This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/how-theresa-may-benefits-from-letting-amber-rudd-remain-in-firing-line

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Theresa May benefits from Amber Rudd remaining in line of fire With Amber Rudd's departure, Theresa May has lost her human shield
(about 4 hours later)
Amber Rudd will be back at the dispatch box in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon, delivering yet another apology for her handling of the Windrush scandal – and trying to explain away the leaked targets memo. Beleaguered, embattled, hapless – as the Windrush scandal worsened over recent days, these doom-laden adjectives had begun attaching themselves irresistibly to Amber Rudd’s name.
The beleaguered home secretary will face a stream of hostile questions from Diane Abbott on Labour’s frontbench, Yvette Cooper from her usual perch a few rows back and the Tottenham MP David Lammy, whose impassioned campaigning on the issue is widely respected at Westminster. To the last, she and her allies continued to insist that she didn’t know about deportation targets – they maintain the government’s “ambition” for boosting the number of people sent home is not a “target”.
But a much clearer signal of whether Rudd can survive may be behind her, in the number and demeanour of her own colleagues who turn up to show their support. At moments like this, political friends can really matter. But crucially in her resignation letter, Rudd admitted “information provided to my office”did “make mention of numerical targets”. She didn’t see that information, shesaid – but admitted she should have done.
Her defence against the claim that she must have known about targets for removing migrants from the UK was already evident in Sunday’s outing by Brandon Lewis, the former immigration minister who is now Tory party chairman. Michael Gove, who defended Rudd robustly on Saturday morning, had already said the memo leaked to the Guardian on Friday had never appeared in the home secretary’s red box.
Lewis barely sounded convinced himself by what he must have known was a weak defence of his former boss. While Rudd had known about, and indeed set, an “ambition” for removing more illegal immigrants, he insisted she had no idea that it had been cascaded down to individual Home Office outposts as a series of targets. But that simply raised more questions: why not? Why had officials and advisers assumed the existence of numerical targets for chucking people out of Britain was something the home secretary would be sufficiently comfortable about not to have to ensure the details were brought to her attention and formally approved?
Even on the narrow point of whether Rudd knew targets existed – and thus misled parliament when she told the home affairs select committee “that is not how we operate” – it seemed flimsy. Even on Sunday afternoon, senior Tories were suggesting that if Rudd could endure another mauling at the hands of Diane Abbott, Yvette Cooper and David Lammy on Monday, she could put the scandal behind her.
But Rudd’s survival does not rest purely on her handling of the Windrush fiasco, as she herself has called it, and her Commons outings since. But the Windrush fiasco has left a trail of devastated lives – and whatever did or did not find its way into her ministerial inbox, making fine distinctions about the precise meaning of the word “target” had begun to look increasingly crass.
With fresh Windrush injustices still emerging almost daily, and a growing sense that other groups may well also have been snared in the teeth of the “hostile environment”, Theresa May will be cautious about allowing her home secretary to return to the backbenches. Certainly, neither Gove – who claimed the leaks were aimed at distracting from Labour’s antisemitism crisis – nor Brandon Lewis, who had the task of defending Rudd on Sunday, made things any better.
Rudd is a lightning rod for public discontent and has loyally made her repeated apologies without allowing the blame to fall on to the prime minister and the tone and policies May set in her six years at the Home Office. Indeed, Lewis barely sounded convinced himself by what he must have known was a weak defence of his former boss. While Rudd had known about, and indeed set, an “ambition” for removing more illegal immigrants, he insisted she had no idea that it had been cascaded down to individual Home Office outposts as a series of targets.
Rudd had been deemed a potential leadership rival. Allowing her to continue to take incoming fire, particularly as it undermines her reputation for brisk, well-briefed competence, must be highly tempting. The home secretary only survived as long as she did in the face of this swirling crisis, the personal aspects of which she herself described as “heartbreaking”, for two reasons.
And of course, as with every issue in this parliament, Brexit is relevant, too. One is that she is well-liked; and more than that, many of her colleagues had a strong interest in her remaining in cabinet.
Backbench remainers, including Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and Nicholas Soames, threw their weight behind Rudd on Friday night after the long wait for a response from the Home Office to the leaked memo ended with the promise of a(nother) statement to parliament. Backbench remainers, including Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and Nicholas Soames, threw their support behind Rudd on Friday night after the long wait for a response from the Home Office to the leaked targets memo.
That’s partly because they like Rudd – and believe the scandal ultimately reflects the illiberal policies championed by May. They fear any successor could be less likely to challenge the inclusion of students in the net migration target, for example. The home secretary has issued five apologies in the last week – four of them over her department's handling of the Windrush crisis and immigration targets.
But it is also because she has been their doughtiest champion inside cabinet in the tug-of-war over how close Britain should remain to the European Union after Brexit. Rudd delivered an unprecedented apology to parliament and acknowledged that her department had “lost sight of individuals” and become “too concerned with policy”.
Rudd apologised for failing to grasp the scale of the problem. She told the home affairs select committee: “I bitterly, deeply regret that I didn’t see it as more than individual cases gone wrong that needed addressing. I didn’t see it as a systemic issue until very recently.”
On Thursday morning, Rudd was forced to admit officials did have targets for removals, having previously denied their existence.
“The immigration arm of the Home Office has been using local targets for internal performance management. These were not published targets against which performance was assessed, but if they were used inappropriately then I am clear that this will have to change."
On Thursday afternoon, Rudd was forced to issue a hasty clarification after appearing to leave the door open to the UK staying in a customs union with the EU.
“I should have been clearer – of course when we leave the EU we will be leaving the customs union."
In a series of late-night tweets, Rudd apologised for not being aware of documents, leaked to the Guardian, which set out immigration removal targets. 
‘I wasn’t aware of specific removal targets. I accept I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t. I didn’t see the leaked document, although it was copied to my office as many documents are."
That was partly because they like Rudd – and believe the scandal ultimately reflects the illiberal policies championed by May. They fear any successor could be less likely to challenge the inclusion of students in the net migration target, for example.
But it was also because she has been their doughtiest champion inside cabinet in the tug-of-war over how close Britain should remain to the European Union after Brexit.
The latest example came this weekend in reports that Rudd would be open to an arrangement with the EU that would replicate key elements of freedom of movement.The latest example came this weekend in reports that Rudd would be open to an arrangement with the EU that would replicate key elements of freedom of movement.
May would most likely feel obliged to replace her with another remainer to avoid upsetting the delicate balance at the top table and avoid tipping the balance in key parliamentary Brexit votes by creating another backbench rebel. The second reason Rudd remained in post was that with fresh Windrush injustices still emerging almost daily, she was a lightning rod for public anger, more of which may now be directed at the prime minister.
But in the key arguments inside cabinet, a newbie might lack the power base to be influential for some time - and Britain’s negotiating position is being fought over now. Rudd loyally made repeated public apologies without allowing the blame to fall on the prime minister and the tone and policies that May set in her six years at the Home Office.
The fraught debate about the customs union is expected to come to a head this Wednesday at a meeting of the Brexit “war cabinet”, with May under intense pressure from leavers, and rumours that one or more could be prepared to walk. Rudd had been deemed a potential leadership rival. Allowing her to continue to take incoming fire, particularly as it undermined her reputation for brisk, well-briefed competence, must have been highly tempting.
With a threatened cabinet revolt on her hands, May is unlikely to deny Rudd the opportunity to keep throwing herself at the enemy, if she is prepared do so. On Sunday night, May was left to turn her thoughts to who should replace her.
The mood among senior Conservatives this weekend was that for this and other reasons, the home secretary could still weather the storm, although one remarked acidly: “She’ll have to come up with a better line than I’ve heard so far.” She may feel obliged to appoint another remainer, to avoid upsetting the delicate balance at the top table. But in the key arguments inside Cabinet, a newbie may lack the power base to be influential for some time – and Britain’s Brexit negotiating position is being fought over right now.
On Monday afternoon, Rudd will need all the parliamentary friends she can muster as she faces the challenging task of insisting her “ambition” of boosting the number of people removed from Britain by 10% had nothing to do with the conditions that led to the Windrush crisis.
And with victims still coming forward with personal stories Rudd herself has called “heartbreaking”, the pressure for her to take full responsibility by stepping aside may yet prove irresistible.
Amber RuddAmber Rudd
Theresa MayTheresa May
ConservativesConservatives
Immigration and asylumImmigration and asylum
Commonwealth immigrationCommonwealth immigration
BrexitBrexit
analysisanalysis
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content