Who did Amber in? : Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:04 pm  

So, after much thought about where to post this (whether the Brexit thread or Worst Prime Minister) I decided to go for a new thread – who “did Amber in”?

My theory is the right wing of the party (the “ultra-right” to an old socialist like myself) did it!

Don’t get me wrong I have no love for Mrs Rudd, mainly because she refused a public enquiry into Orgreave, (Don't mention Armed Forces dressed as police - allegedly ) but at least she understood the coup taking place within the government.

I bet the Rees-Mogg’s of this world can’t believe their luck, they’ve got the backing of the 52% that voted & now they’ve got rid of remainer from the cabinet – sweet.

Little Englanders of the world unite!

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 11:38 am  

It took her long enough - the good news however, is that Mrs May's human shield has been removed; the attention for the Windrush scandal should now shift to her, and to Brandon Lewis, who spent Sunday morning repeating Ms Rudd's lies on the Marr Show.

Interesting how many of her colleagues are talking about what a 'tragedy' it is that she's gone - with no mention of the actual tragedy that has been visited on many people's lives by what was, self-evidently, a deliberate policy to target migrants; whether they had a right to be here or not seems, at best, to have not been considered at all - at worst, they knew about it, but didn't care.

In terms of who did her in - it's quite interesting that Amelia Gentleman, the Guardian journalist who has been at the forefront of this investigation for quite some time, is married to Joe Johnson, brother of Boris, who is conveniently at loggerheads with the PM over their response to the Windrush issue. Make of that what you will...

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:46 pm  

bren2k wrote:

It took her long enough - the good news however, is that Mrs May's human shield has been removed; the attention for the Windrush scandal should now shift to her, and to Brandon Lewis, who spent Sunday morning repeating Ms Rudd's lies on the Marr Show.

Interesting how many of her colleagues are talking about what a 'tragedy' it is that she's gone - with no mention of the actual tragedy that has been visited on many people's lives by what was, self-evidently, a deliberate policy to target migrants; whether they had a right to be here or not seems, at best, to have not been considered at all - at worst, they knew about it, but didn't care.

In terms of who did her in - it's quite interesting that Amelia Gentleman, the Guardian journalist who has been at the forefront of this investigation for quite some time, is married to Joe Johnson, brother of Boris, who is conveniently at loggerheads with the PM over their response to the Windrush issue. Make of that what you will...

Well put Bren.
She (Rudd) did her very best to take the bullets that should have hit Mrs May and I'm sure that there will be a reward for her further down the track. However, the very policies that were in place were put there by Mrs May.
The messenger has certainly been "shot", perhaps now, Mrs May will have some explaining to do.

Perhaps all of those who have come out and sais "she never knew" or "she's done nothing wrong", should also resign, although, with just about every Tory MP having jumped to her defence, there would need to be a general election.

[Bullseye]

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:13 pm  

I guess she can always find work as an "aristocracy coordinator" again if being a back bencher isn't enough.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:30 pm  

And her 'tax-efficient' Bahamas investment vehicles will probably tide her over until she gets another gig.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:04 pm  

Spare me the leftist rhetoric. Windrush is nothing more than an administrative cock-up by the Home Office and Borders Agency, missed by successive governments. A cock-up that exposed that particular generation when migration rules were quite rightly tightened and enforced. You think any Home Secretary got into office and asked, "just checking that Windrush lot have still got their landing cards?" It wasn't Rudd's fault, nor was it May's, it was nothing more than a conspiracy of events. It wasn't actually anybody's 'fault', no matter how much you and the left might try to lay the blame.

So yes, Windrush is a diabolical and traumatic mess, but it's being sorted. The problem has been acknowledged and solutions proposed. As has been stated repeatedly, citizenship has been guaranteed for anyone arriving prior to 1973, fees and tests will be waived and compensation is due. Those guarantees are in place.

Labour and the press have got their teeth into this phrase 'hostile environment' and milked it to death - without including the words 'for illegal immigrants' for context, or acknowledging that Labour's Alan Johnson actually first coined the phrase in 2010 in response to an out of control immigration environment (under Labour), and enormous public concern over the numbers flooding in.

Like her or loath her, Rudd is highly capable and an excellent politician. She destroyed the opposition in the TV debates. She was also a strong Remain/soft Brexit voice in the Cabinet, so you Remainers have losted an ally. I've said it for years regardless of affiliation: this culture of witch-hunt resignation for minor transgressions is out of hand and I wish someone had the balls to tell the press where to go. I really dgaf if she did or didn't see a memo (just as I dgaf if someone touched a knee 15 years ago). Such petty details are irrelevant in relation to the bigger picture and should be considered accordingly.

Still, and despite all this, the most embarrassing thing I've seen in the last 24 hours was Diane Abbott painfully attempting to mask Labour's true ideology on immigration. When will Labour realise binning her off would be one of their best vote-winning strategies?

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:39 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Spare me the leftist rhetoric. Windrush is nothing more than an administrative cock-up by the Home Office and Borders Agency, missed by successive governments. A cock-up that exposed that particular generation when migration rules were quite rightly tightened and enforced. You think any Home Secretary got into office and asked, "just checking that Windrush lot have still got their landing cards?" It wasn't Rudd's fault, nor was it May's, it was nothing more than a conspiracy of events. It wasn't actually anybody's 'fault', no matter how much you and the left might try to lay the blame.

So yes, Windrush is a diabolical and traumatic mess, but it's being sorted. The problem has been acknowledged and solutions proposed. As has been stated repeatedly, citizenship has been guaranteed for anyone arriving prior to 1973, fees and tests will be waived and compensation is due. Those guarantees are in place.

Labour and the press have got their teeth into this phrase 'hostile environment' and milked it to death - without including the words 'for illegal immigrants' for context, or acknowledging that Labour's Alan Johnson actually first coined the phrase in 2010 in response to an out of control immigration environment (under Labour), and enormous public concern over the numbers flooding in.

Like her or loath her, Rudd is highly capable and an excellent politician. She destroyed the opposition in the TV debates. She was also a strong Remain/soft Brexit voice in the Cabinet, so you Remainers have losted an ally. I've said it for years regardless of affiliation: this culture of witch-hunt resignation for minor transgressions is out of hand and I wish someone had the balls to tell the press where to go. I really dgaf if she did or didn't see a memo (just as I dgaf if someone touched a knee 15 years ago). Such petty details are irrelevant in relation to the bigger picture and should be considered accordingly.

Still, and despite all this, the most embarrassing thing I've seen in the last 24 hours was Diane Abbott painfully attempting to mask Labour's true ideology on immigration. When will Labour realise binning her off would be one of their best vote-winning strategies?

Sorry Mr Cronus but, you appear to have become some sort of Tory apologist.
Amber Rudd hasn't stood down directly because of Windrush but, as a result of being less than truthful under questioning by parliamentary committee.
Whether she knew of the deportation targets or not, she point blank said "we do not have targets", something that wasn't true.
However good she may be as a politician or Home Secretary becomes irrelevant if you are found not to be telling the truth in such circumstances and quite rightly she resigned (although she tried desperately to cling on).
As for Brexit, throwing this into the pot, as some kind of reason to keep her on, is just ridiculous.

FWIW, I prefer Rudd to Gove or May but, that's irrelevant and the question now is, whether any of the mud will stick to Mrs May.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:33 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Sorry Mr Cronus but, you appear to have become some sort of Tory apologist.
Amber Rudd hasn't stood down directly because of Windrush but, as a result of being less than truthful under questioning by parliamentary committee.
Whether she knew of the deportation targets or not, she point blank said "we do not have targets", something that wasn't true.
However good she may be as a politician or Home Secretary becomes irrelevant if you are found not to be telling the truth in such circumstances and quite rightly she resigned (although she tried desperately to cling on).
As for Brexit, throwing this into the pot, as some kind of reason to keep her on, is just ridiculous.

FWIW, I prefer Rudd to Gove or May but, that's irrelevant and the question now is, whether any of the mud will stick to Mrs May.

Yes, I acknowledged this in my post. I don't care that she's Tory, I care that another ridiculous witch-hunt has resulted in another casualty, as is increasingly happening in all walks of life. Yes - if a politician has claimed fraudulent expenses, or abused a police officer, or is guilty of sexual harassment - then absolutely resign. But not over this pettiness.

It's pretty clear she hadn't set specific targets, although there had been discussion of percentage increases in different areas, and some departments had set their own internal targets - pretty standard stuff.

But the point is she had absolutely no reason to lie, so - bearing in mind her version of events was backed up by her deputies yesterday - she was either unaware of them, or didn't consider there were targets in the context of the question. Even considering parliamentary guidance (which specifies knowingly misleading) it should be simple enough to issue a correction and get on with the important job at hand. Why would she lie and put herself at risk? She wouldn't.

Either way, it's a side issue - or at least it should be. But the left got their scalp so congratulations.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 5:55 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Yes, I acknowledged this in my post. I don't care that she's Tory, I care that another ridiculous witch-hunt has resulted in another casualty, as is increasingly happening in all walks of life. Yes - if a politician has claimed fraudulent expenses, or abused a police officer, or is guilty of sexual harassment - then absolutely resign. But not over this pettiness.

It's pretty clear she hadn't set specific targets, although there had been discussion of percentage increases in different areas, and some departments had set their own internal targets - pretty standard stuff.

But the point is she had absolutely no reason to lie, so - bearing in mind her version of events was backed up by her deputies yesterday - she was either unaware of them, or didn't consider there were targets in the context of the question. Even considering parliamentary guidance (which specifies knowingly misleading) it should be simple enough to issue a correction and get on with the important job at hand. Why would she lie and put herself at risk? She wouldn't.

Either way, it's a side issue - or at least it should be. But the left got their scalp so congratulations.

The only reason for not admitting to any targets, was to try to deny their existence.
Maybe she was trying to protect the person who implemented those targets ??

And yes, you are right, the witch hunt was successful.
However, i would ask this question.

If there were internal targets in certain regions, which she would IMO be aware of, why not say exactly that, instead of a full denial or, perhaps go with "there may be in certain areas".
She knew this was a toxic subject and before going to answer questions, surely, she would have prepared for such an obvious question ??, not to do so would be amateurish.

It's become glaringly obvious that, to try and meet Cameron's 10's of 1000's target, every department would be pushing a little harder than usual and regardless of any targets, to deport anyone who has a legal right to remain in the country would also be reason enough for her to go.
It's utterly embarrassing for this to happen and whilst she is feeling disappointed and maybe aggrieved at how events have forced her from office, she will be somewhat more comfortable than the people who have been refused treatment, lost their jobs or been sent "home".
The irony of all this is that the immigration that we have had "control" over (from outside the EU) is still way over the 100,000 figure that Cameron was so keen to achieve.

Re: Who did Amber in? : Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:09 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

The only reason for not admitting to any targets, was to try to deny their existence.
Maybe she was trying to protect the person who implemented those targets ??

And yes, you are right, the witch hunt was successful.
However, i would ask this question.

If there were internal targets in certain regions, which she would IMO be aware of, why not say exactly that, instead of a full denial or, perhaps go with "there may be in certain areas".
She knew this was a toxic subject and before going to answer questions, surely, she would have prepared for such an obvious question ??, not to do so would be amateurish.

It's become glaringly obvious that, to try and meet Cameron's 10's of 1000's target, every department would be pushing a little harder than usual and regardless of any targets, to deport anyone who has a legal right to remain in the country would also be reason enough for her to go.
It's utterly embarrassing for this to happen and whilst she is feeling disappointed and maybe aggrieved at how events have forced her from office, she will be somewhat more comfortable than the people who have been refused treatment, lost their jobs or been sent "home".
The irony of all this is that the immigration that we have had "control" over (from outside the EU) is still way over the 100,000 figure that Cameron was so keen to achieve.

Exactly - why wouldn't she prepare and answer accordingly? We know she's an excellent speaker and can think on her feet - I assume we've all seen her in action in debates. So why trip up now? The answer is pretty obvious. She didn't know.

Either way, targets shouldn't be a toxic subject. Even that bumbling mess Diane Abbott agreed this morning that targets need to be in place. How can any department function without utilising data and having goals?

No, targets are only toxic if your agenda tells you it is. Targets or some similar KPI are right and proper and should be set according to the numbers being dealt with. The issue here is the overzealous manner in which the rules have been applied due to the strength of feeling surrounding immigration. Common sense has failed in the case of the Windrush generation - but until it became clear an entire wave of migrants had fallen foul of an administrative cock-up which left them exposed to migration rules, you had individuals working on individual cases. Sometimes the wider picture takes longer to materialise.

As I said, it's being sorted. I've now seen several of the Windrush generation being egged on by TV journalists, telling us how they don't feel welcome and how racist the UK is, yet whose cases have already been resolved quickly and efficiently, and have been granted indefinite leave to remain at a single interview taking less than 2 hours.

And I don't agree she would necessarily have known about targets set in every part of the Home Office. Is the CEO of any business employing some 30,000 people personally informed of every target set in every office of every division? Of course not. Immigration is only one division of the enormous behemoth that is the Home Office, and only some parts of that division had set targets.

Yes, she should have been better prepared and better briefed. So should Glyn Williams, who was sitting next to her and also didn't know the answer. But like I said, it should also have been a simple matter to correct her statement and get on with the job.