The Pritti Patel Nonsense in the Mainstream Media by Mike Clitherow

 They should all STOP & THINK before blasting out with this conjured up political attack on one of the countries strongest, most determined politicians who is trying very hard to make the “will of the majority” on crime and illegal immigration etc. actually happen.

So a few swear words (one hears these all the time on TV these days unfortunately - where it’s always considered modern and humorous) and a raised voice on occasion overrules the positive direction Pritti is trying to take the Home Office.

These biased people need to Get Real!!

 

So what is the big deal?

A small 5ft. 5in. WOMAN has upset some luvvies in the Civil Service for chasing them up

with strong language for not following her policy direction and about NOT DOING THEIR JOBS PROPERLY.

“Poor Dears” – So it appears they are so weak they could not stick up for themselves when these things actually happened or if it was really that bad made official complaints at that time to keep it in House.

NO !! they wait for the senior “jobs worth” Sir Humphrey to stamp his foot and resign - with a fat payoff and a nice pension – before some of them jump on the band wagon when this ex mandarin pushes for an enquiry and a bigger payoff from a court.  

 

Revenge springs to mind – SOD the much much bigger picture of improving the country’s laws

relating to knife crime and illegal immigration etc. etc. and also trying to sort out the not fit for purpose “Jobs for the Boys” Civil Service.  That demonstrates to me the weakness of the not very Civil Service structure and some of the people who work in it.   BTW as proved again and again this organisation  has more leaks than Thames Water and the Titanic combined.

 

NO of course it is not good for a boss the swear and shout at their staff, it is a bad way to manage people and gain long term respect. BUT the main point is has anyone checked what the issues were that caused Pritti to lose her temper with them and the antiquated Civil Service systems. Were there major / important projects that were delayed, thrown of course or were generating poor information relating to the Government’s policies??  Yes of course there was that’s why she got angry.

SURELY THAT’S THE MAIN ISSUE - BUT NO COMMENTS ABOUT THIS FROM ANY NON-CONS. MP’s OR THE GOTYA MSM. 

As the saying goes:

STICKS AND STONES PLUS FAILED CIVIL SERVICE ACTIONS MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS (however loud) WILL NEVER HURT ME.

 

Obviously these so called hurt & offended Civil servants have never worked in a commercial business where a strong Boss sometimes blows their top and uses loud industrial language.   I have!! and what happens as a grown-up one responds at that time – then the boss has more respect for you even though you still may disagree and he gets his/her way  – then everyone gets over it and you sort out the issue in the best way possible.

 

In this day and age If civil servants particularly males who can’t take strong criticism and can’t respond in a strong but constructive manner they should get another job.

 

BTW why isn’t the BAME support groups and BLM mob coming out to support Pritti?

Surely due to her ethnicity and being female she is being victimised and misunderstood.

O SORRY FORGOT THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE AS PRITTI IS A CONSERVATIVE.  

 

 

Please let me know your thoughts on this

USA Voter fraud? What is the truth?

 The following was published on the Free nations web site by Rodney Atkinson on 9 November 2020.

VOTE RIGGING WIDESPREAD

Here are just some of the credible accusations of fraud:

·         ballots being loaded into holdalls from a large container on a pavement in broad daylight by election officials

·         inexplicable halting of the counts in five states late on election night; In Wisconsin between 3.30 and 4.30am they “found” 140,000 mail in ballots for Biden. In Michigan they “found” 200,000 mail in ballots for Biden. In Pennsylvania they “found” 1m mail in ballots and they virtually all turned out to be for Biden

·         computer “glitches” that turned Republic votes into the Democrats’ column; this was corrected in Michigan but the same Dominion Ballot Counting system was used in 47 other counties in the State and over 30 States.

·         Dominion Ballot Counting Systems account for more than one third of the voting machine market. The husband of Democrat Senator for California, Dianne Feinstein, owns 60% of it and the Clinton Foundation promotes it around the world https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/delian-project-democracy-through-technology

·         people showing up to vote in person were told that they had already voted absentee when they had never requested an absentee ballot; 

·         Democratic-controlled states limited access to Republican observers even in defiance of court orders; “@realDonaldTrump election night 800,000 lead was wiped out by hundreds of thousands of mail in ballots counted without any Republican observer,” Giuliani tweeted on Sunday.

No ID checks for many who voted in person and by post. Indeed, the majority of US States require no Photo ID at the ballot.

·         Deceased people have apparently voted, one born in 1823 and at least 21,000 dead people on Pennsylvania’s voting rolls: . https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/05/lawsuit-at-least-21k-dead-people-on-pennsylvania-voter-rolls/

·         Late votes backdated by US Postal Service to qualify them. A judge has now ordered that all late ballots be separated.    

·         Voting Ballot papers defaced by Polling Staff to render them void. Electoral staff pictured wearing pro Biden hats.

Lisa Deeley Chairwoman of the Philadelphia City Commission, a member of the bipartisan board of elected officials in charge of elections and voter registration “permanently surrendered her notary licence” in 2018 for approving signatures on legal documents without asking for identification – a violation of PA law.

PENNSYLVANIA – A CASE STUDY IN VOTING MANIPULATION

In a suspicious change just before the Presidential election The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in 28th October 2020 by a vote of four to three allowed mailed ballots to be accepted if they were postmarked on or before election day and are received within three days thereafter. 

But in 2019, the Pennsylvania legislature had passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but (in Justice Alito’s words) “unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day.” The exact text is 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, which stated: “No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.”

Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was invalidated, that much of the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would also be void. The exact text is: “Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.”

So the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that said mail-in ballots had to arrive by 8PM on election day to be counted, and then said that if the Court over-ruled that law, the entire law that permitted mail-in ballots was invalid.

And that is what has happened.

 

 

 

 

Coronavirus and Democracy

 CS Lewis 1958.

Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim to knowledge. If we are to be mothered, mother must know best. This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists, till in the end the politicians proper become merely the scientists' puppets. Technocracy is the form to which a planned society must tend. Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value. Let the doctor tell me I shall die unless I do so-and-so; but whether life is worth having on those terms is no more a question for him than for any other man.

CCHQ lessons to be learned!

 

Democracy turned upside down – Updated 18 September

            Last night the voting by Zoom took place for the election of officers for the Beaconsfield Constituency Conservative Association.  (see post below) How did it go?

·         The total membership of the Association was not given so no one knew the size of the electorate.   It is believed to be about 1,350.

·         The total number of members registered to vote was not given.   It is believed to have been about 300.

·         The total number participating was shown on the screen as 216.   This is considerably down on the number registered.   Why?   Were there technical problems.   Research should be done on the reasons for this.   In more than one case there was no sound so the instructions from the CCHQ manager were not heard.

·         No time limit was put on the voting.   It was left to the CCHQ Manager to decide when to stop.   There should have been a time limit.   In practice, he stopped when he said everyone had voted.   Astonishing that there were no abstentions!

·         The candidates were not asked to provide their own scrutineers.   This is essential to ensure that the vote is fair.   People appointed as scrutineers by CCHQ are not necessarily wholly independent.

·         There was no vote at all on the election of the Vice Presidents, even en bloc!

·         Transparency and accountability are essential elements of democracy.   It is clear CCHQ still have lessons to be learned!

 

 

 

Democracy Turned Upside Down!

 

Last year the members of the Beaconsfield Constituency Conservative Association fought hard and long to exercise their democratic rights relating to their MP Dominic Grieve.   See “Selection of Parliamentary Candidates below).   Fortunately, he went, and in December 2019 the Constituency elected a new MP, Joy Morrissey who has done a splendid job.

The Officers of the Association who frustrated and blocked the members exercising their democratic rights and gave scant support in getting Joy Morrissey elected, would in normal times been accountable to the members at an Annual General Meeting this year.   However due to the COVID-19 crisis the AGM has not yet been held.   It is now due to held by a Zoom meeting on 18^th September.   Voting for the Officers will take place before the AGM on 17^th September.   This is the procedure set down by CCHQ   Is not this the wrong way round?  

The two Deputy Chairman from last year have both resigned.   The Chairman is not standing for Chairman but is standing to be a Vice President.   The Treasurer is standing to be Chairman.   So, votes will be taken on the 17^th September without having had the opportunity to question the Chairman on his actions during the year or the Treasurer on the Accounts of the Association.   What is it about democracy that these people including CCHQ do not understand?   Democracy is about transparency and accountability.   How do you hold someone accountable if the votes are taken before any questions have been answered?

Fortunately, we have some excellent candidates standing for the officer positions, candidates who believe in party democracy, and I urge every member of the Beaconsfield Constituency Association to vote for them.   They are:

Chairman                                Dr. Rhiannon Rowsell

Deputy Chairman Political    Cllr. Guy Hollis

Treasurer                                 Rashpal Hullait BA (Hons) FCA

The Deputy Chairman Membership is Kirsty Griffiths who has been elected unopposed and is  excellent.

        I understand that the Vice Presidents (all eight of them) will be elected en bloc, including last year’s Chairman, none of whom publicly stood up for the rights of the party members.   In a democracy each individual should be voted upon and isn’t it time that there were time limits on the President and Vice Presidents terms of office of say five years

What happened to Private Ernest Strafford at the Battle of Monte Natale?

 See   https://battleofmontenatale.blogspot.com/p/4-february-1944-father-is-buried-to-be.html   

 

Local Government - Assemblies

Local Democracy Assemblies

The Battle of Monte Natale

On this the 75th Anniversary of Victory in Europe day we should remember the sacrifices made during World War II when democracy was under threat.   Go to this web site to see what happened in one small battle in Italy in 1944.   The Battle of Monte Natale

Local Government and Democracy

The Institutions and other aspects of Democracy - Greater London - Local Government

BBC Impartiality?

See my question on BBC impartiality, 41 minutes in

Selection of Parliamentary Candidates - is Democracy dying?

Selection of Parliamentary Candidates - is Democracy dying?

By

John E. Strafford

With the victory of the Conservative Party in the 2019 General Election we are witnessing the greatest advance for democracy in a generation.   The commitment to withdraw from the European Union on 31^st January 2020 means that at last we are taking back control of our democracy.   Once again Parliament will be in control of our legislation.   Once again, the people will be able to vote for their representative in a parliament which legislates for the people of the United Kingdom, and once again it will be judges of the United Kingdom that determine what the law means.

With the 2019 General Election we have also witnessed the greatest distortion of democracy since before the Second World War, when rich Tory parliamentary candidates purchased their seats in Parliament – a practise stopped by Lord Woolton’s reform of the Conservative Party in 1948.

Both Labour and Conservative parties deliberately delayed choosing their candidates for the General Election in order that a small group of people in their headquarters could decide who their own parliamentary candidates should be.   When the General Election was announced both Parties invoked “Emergency Procedures” to enable their HQs to take control of the process of selecting Parliamentary candidates.   The Brexit Party followed their example and did not announce their candidates until two days before nominations closed.   In addition the Brexit Party, which does not have any members, decided which constituencies should be contested.   Who took those decisions?   Party members of the two main Parties were effectively excluded from the process.   In the case of the Labour Party this was done for the Trade Unions to have a larger say in the selections in order to get more trade unionists into Parliament.   In the case of the Conservative Party it was done in order to get friends of Cabinet Ministers, special advisers, party officials and friends of the hierarchy into Parliament.   In the case of the Brexit Party it was done to enable their Leader to determine who should be a candidate.

Beaconsfield Constituency Conservative Association (BCCA) had been trying to get the process of selecting a candidate started for over six months before the General Election.   Our Member of Parliament, Dominic Grieve had lost two separate votes of confidence in General Meetings of the Association.   At last, on 31^st October BCCA was given the go-ahead by CCHQ, but told it had to follow the “Rules for the selection of Parliamentary Candidates for a General Election in 2019” (Rules shown in bold) issued by CCHQ as an emergency overriding the Rules in the Party’s Constitution.   A similar process had been implemented when the 2017 General Election was unexpectedly called.

As our Conservative MP, Dominic Grieve was not in receipt of the Conservative Whip he could not be re-selected so the following procedure had to be followed:

“The Party Chairman and Chairman of the National Conservative Convention (neither of which have been elected or are accountable to all Party Members) will nominate a shortlist of up to 3 applicants, (giving due regard to gender balance) after consultation with the Chief Agent, Director of Candidates, the Chairmen of the Candidates Committee (all of which are unelected and unaccountable) and the Chairman and two Deputies of the Association.

An Executive Council and a Special General Meeting were called to take place on Saturday 9^th November.  Names of the candidates and a standard CV were given to Party members one hour before the meetings started.   The meetings “will be run consecutively to save time.   The meeting will begin with the Executive Council, but members who are not members of the Executive are permitted to be present as observers.

At the meeting of the Executive Council, members will simply be asked to agree that the shortlist shall be put to members for selection.   The General meeting will then follow immediately, and the shortlist of candidates will be interviewed.

Voting is to be by exhaustive ballot until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes from those qualified members present and voting.

Occasionally, the Executive Council or the SGM are not satisfied with the choice of applicants put forward from the previous round.   In these rare cases the proper procedure is to move that the matter be referred back.   This must be done before the ballot is taken, but after the applicants have been heard.   After the motion for reference back has been formally proposed and seconded it should be put to the vote by secret ballot without debate.   If the reference back is defeated the proceedings must continue and proceed immediately to the ballot between the candidates.   If passed the selection process will be halted and for this General Election the Chairman of the Conservative Party will nominate the candidate.

The Chairman of the Beaconsfield Association was a candidate and was one of the three names.   Who decided that?   How were the other two names chosen?

The BCCA officers were notified of the three names on Tuesday 5^th November with strict instructions not to disclose them.   Nevertheless the following day supporters of the BCCA Chairman were campaigning for him.   On Thursday 7^th November the female candidate pulled out and to ensure gender balance was replaced by another female candidate, so effectively two candidates had four days notice of the meeting and one candidate had two days notice.

The vast majority of members attending the selection meeting did not know who the candidates were until they arrived at the meeting so were unable to find out any information about them apart from the brief biographical details submitted to the selection meeting.

The Agent for Beaconsfield had assured me that he could run a full and fair selection process within one week as he did in 1997 in similar circumstances, so why was the Association forced to adopt this wholly undemocratic process?   There was time for Beaconsfield to have a full, fair democratic process for the selection of their candidate.   Nominations for the General Election closed on 14^th November.

Beaconsfield is one of the largest Conservative Association in the country with approximately 1,500 members.   The last time it had to select a new parliamentary candidate in 1997 it had over 200 applications.

There is one further point which does not affect Beaconsfield but may have affected other Associations where there is a sitting Conservative MP.   If the sitting Member of Parliament has already been readopted by the Executive Council, no further action is required and so long as the MP still wishes to stand again the candidate is selected unless the whip has been removed.   Every Constituency Association should hold an Adoption meeting to which all members are invited.   This was the position prior to 2006 and should be re-instated to ensure democracy is openly seen to be working and all members of an Association take part in selecting their candidate.

After the debacle of the selection of candidates for the 2017 General Election it is unforgivable that we were put in the same position for the 2019 General Election.   The Party Board and the Committee on Candidates have failed in their duty.   It is time for the Party Chairman and the Chairman of the Candidates Committee to be elected by and accountable to the members of the Party at an Annual General Meeting to which all party members are invited.

Once again, the ordinary Party members have been treated with the utmost contempt by CCHQ, but the contempt goes further; effectively a small group of people are determining who the parliamentary candidates should be.   From these candidates we will get our Members of Parliament.   From our Members of Parliament, we will get our Government Ministers, so these decisions affect democracy.

The situation is now so serious that there should be a public inquiry seeking to clarify whether the undemocratic nature of our main political parties’ is distorting parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom!

Postscript:   The candidate eventually chosen by the Beaconsfield Association was Joy Morrissey who is proving to be excellent, and I am sure if the full democratic process had been followed would have topped the list of candidates in any case.   Notwithstanding this exception the principle of having a democratic process for the selection of candidates still stands.

Public Inquiry demanded into the Selection of Candidates

Is the selection of candidates distorting our democracy?   See the video:   What do you think?   Joy Morrissey has been selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Beaconsfield from a short list of three.   She is an excellent candidate and I have no doubt that if Beaconsfield had conducted a full democratic selection process she would have come through as the best candidate.   But how many Joy Morrisseys are out there that never got the chance to stand, because a group of unelected unaccountable people are determining who our candidates should be?

Global Corporations - to whom should they accountable?

Global Corporations – to whom should they be accountable?

by

John Strafford

The World is increasingly dominated by large Global Corporations.   Some more powerful than governments so what can be done about this?

I set out below my experience with easyJet:

My wife booked a return flight for herself, myself and one of our sons to Corfu.   Included in the booking was one week’s car hire with Europcar with myself as the named driver.   As is usual the flights and the car hire were paid in advance.

We arrived in Corfu and were met at the airport by a representative of Europcar who took us to their office to collect the car.   At the office I showed them my passport.   At which point the Europcar representative said we could not hire a car from them as I was over 75 years old.   However, they said if I went to the car hire firm next door they would willingly hire a car to me.   As they were not supplying a car which had been paid for I asked for a refund.   They said I must do this in the UK as it was easyJet who had taken the money.

I went next door and hired a car from Corona Car Hire, which was only slightly more expensive than the car from Europcar.

On returning to the UK my wife telephoned easyJet to ask for the refund; they said she must contact Europcar in London.   She did but they did not want to know.

I then telephoned Customer Service at easyJet and spoke to  a representative and explained the position.   He told me, after consulting with his superior to email easyJet, set out what had happened and attach the car hire agreement with Corona and the receipt for payment.   He said after doing this telephone easyJet and they would tell me what would happen next.

After doing all this and sending off the email I duly telephoned them the following day.   This time I spoke to a different representative of easyJet who told me that they had not received the email so could I send it again?   I duly did so.

The next day I telephoned easyJet again and spoke to another representative who said this was nothing to do with easyJet!

So there we are.   You pay easyJet for a car.   It is not supplied, but they refuse to return the money paid.

Isn’t it time that there was an Ombudsman who could force these Global Corporations to treat their customers in a fair way and when they do not, fine them accordingly?

I can only say to all easyJet customers beware of hiring a car through them!

When is a Deal not a Deal? by Mike Clitherow

Below is a simple analysis of the current proposals/options in Parliament.

BTW The word “DEAL” is being used a ll the time in the Media and Parliament

BUT the Brussels straight jacket being offered is not a deal it is a revised Treaty that is totally unacceptable.

To me it has parallels with the Versailles treaty forced on the Germans in 1919. (an exaggeration of course but it makes my point)

A DEAL is when a Free Trade arrangements is agreed - what the EU’s field agent Mrs May tried to sell us was a locked in treaty.  A total insult to our country and its people.

No New Treaty (so called deal) v Withdrawal Agreement with ‘backstop’

v Withdrawal Agreement without ‘backstop’ v Article 50 extension etc.

A) Non acceptance of the EU proposed treaty agreed by May (No Withdrawal Agreement)

- 2016 referendum result respected and implemented

- UK democracy restored

- UK independence restored

- UK fishing rights restored

- UK sets own trade policy

- UK sets its own long term defense policy

- UK sets own immigration policy

- UK negotiates and implements free trade agreements all over the world & eventually the EU

- UK laws set by UK Parliament

- UK cases dealt with by UK courts

- UK Freedom

- UK reinvigorates good relations with the Commonwealth, European countries and the wider world

- Certainty 

- No more endless Brexit debates

- Certainty in business.

- UK ability for ingenuity and “make it happen” spirt to overcome the short term problems.  

B) Current Withdrawal Agreement with ‘backstop’

- 2016 referendum result to leave and take back control not respected or not implemented

- EU law continues to apply

- CJEU jurisdiction continues to apply

- UK has no say in EU laws passed

- UK a ‘colony of the EU’

- Undemocratic

- ‘Divorce payment’ of [£39 billion]

- Payments to the EU continue

- Possible loss of control of international defense policy whilst locked in.

- Years of protracted negotiations with the EU

- Years of uncertainty

- UK unable to exit without EU consent (they remain holding all the cards)

- EU controls continue through application of EU law in UK and continuing CJEU jurisdiction

- Triple lock of transition period, Backstop and ‘future partnership’ to prevent UK from leaving EU control

- Possible regulatory annexation of Northern Ireland

- UK locked into EU model of high regulation and slow growth

- UK locked into EU direction of travel with no say

- UK unable to enter free trade agreements with the rest of the world

- UK unable to regain own fishing rights

- UK unable to control own borders

-  Indefinite ‘EU colony status’

-  Endless Brexit debates continue

Current Withdrawal Agreement without ‘backstop’

As above in B) above just without all the Irish issue BUT all the other BAD BAD downsides remain.

Article 50 extension

-  2016 referendum result to take back control delayed, not respected, or not implemented

- Undemocratic

- Further uncertainty

- Weakening of UK’s negotiating position

- Further loss of trust in the political class

- Endless Brexit debates continue

It’s the EU we want to leave not Europe as keeps being said by the likes of Blair and various people in the media,

A general election is needed with Boris working on a strategy with Nigel if we are going to get this done..

Mike Clitherow

Letter to the Chairman of the Conservative Party

14th September 2019

Dear Mr Cleverly,

We, the undersigned, have serious concerns regarding the selection of the Party’s parliamentary candidates.

The Prime Minister is rightly in election mode and CCHQ should follow suit by selecting candidates as soon as possible. However, it is important that the Party learns the mistakes of the past, and selects the right candidates.

Under the Cameron and May regimes, CCHQ pushed for and approved many candidates who were entirely devoid of conservative credentials and beliefs. The result has been the infiltration of the Conservative Party by people who would be far better suited to representing Labour or the Liberal Democrats. The behaviour of twenty plus former Conservative parliamentarians - many of whom entered politics under the Cameron or May tenure - demonstrates this. The removal of the Whip was the right thing to do and we urge you to ensure that it is never reinstated.

We also urge you to change the way the Conservative Party selects its candidates, so that the Party is once again represented by conservatives. CCHQ must abandon its unhealthy obsession with identity politics, and ensure that merit is the only acceptable criterion. Continuation of the patronising and ill-thought out quota system will prevent the best and brightest from representing our Party. 

It is no secret that relations between CCHQ and associations are at an all-time low. CCHQ can fix this by returning the power they took away from associations to decide who their Conservative candidate is and making sure the process is more transparent and democratic, instead of imposing CCHQ’s favoured candidates on them. Sam Gyimah, Rory Stewart, Sarah Wollaston, and Heidi Allen are examples of people who have been promoted and pushed by CCHQ, despite their lack of conservative beliefs; look at where that has left us.

The Conservative Party has been at its most successful when we have trusted the members to choose the candidates who represent us. It is worth noting that CCHQ took control of candidates in 1998. Prior to this, local associations had control. In the five General Elections since 1998 the Conservatives won one with an overall majority. In the five General Elections prior to 1998 the Conservatives won four.

Unless we learn the mistakes of the past, our members will leave, and the Party’s fortunes will decline again.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Bob Perry, Deputy Chairman, Hornchurch & Upminster Conservatives

John Strafford, Chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy and former Chairman, Beaconsfield Constituency

Dinah Glover, Chair of London East Conservatives

Paul Diamond, Chairman of Comberton Branch, Member Executive Committee

Steve Marsden, Member, Bolton West

Keith Wells, President, Hornchurch & Upminster Conservatives

Alan Chapman, Shipley, former Conservative Metro Councillor, Constituency Officer, local election agent

Commander Derek Beesley, Former President of Aberconwy Conservatives

John Thorne, Taunton Deane, Executive Council Member, Somerset County Councillor

Ken Worthy, Chairman, Claygate, Hinchley Wood and Weston Green Branch, Esher and Walton

Grant MacMaster, Hornchurch and Upminster Conservative Association, Association Data Analyst

John Carpenter, Sleaford and North Hykeham

Roger Duckworth, Isle of Wight

Linda Beal, Monmouth Conservatives

Brian Seage, South East Cornwall Conservative Association

Richard Mackenzie, Kingston upon Hull North

John Jarrett, Southport Conservatives.

Alan Jones, North Thanet Conservatives

Steve Bodger, Tunbridge Wells Conservatives

Peter Roffey, Rutland and Melton Conservative Association

Ron Barker, West Worcestershire Conservative Association

Roger Baggott, North Cotswold Conservative Association

David J. Tyler, Stalybridge & Hyde

John Roche, Harrogate Conservatives

David J Dodd, Grantham and Stamford

Robert Johnson, Warwick and Leamington Conservative Association

Mrs Sheila Perry, Central Devon Conservative Association

Michael Perry, Central Devon Conservative Association

John Roche, Harrogate conservatives

J. J. D. Knapp, South Suffolk Association 

Margot Shimmin, Torbay Conservatives

Cynthia Beesley, Aberconwy

Peter Hole, Halifax Constituency Association

Robin Morris, Taunton Conservatives

John G. Fifield