Well, good luck with that, though I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

"Lack of confidence" certainly, but the issue was initially (and remains) very much about the WA: it is an appalling surrender document filled with onerous terms to which no right-thinking person could accede.

Nicky Morgan is among the least interesting contributors here – it’s not so much that she’s a Remainer who supported the appalling Theresa May, as the fact that her recommendations are anodyne and miss the spot.
” We need to re-discover our ability to spot the problems our constituents are facing… the Conservative Party rapidly needs to re-discover its pragmatic, competent, capable side..”
How much does Morgan know (or believe..) about her Party’s “competent, capable” side? From the viewpoint of many voters, it has displayed these qualities hardly at all over a long period; Morgan was seven years old when Margaret Thatcher first led the Tories into government, and still a teenager when that Party dumped our best PM of the 20thC bar Churchill: since then, Tory administrations led by Major, Cameron and May proved noteworthy chiefly for factional squabbles, a dismal race toward a mythical Blairite centre, and a ditching of traditional Conservatism in favour of social democracy – all culminating in a sort of crazed lottery when the PCP put May into Downing Street then flailed about (three years!) failing to eject her, like children on a political bouncy castle.
”..a resolution to this first Brexit withdrawal phase… demonstration of competence…restore the UK’s rather battered reputation…first phase of Brexit over the line..”
Morgan voted to Remain and still aspires to that. I wouldn’t trust her an inch in her judgement about how to resolve Brexit.
” Voters will trust us if we give them a reason to do so..”
True in principle: in practice, your Party has forfeited vast quantities of trust (see the current polls showing TBP in the lead), so that right now those voters distrust you unless and until you provide very, very solid reasons, over an extended period, for them to re-discover a bit of trust in the Tories. And speaking of “re-discover” what the Party has to do now is not look at “the problems our constituents are facing”, but re-discover a conservative philosophy and show some conviction.

John Redwood was always a target of the Left, and his traditonally conservative views (especially fiscal/economic) did not endear him to the barely disguised social democrats who influenced & infiltrated the Conservative Party post Thatcher. Accusations of "weirdness" (I know you don't believe these yourself) were part of the armoury of hate & ridicule employed by these people and the hard Left. I always wanted to see Redwood as Chancellor.

A curiously confident assertion - but perhaps you're American? ("center")

“Demonisation”? Your interpretation is colourful but wide of the mark: peoples worldwide will always resent the imposition of very large numbers of immigrants from far distant countries with cultural attitudes utterly different from their own. In our case, these happen to be largely folk from the Indian subcontinent, with additions from Africa: if they were Inuit or Polynesians, people would feel the same sense of displacement, strangers in a strange land.
Yet you assert that for even the (literally) huge numbers of such aliens being imposed on us (we never voted for this) their “cultural impact is largely positive”? It’s a claim you would have great difficulty substantiating: English culture is rich, complex, nuanced, and established over a thousand or so years, spreading itself across the globe and making English a lingua franca – it required no transformation or addition or dilution by mass immigration.
“Young people with the get up and go to travel” – just any young people, from anywhere? We should welcome them? How many – half a million, two million, ten million? Name a figure. And you talk merely about numbers, with seemingly no regard for the cultural impact beyond your dotty, starry-eyed remarks about its being “positive” – so we can buy samosas or 5-litre cans of ghee down the road, big deal…
We encourage youngsters to get “stuck in” by transforming our benefits policies alonside our approach to education, especially technical education – which requires investment. The English have never needed any encouragement to travel abroad, for education or anything else: historically we must be among the most well travelled of all nationalities.
It might have escaped your notice that we did, actually, travel very freely in Europe and beyond long before our accession to the EEC/EU: a great many Brits lived abroad and/or travelled widely. As a teenager in the ‘60s I travelled in Europe, including through the DDR to Berlin – freedom of movement was not invented by the EU and wild suggestions from some quarters that Brexit means losing the freedom to travel is absurd and dishonest.

With respect, Powell was only "simply dismissed as a racist rabble rouser" by the Left and elements of the media: several polls following Powell’s famous speech showed figures of up to 83% agreeing with him (even Heseltine said much later that if Powell had stood for leadership of the Tories, he should have won by a landslide in terms of public opinion); there were strikes and marches in favour of Powell.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in any verbal confrontation between you and Lord Green. We might conclude a great deal about your intelligence vis-a-vis that of Lord Green.

Exactly so - they're frit. They lack the balls and the imagination to appreciate that speaking boldly and honestly and patriotically about immigration would attract huge popular support.

What a curious take on Lord Green's post. Pray, in what way exactly (please provide chapter & verse) is either McVey or Green guilty of anything resembling "small minded nastiness"? Do you simply dislike any discussion of immigration control? If so, why?