Thank you, I was only trying to be helpful after all I had been asked what I recognised as government policy matters hence the signpost to relevant personnel.

I do understand your concerns/frustrations and I thought that it might be helpful to raise them directly with your local Chairman or MP if they are Conservative. However it would now appear that your concerns might be centred around those you define as ‘Party Brass’, therefore, I can only kindly suggest that you either work with them or indeed become one of them by applying for Convention Officers positions or indeed a leadership role at CCHQ so that your input does not become a one-off. I imagine that this might offer you the correct platform to implement the changes that you want. I would like to think that if you had the right qualifications and were top brass – working very hard to see your changes through and also had the support of your team as well as proof that the changes you want are useful and will certainly improve things for everyone, the Party and Country as a whole then it would be quite straightforward to achieve your goals.
I assume that you are aware that there are some people who enjoy doing things at a local level including raffles, stuffing envelops etc. and they find that to be the best way to get involved, give back and it would be rather unfair to them to have that taken away. I do appreciate that you may not be one of those people and by all means, do apply for positions at CCHQ, perhaps you to might find what you are looking for and indeed achieve your goals.

1. Please raise your questions at your regional AGM and local Chairman; however it is also important to realise and appreciate that individual and/or minority wants/needs must always be balanced with what is in the best interest for the country as a whole at home and abroad (international relations do matter in the wider world). If there are any pending Manifesto commitment concerns and legislative issues then these concerns should be redirected to The Rt Hon Ben Gummer, MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, 70 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2AS

2. I do not work for the Foreign Office or DFID, please redirect questions regarding Foreign Aid to The Rt Hon Boris Johnson, MP, Secretary of State FCO, King Charles Street, London, SW1A 2AH and The Rt Hon Priti Patel, MP Secretary of State DFID, 22 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2EG…you might also have to write to the Brexit Secretary The Rt Hon David Davis and the Secretary of State for International Trade, The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox as well

3. I do not work for the Home office or the Department for Exiting the European Union, questions about immigration must be redirected to The Rt Hon Amber Rudd, Secretary of State Home Office, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF and The Rt Hon David Davis Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, 9 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AS…similarly, you will need to simultaneously write to the Secretary of State for International Trade, The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox and The Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and many other Departments including Health, Education etc. as there is an overlap of issues raised

4. I do not work for the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, please redirect questions on Climate Change to The Rt Hon Greg Clark, MP Secretary of State BEIS, 1 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0ET… similarly, you will need to simultaneously write to the Secretary of State for International Trade, The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox, The Secretary of State for Transport, The Sec of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

Disclaimer: I do not work for HM’s Government and I am not a representative of the government. I do not represent anyone or any organisation or profession; these views are entirely mine alone.

I am not a government official and I have found these questions to greatly deviate from my comment. However I want to be helpful,consequently,I would urge you to redirect your queries and concerns to the relevant Secretary of State and/or Ministers who are best placed to address your concerns,

While there is enormous value in democratically electing representatives, I am firmly of the view that it is much more important (re maintaining the fabric of the Party – for the Party to function at the most basic level and survive in the long-term) that roles such as the Party Chairman and Policy Forum Chairman ought to have an excellent working relationship with the Party Leader (and PM) so that they can present a united front, “speak with one voice” and ultimately share the majority of their short-term and long-term goals based on the Leader’s vision. What would be the value in having a personnel who assumes a role via a popularity contest only to later find that they can’t/won’t/don’t work well with the Leader due to disparities and dissimilar views and visions for the Party etc., no good can come of it. We must be honest in that what might work well at school and/or in other sectors and professions does not always apply in politics where ambition has driven many, many a good man to do the unthinkable. Similarly, Convention Officers must represent the Leader and perhaps a compromise in this regard could be reached by introducing a shortlist (drawn by the Leader’s Office) from which the membership can elect a representative based on ability etc., however it is crucial that all Convention Officers are also able to work in unison and maintain a good relationship with our Leader even if they are to be elected by members.
On a related matter, whatever happened to the findings of Lord Feldman’s review, ‘Conservative Party Review Report 2016’ available online, https://www.conservatives.com/-/media/Conservativ... was it ever felt that some of the findings and recommendations could be taken forward and implemented, it would be a bit of a shame if it all went to waste when Chairmanship changed.

I'd add that Mrs May is not only rightly refusing to grant an independence referendum right now
but she is indeed rightfully doing so!

“Tomorrow morning, Parliament will meet as normal. We will come together as normal. And Londoners – and others from around the world…will get up and go about their day as normal…they will walk these streets, they will live their lives. And we will all move forward together. Never giving in to terror. And never allowing the voices of hate and evil to drive us apart.”, Mrs May on 22 March 2017, dignified and invoking a true British spirit in response to terror attack against humanity

“Tomorrow morning, Parliament will meet as normal. We will come together as normal. And Londoners – and others from around the world…will get up and go about their day as normal…they will walk these streets, they will live their lives. And we will all move forward together. Never giving in to terror. And never allowing the voices of hate and evil to drive us apart.”, Mrs May on 22 March 2017 - dignified and invoking a true British spirit in response to terror attack against humanity

First, I am of the view that it is imperative for everyone to understand that foreign aid is not just about caring, indeed this is a multifaceted complex matter that is also hugely about soft power and it also includes a number of historical agreements, signed with a number of countries including peacekeeping and control of migration, which is probably why issues surround foreign aid are enshrined in law. However, one wonders how this soft power is utilised and the implications thereof e.g. taking migration as one issue, is it really beneficial to continue to give to countries with atrocious human rights records just to be able to perhaps control quotas of people from the said country who can be allowed to migrate to a donor country, what are the long term implications? This is obviously a very basic example. However, it would be most interesting to see how foreign aid would be shaped by Brexit, will the government repeal this law or make changes that also limit its soft power and in this regard e.g. perhaps change migration policies (including treatment and quotas of refugees), how likely is this? Will the government choose to reduce funding and have a more direct role on how aid is spent including having schemes and programmes that force recipients to re-invest that money into the UK by perhaps agreeing trade agreements and polices to reflect this, which might appear on the face of it a sensible alternative but could alter the balance of power. Of course aid is about helping but this is just a portion of a complex and multifaceted issue and some long 'buried' treaties and agreements that have allowed the use and distribution of aid to remain as it is might have to be exhumed to understand other aspects of aid but we do not know yet who will benefit from that exercise but in the meantime I suppose that some comfort can be found in that Brexit might possibly allow for a review and revision of aid policies to reflect a new, more global Britain.

The very end of the budget must have been very amusing, I have visions of one episode of 'Yes Minister' when they visited the Qumran and kept receiving messages from Mr Smirnoff, Walker etc. in the other room. Thanks you, I hadn't realised that this is how the tradition started.

Those 5 hours were probably accompanied by a rather stiff drink ;-)