I'd be tempted to address him as "Dear Cunt" but if you want to be politer, given his name "Dear Jimmy (not Savile) Bigballs" would avoid using rude words whilst letting the recipient know the sort of contempt you hold them in.

@JetTail

Also, can I ask, whether I am correct in thinking the following sentence in nonsensical - i.e. not that it's silly, but rather that the word inimicable in this sentence makes no sense? Open to correction...

"But wherever they are found …
… they pursue a common policy…

… inimicable … to freedom."

It looks ok to me. But if you're not sure, substitute whichever synonym seems most appropriate to convey the same meaning - harmful, hostile, unfriendly.

How about "Oi, listen up Jimmy B"

What I quoted is the content of his speech in the US.

I have drafted my response and shall post it here for dissection!

Dear Jimmy Bigballs

Thank you for your email to me as a member of the Conservative Party. I was optimistic opening your email with the subject “Sofia, defend Free Speech” as, the ideal of Free Speech is a matter of great personal interest. In a time where civil liberties globally, are at risk of being encroached upon as a result of unprecedented policies auspiciously implemented to protect against the ravages of Covid 19, I hoped that your call to defend Free Speech might align with one of my fundamental beliefs. Enthusiastic about my recent decision to join a party for whom I had previously only held much disdain and in hopes of receiving some reinforcement of my belief that I was open-minded enough to look beyond history as I was taught it, I was delighted to receive your email. However, on reading the content of your email and your related speech in full, I was not only left disillusioned but I was left enraged – enraged enough to pen this letter and enraged enough to cancel my membership of The Conservative Party. I might just break the record for the shortest duration of membership of the party of which you are Chair.

I made the perhaps unusual decision as an Irish immigrant to join the Conservative Party, some 4-5 weeks ago. I took this step as I found Boris Johnson’s handling of the difficult balance between restrictions and retention of some semblance of normality during the pandemic, to be world-leading, progressive and forward-thinking. I looked at the policies in my own country and felt grateful to be in England. The first year and a half of covid restrictions almost broke me, nay nearly killed me! When I felt that his leadership might be in some jeopardy, I decided to join the party to get involved insofar as one individual can, in ensuring his tenure as Leader. That he partied during lockdown is of little concern to me. I’m Irish after all and we love a good party!

When I arrived in London, I was shocked at the limitations to free speech. I have got into all sorts of bother for my use of expletives. You can’t open your mouth at times for fear of offending someone. I do not wish to cause offence, but I will defend my right to cause offence.

Your speech and email though have utterly incensed me. I am a white woman in my 40s. I am not of Gen X, or Y, or Z, nor indeed am I a Millennial. I am not blinded by ‘wokism’ nor am I baffled by thoroughly modern notions. I am frequently irreverent, despise fashionable idiocy and while not highly educated, I am relatively well educated. I am not of a generation which you can ‘cancel’ off the bat due to a perceived desire to simply rage against the machine. I speak as I find and consider myself capable of critical thought.

You spoke a lot about courage. You spoke a lot about self-confidence. You spoke a lot about irrational introspection. What you actually achieved in your attempt to rouse some renewed pride in one’s history as some source of a show of strength, was to demonstrate how weak you are, how incapable you are of accepting challenges to your rhetoric and how far-right you are. Ironically, your attack on the nostrums of Leftist Loons (if I can be so bold as to paraphrase your description of them) fell very left of field. Self-confidence is rarely a luxury of the suppressed. Courage is seen as dissent. Introspection is something foisted upon us. In the movie The Departed, Matt Damon’s character claims that Freud said of the Irish: “This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever.” Obviously that quote has not been found to be attributable to him, however, perhaps similar could be said of the British? Freud it appears did in fact show a particular interest in the Irish psyche. It is claimed that he classed people as Irish and non-Irish. Quite a claim to fame. I wonder why we were so interesting to study?

In your speech, you put Reagan and Thatcher in one sentence. Reagan was of Irish emigrant heritage. Thatcher also has Irish heritage surprisingly – her paternal great-grandmother was Irish. That is possibly where their similarities end. Reagan held a love for and loyalty to Ireland while Thatcher is renowned for brutal policies against the Irish. Several Irish citizens lost their lives under Thatcher’s reign, some dying of hunger in a peaceful attempt to fight for justice; Bobby Sands possibly being the most identifiable name of that cohort. I too grew up during their time, but I held one in high esteem and viewed the other with contempt. She is in fact the reason for my previous disdain for your Party.

You then drew an analogy between defacing of the Cenotaph and defacing of a statue of Churchill. The former is despicable in my opinion as I am grateful to those who gave their lives to preserve freedom. The latter? It is a little-known fact in England that Churchill was the man responsible for the deployment of the notorious Black and Tans to Ireland. Being a Cambridge graduate, I am going to presume you are intelligent but being a Cambridge graduate I am also going to presume that you know little about parts of recent British history. History is never taught as facts. History is taught from perspectives. History is taught almost as a form of propaganda. I am not going to go into the various atrocities carried out by the Black and Tans in Ireland, I will simply suggest that you google. It suffices to say that Churchill and slain brave soldiers of World Wars are not comparable. Churchill and Hitler might be more comparable.

Woke is a new term. The dictionary definition is neutral as to its usage. It is neither denoted as complimentary or derogatory. Its current usage however might mean that that definition will need to be updated soon as, it is frequently used as an insult. It is used to disparage the views of a growing voice, once tiny and almost silent, a voice of those gaining the self-confidence to question some long-held beliefs, to denounce some unimaginable injustices and to demand the freedoms once only accorded the white privileged and the white privileged male. It is a voice requiring tremendous courage.

You have mentioned in mitigation of your privileges in education and employment, that your parents were working class. My parents too are working class. Mind you, in studying Marketing, I was amused to discover that farmers were often considered upper class for the purposes of marketing. Clearly those concepts were not construed around small Irish farmers and were more to do with Irish land holders often being of salubrious British backgrounds. Marketing is an interesting psychology. It disregards the why and regards only the what. It is brutal in how it sections society. It understands things however; things which one cannot ordinarily write; things which are not politically correct to say or even to discuss at times. Colour, creed, class, age, sex (or gender), sexuality, education: these are all matters of concern in marketing. Why? Ask yourself why. Really ponder that question. All things being equal, those things should not be a consideration when selling a bar of chocolate you might think? If you’re hungry, you’re hungry surely? Yet they are. They’re not only a consideration, they are normally the fundamental influences of any sort of marketing. Because women like chocolate and Asians like spice? No. Because these fundamentals influence our thinking and in turn our behaviour. Why do these fundamentals influence our thinking? That is a question I will leave you to answer yourself.

Your call to the white not-privileged to resurge and remember their occasional good deeds is misplaced. In the same 24-hour period as a member of the British Royal Family can pay hush money to a victim of sex trafficking to avoid a public trial which might embarrass the Crown, you try to resume a belief in your strength, your power, your prowess as a white Conservative. In a court of law, testimony to a defendant’s previous good character is given consideration in sentencing. In life, similar consideration should be given. But we do not continue to laud a murderer for being a good father, for giving to charity, for being a generous husband. Some acts eradicate any redeeming qualities. And so it is with Churchill for me. And so it is on that note, that I shall find a better cause for my GBP2.99/month. I wish I didn’t have to make this u-turn as I had so looked forward to partying like a Tory – I am Irish after all and everyone knows we love a good party. I shall continue to be woke and to judge people not on the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character. Or the content of their speeches.

That is a gigantically long letter that says nothing. What is your actual complaint? What do you want him to do?

You need to take all the emotion and attempts at comedy out of it for a start.

I CBA to read that, I doubt he will have the time or inclination.

I don’t think you need to worry about what he will think about your form of address

It's a ridiculously long waffley letter which is entirely unclear. Brevity rules.

It's also ironic that you write
When I arrived in London, I was shocked at the limitations to free speech. I have got into all sorts of bother for my use of expletives. You can’t open your mouth at times for fear of offending someone. I do not wish to cause offence, but I will defend my right to cause offence.

1. so, you HAVE the right of free speech
2. I don't think you know what free speech actually means
3. It's baffling that for someone championing "free speech" you then write incessantly about someone else's speech!

I've I was right hon dicknose I'd be tempted to reply "meh, free speech 🤷‍♂️"

If he signs off as Rt Hon Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP, you address the letter to:

The Rt Hon Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP

and start the letter:

Dear Mr Bigballs

If he has a CBE, he isn't entitled to use the title "Sir". Are you sure he is a Sir?

If so, it would be:

The Rt Hon Sir Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP

and

Dear Sir Jimmy

@chesirecat99

If he signs off as Rt Hon Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP, you address the letter to:

The Rt Hon Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP

and start the letter:

Dear Mr Bigballs

If he has a CBE, he isn't entitled to use the title "Sir". Are you sure he is a Sir?

If so, it would be:

The Rt Hon Sir Jimmy Bigballs CBE MP

and

Dear Sir Jimmy

My MP is a Sir. He's not my MP.

The letter out of context will make no sense.

This is what my letter/email is in response to.

This email:

When the Prime Minister appointed me as Chairman of our Party in September, I said that I intended to be a strong voice for our conservative values.

So, I am writing to you from the United States where I am meeting leading conservative politicians and strategists to see what we can learn from our transatlantic friends to get the Party ready to win the next General Election.

But I am also here to strengthen our alliance at a crucial time in conservatives’ battle against a pernicious new ideology which is infecting our schools, universities, government bodies, companies and now even the hard sciences.

Just yesterday, I spoke to the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington DC about this.
Lorraine,

When the Prime Minister appointed me as Chairman of our Party in September, I said that I intended to be a strong voice for our conservative values.

So, I am writing to you from the United States where I am meeting leading conservative politicians and strategists to see what we can learn from our transatlantic friends to get the Party ready to win the next General Election.

But I am also here to strengthen our alliance at a crucial time in conservatives’ battle against a pernicious new ideology which is infecting our schools, universities, government bodies, companies and now even the hard sciences.

Just yesterday, I spoke to the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington DC about this.

Read The Speech in Full

I am of course talking about so-called "social justice warriors". Those who claim to be “woke”.

The people who vandalise the Cenotaph and statues of Sir Winston Churchill. Who think that “free speech is hate speech” and that people are “privileged” just because of their skin colour.

It is tempting to assume that these “ideas” can be passed off as a fad.

I do not see it that way, Lorraine. I see it as a profoundly dangerous phenomenon.

At a time when our attention should be focused on external foes, the country is in danger of entering a period of extreme and nonsensical self-criticism.

When we should be showcasing our values and the strength of democratic societies, we look willing to abandon those values.

Only the Conservatives can combat this ideology. Just this week, my friend the Education Secretary made clear to teachers that their job is education not indoctrination and set out strict new rules so our children can make their own minds up.

But we should not assume the path to victory is an easy one. It is profoundly sad that the modern Labour Party is gripped by this ideology and that is why we need your help to kick it out of our institutions.

and this is the speech.........

Waffle is something he is familiar with ;)

For nearly half a century …
… “Heritage” has been central …
… to the revival of conservatism.

It has always flown the flag …
… for limited government …
… for free markets …
… and for individual responsibility.

And as someone who grew up under Thatcher and Reagan…

… I am proud to say …
… that those values shaped my politics.

So, it is a huge privilege …
… to be here speaking to you as Chairman of the Conservative Party …
… the oldest and most successful political party in the history of the democratic world.

And the tireless work of institutions such as Heritage …
… in promoting those values …
… is becoming more important, not less.

Today, a social media mob can cancel you …
… merely because you have dared to challenge …
… one of the Left’s fashionable nostrums.

The enemies of the West …
… are finding fresh confidence in their eternal battle against liberty.

So, conservatives themselves must find the confidence …
… to mount a vigorous defence …
… of the values of a free society.

Margaret Thatcher understood this more than anyone.
She spoke here as part of a lecture series …
… to mark the 25th anniversary of your founding.

As befits the Iron Lady of the Western world …
… ‘courage’ was the theme of her address.

In a speech that is really remarkable for its foresight …
… years before many had woken up to the fragility of the West’s victory in the Cold War …
… she warned of a tendency of democracies to relax …
… when the worst appears to be over.

And today …
… while the US and the UK …
… fulfil their obligations to Nato …
… others fail to do so.

She warned that new dangers to the West …
… were also being ignored.

Now, that is certainly true for China.
The idea that Beijing’s partial embrace of free markets …
… would automatically lead to greater social and personal political freedoms …
… has proved to be breathtakingly naive.

Finally, she noted …
… the importance of American leadership of the Western alliance …
… was in danger of being forgotten.

So, she was right to warn of the “slackening of resolve” following the Cold War.
But some nations, thankfully, have managed to avoid it.
The United Kingdom has made a point of showing its resolve.

We have taken a tough stance on China’s assault on democracy in Hong Kong …
… and its outrageous abuses in Xinjiang province.

As Digital Secretary, I banned Huawei from our 5G networks.

Our Prime Minister recently agreed a landmark deal alongside the United States …
… to supply Australia with nuclear submarines.

And while others have wavered …
… we have provided practical support to Ukraine …
… including anti-tank missiles.

The world watches the relationship between America and its allies…

… not only must we stand together …
… we must be seen to stand together.

But there is another dimension to this crisis afflicting the West …
… that she could not have foreseen.
Rogue states are seeking to challenge the international order.

And at the precise point when our resolve ought to be strongest …
… a pernicious new ideology is sweeping our societies.
An ideology that …
… if not confronted …
… threatens to rob us of the self-confidence we need to uphold those very values.

It goes by many names …
In Britain, its adherents sometimes describe themselves …
… as "social justice warriors".
They claim to be “woke” …
… awakened to the so-called truths of our societies.
But wherever they are found …
… they pursue a common policy…

… inimicable … to freedom.

In their analysis …
… free speech is not a fundamental right …
… necessary for the discovery of truth.

To them …
… it is a dangerous weapon …
… that should be curtailed to prevent “harm”.
“Free speech is hate speech” is one of their more bizarre slogans.

Each of us is accorded a level of “privilege”… .
… that has nothing to do with our own personal struggles …
… but is based on our membership of a particular group.

So, by their own shallow logic …
… as a man who went to Cambridge University
… and who now serves in the British Cabinet
… I am a pinnacle of so-called “privilege”.

It is apparently completely irrelevant to them that my parents …
were a shop worker …
… and a factory worker … who lost his job during a recession.

If I am privileged…

it is because I have a loving family …
and enjoyed an excellent education at my local state community school.

But even to question my supposed privilege …
… is deemed to be proof …
… of how privileged I am.

Now, you might have noticed …
… that the woke warriors take a particularly interest in history.

Clearly history is a living subject …
… one that will inevitably be revised.

But these activists are not interested in real scholarship or nuance …
… or in explaining the context of the bad things that our ancestors did …
… alongside the good.

They are engaged in a form of Maoism …
… determined to expunge large parts of our past …
… in its entirety.
For them, nothing is sacred.

Winston Churchill was central to the Allied victory …
… in a fight for survival against Nazi tyranny.
Yet some seek to trash his whole reputation …
… and deface monuments to him …
… in wanton acts of iconoclastic fury.

It is tempting to assume …
… that this onslaught can be passed off as a passing fad.

That it is so ridiculous …
… so detached from what the majority think …
… - and many have argued this - …
… that it can simply be ignored.

Universities …
… from which so much of this unthinking revisionism has emerged …
… have, of course, for decades been prey to Left-wing excesses.

There has always been a tendency among cultural and educational elites…

… to serve their own interests rather than serve the public at large.
And of course, we conservatives have frequently confronted it.

But this ideology is now everywhere.
It's in our universities …
… but also, in our schools.
In government bodies …
… but also in corporations.
In social science faculties …
… but also, in the hard sciences.

But I tell you, it is a dangerous form of decadence …
Just when our attention should be focused on external foes …
… we seem to have entered this period of extreme introspection and self-criticism …
… and it really does threaten to sap our societies of their own self-confidence.

Just when we should be showcasing the vitality of our values …
… and the strength of democratic societies …
… we seem to be willing to abandon those values …
… for the sake of appeasing this new groupthink.

There are several interlinked dangers to all of this.

To begin with, perhaps an obvious one.
Those of us who grew up under Thatcher and Reagan …
… or indeed, under Roosevelt and Churchill. …
… were inspired by those leaders.

But we also had an instinctive pride in our national story.
A pride that joined even political opponents …
… in a common sense of endeavour.

But if they cease to be sources of pride …
… that unite diverse populations …
… in a common understanding of who we are and what we stand for …
… then we lose that essential unity of purpose.

And it is particularly striking …
… that the two countries …
… the United Kingdom and the United States …
… where the woke agenda is pursued the most aggressively …
… Those very same countries are also the countries where patriotism is most open and welcoming.

Why on earth else would we be such magnets for migrants …
… seeking to build a better life on our shores?

In Britain…

… first, second and third generation migrants …
… are among the most fervent champions …
… of the countries they have chosen to call their own home.

Yet increasingly they are told …
… that the pride they feel is somehow misplaced.
Or even worse than that …
And even more offensively …
… that their patriotism is some kind of “false consciousness”.

Moreover …
… this woke ideology encourages a bizarre form of moral relativism …
… .a view that western nations are so compromised …
… that they have no right to denounce the rogue states of today.

For all their fury at historical “imperialism”… .
… these activists have absolutely nothing to say …
… about Vladimir Putin’s modern-day empire-building.

Indeed, one of the perversities of this worldview …
… is that the “imperialist” West is always at fault …
… even if that is in standing up for a nation …
… that has experienced the horrors of life under an actual evil empire, in our own living memory.

And yet …
… day by day …
… that worldview gains traction in elite circles.

We risk a collapse in resolve…

… if all we hear is that our societies are monstrous, unjust, oppressive …
… why on earth would anyone fight to sustain them?

It’s a narrative …
… that almost guarantees demoralisation and despair.
And of course …
… there is an opportunity cost of our irrational introspection.

A West confident in its values …
… would not be obsessing over pronouns …
… or indeed, seeking to decolonise mathematics.

Now you might say that’s rather difficult …
… when the numerals we use are actually Arabic …
… but I’ll leave that to others to explain.

It would be pointing out …
… to would-be aggressors …
… the strength of the values of a free society …
… even in the most desperate of circumstances.

To the Hong Kongers fighting for their rights …
… in the face of extra ordinary odds.

To the people of Ukraine …
… determined that their nation …
… .should have the right to determine its future.

To the women of Afghanistan …
… prepared to defy Taliban rule …
… even at the risk of their own lives.

Yet we allow ourselves …
… to be obsessed by what divides us rather than what unites us.

And, it shouldn’t just be conservatives …
… who stand up for what made the West great.
There was, of course, a time not very long ago …
… when the mainstream Left was just as committed to free speech as the Right.

Or when so-called “liberals” actually …
… had something in common with those great champions of freedom …
… the likes of Gladstone and John Stuart Mill …
… both of whom, incidentally …
… are currently at risk of cancelled.

The UK joined Nato under a Labour prime minister.
And, when Left-wing parties were dominated by working people …
… rather than professional activists …
… they were just as patriotic as their conservative opponents.

Sadly, the Left has abandoned the field.
Its leaders are either too weak to stand up for our own common values …
… or worse than that, they’ve embraced the doctrine of woke themselves.

It seems that we conservatives must find the strength …
… . to defend the principles of free society …
… On our own.

So, our Conservative government in the United Kingdom is legislating to protect free speech on campus …
… we will stop the sinister phenomenon of academics or students who offend left wing orthodoxies being censored or harassed …

As Culture Secretary …
… I challenged those cultural institutions …
… Those institutions funded by ordinary taxpayers …
… but which promoted politicised agendas.

We have made it clear to schools… .
… that it is illegal to teach the concept of “white privilege”… .
… as though it were undisputed fact.

And we must also not be frightened to expose the behaviour of some corporate giants. And you know, all know, the sort of corporations that I'm talking about.
Ones that denounced perfectly legitimate efforts to reform electoral laws in democracies, whilst at the very same time, keeping a profitable silence whilst flogging their goods to authoritarian regimes.

We Conservatives, instead, are on the side of people who believe …
… that we are a force for good in the world.

The US and the UK may certainly be different societies …
… but we are joined by the same fundamental values.

Neither of us can afford the luxury …
… of indulging in this painful woke psychodrama.

It will take courage to resist it.
Too many people have already fallen for the dismal argument …
… that standing up for freedom is reactionary …
… or that somehow it is kind or virtuous to submit to these self-righteous dogmas.

Well…

… It plainly is not.

Instead …
… as Margaret Thatcher said to you almost 25 years ago …
… the task of conservatives is to remake the case for the West…

… to proclaim our beliefs in the wonderful creativity of the human spirit …
… in the rights of property and the rule of law …
… and in the extraordinary fruitfulness of enterprise and trade.

She refused to see the decline of the West …
… as our inevitable destiny.
And neither.. should we.

I realise I'm not speaking to an entirely neutral audience here. MN is resoundingly against 'wokism'.

Ironically, free speech has fuck all to do with anything as it is free speech by the 'woke' which he disagrees with.

I don't have free speech here. That's the fucking thing. In Ireland I have, unless you go into Northern Ireland, where it might get your head kicked in, but in Ireland, free speech is a given. We curse, swear, blind, fuck, don't give a shite.

Here? You literally cannot open your mouth or you're offending someone. PC is bollocks. Taking offence to everything is bollocks. Just say what you fucking think. We all know what you think anyway as your actions give you away!

I don't have free speech here

Yes. You do.
What you seem to desire though is speech with freedom from consequences

Yup and that is what he wishes to curtail.........

@JetTail

Yup and that is what he wishes to curtail.........

If you really think that you need to be concise about what you actually disagree with. Not spend thousands of words whinging. It's pointless.

My views are 'woke' by most standards. However, if I wish to say something, I do not want the world and its mother taking offence on behalf of someone who might be offended. If I offend you, take it up with me. If I don't offend you personally, fuck off.