She is not pale, male and stale, she projects a fresh, intelligent approach, and her Royal Navy background will have taught her how to motivate and get the best out of a crew. When she decides the time is right, she will certainly get my vote.

Staff calibre in local authorities and the health service is also affected by their recruitment policy always to hire from within, making it very difficult to bring in new blood and fresh ideas, even if this were desirable in the overriding culture of resistance to change. Also, it is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming to dismiss anybody, so if your team is burdened with an employee who is less than wholly competent, or lazy, or uncongenial, the most expedient way to rid yourself of them is to recommend them for promotion to another department. This can bite you in the bum when you wake up one day to the realisation that the PA you were so relieved to see the back of is now the Chief Executive of the Regional Health Authority, and still no more inclined to put in an honest day's work in the public interest.

You said it yourself: "cleverness and charm ---- rather than hard graft". Looking at Theresa's schedule and workload, even before she called the GE, I honesty doubt that Boris would have been up to it. Also, can you have forgotten already how he collapsed at the time of the Referendum result, in the full gaze of international media, visibly daunted by the task ahead, and baulking responsibility for it?

Havn't you seen his CV?  He would be a totem for the Tory ideal of social mobility.  AND he is only "too rich" by his own success in fields where our party is hopelessly inadequate.  The party needs to modernise to keep relevant to the under-50's.  If there must be a change of leadership, Davis is a stalwart, but would bring no added value.

And you are absolutely right about Boris. What do you think of Adam? the MP for Windsor? I think he would make a brilliant PM.

Why on earth should we choose Boris? Has everyone forgotten how he funked on the morning after the Referendum, when the eyes of the world were on him and he visibly balked when he was expected to pick up the torch and lead us through Brexit? He is an engaging chap in a Woosterish kind of way, good in a figurehead position like Mayor of London, because London can run itself with a touch on the rudder from time to time. The PM however, needs to keep eyes on the road at every turn, being a manager, negotiator of alliances, and a consummate strategist. We see little in the media of the hundreds of very gifted MPs in our party who may possess the right combination of qualities and experience, as well as having the amiable persona which is so important in these days of interactive media. I am no politics buff, but apart from my own MP who will be great Downing Street material in a few years hence, I have noticed that chap called Adam, MP for Windsor, who seems to tick most of the boxes. What would you or other readers think of him?

Dunbar should try to concentrate in class, and read with more attention.

The Social Care policy was excellent. It offered security and support to thousands of elderly people, yet still allowed them to leave £100K to their heirs. The problem is that most members of the public, including, it seems, journalists, MPs and pundits, remain totally unaware of the current system for elderly care unless they are directly involved in a crisis within their own family. At present, if you are elderly and unable to care for yourself because of brain impairment, this is considered to be a social rather than a medical problem, and if you have more than £23,500 to your name you have to pay for your own care. You have to sell your house to pay if you have it in your sole name. The manifesto policy would not oblige you to sell your home to pay for care, and the government (taxpayers) would lend you the care fees, which would be payable
on probate, but only up to an amount that would leave you with £100K for your heirs, instead of £23,500
as at present. This is a disgraceful state of affairs, and May's policy was an effort to alleviate it. Instead, because of general public ignorance, it suited the media and the opposition, and rich and influential folk like Nick Robinson, to blabber on about a ceiling for care costs, and to call the manifesto policy a "dementia tax". A good policy gambit was allowed to be spun into a millstone by the opposition, and the Conservatives were firmly blamed for the disgraceful status quo, which was brought into existence decades ago by Labour.

Naïve and ignorant? On what grounds?

In our neck of the woods the hunting fraternity are some of the few supporters with the legs for leafleting. This draws some flack from the opposition, but we are most grateful for the help, and we are delighted (against the odds) to have kept our excellent young and very effective Conservative MP.