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/politics-hits-all-time-low-with-amber-rudd-and-windrush-scandal
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Politics hits all-time low with Amber Rudd and Windrush scandal | Politics hits all-time low with Amber Rudd and Windrush scandal |
| (5 months later) | |
| As a long-standing civil servant, I worked with ministers (of all political persuasions) who fell into three distinct categories: those who read official briefings and followed up with incisive questions and challenges; those who delegated the reading and decision-making to their special advisers; and those who arranged “follow-up” meetings to find out from officials what these unread briefs actually said. What I never experienced was a minister (Amber Rudd was sent target for migrant removal, leak reveals, 28 April) who failed to engage with briefing of a highly sensitive and contentious nature, preferring instead to allow officials to unilaterally decide policy, set targets and measure outcomes without explicit direction. By Amber Rudd’s assertion (of being completely unaware of any deportation targets) she has redefined the meaning of “hands-off” government.Sue ThompsonTeddington, Middlesex | As a long-standing civil servant, I worked with ministers (of all political persuasions) who fell into three distinct categories: those who read official briefings and followed up with incisive questions and challenges; those who delegated the reading and decision-making to their special advisers; and those who arranged “follow-up” meetings to find out from officials what these unread briefs actually said. What I never experienced was a minister (Amber Rudd was sent target for migrant removal, leak reveals, 28 April) who failed to engage with briefing of a highly sensitive and contentious nature, preferring instead to allow officials to unilaterally decide policy, set targets and measure outcomes without explicit direction. By Amber Rudd’s assertion (of being completely unaware of any deportation targets) she has redefined the meaning of “hands-off” government.Sue ThompsonTeddington, Middlesex |
| • It is highly disingenuous of Amber Rudd to say that it is “disappointing no previous governments saw this coming” (Report, 26 April). She well knows that if in 2010 the Tory coalition had not scrapped Labour’s introduction of ID cards, which was already at pilot stage, the status of Windrush immigrants would have been automatically clarified as the cards were rolled out. So too would the status of immigrants from other EU countries, a ticking timebomb that will explode sometime in the next year or so.Geoffrey RenshawUniversity of Warwick | • It is highly disingenuous of Amber Rudd to say that it is “disappointing no previous governments saw this coming” (Report, 26 April). She well knows that if in 2010 the Tory coalition had not scrapped Labour’s introduction of ID cards, which was already at pilot stage, the status of Windrush immigrants would have been automatically clarified as the cards were rolled out. So too would the status of immigrants from other EU countries, a ticking timebomb that will explode sometime in the next year or so.Geoffrey RenshawUniversity of Warwick |
| • Nobody in this country wants a human shield for a home secretary. There is now so much controversy surrounding Amber Rudd’s handling of the Windrush matter that common sense dictates only one course of action. By stubbornly refusing to resign, she is simply further undermining public faith in government at a time when it is already at an all-time low. Protecting the PM should not be her priority, and it is not her job. Those truly responsible for this fiasco need to step out of the shadows and show some character, instead of backing Rudd under the cynical pretext of “loyalty”.Mike GalvinWinchcombe, Gloucestershire | • Nobody in this country wants a human shield for a home secretary. There is now so much controversy surrounding Amber Rudd’s handling of the Windrush matter that common sense dictates only one course of action. By stubbornly refusing to resign, she is simply further undermining public faith in government at a time when it is already at an all-time low. Protecting the PM should not be her priority, and it is not her job. Those truly responsible for this fiasco need to step out of the shadows and show some character, instead of backing Rudd under the cynical pretext of “loyalty”.Mike GalvinWinchcombe, Gloucestershire |
| • Amber Rudd had no knowledge of immigrant removal targets. OK, these things happen, we can’t read every email we get. So can we be told the name of the person in her department who had the authority to implement an immigrant removal target? Who sent the email?Eira HughesHyde, Greater Manchester | • Amber Rudd had no knowledge of immigrant removal targets. OK, these things happen, we can’t read every email we get. So can we be told the name of the person in her department who had the authority to implement an immigrant removal target? Who sent the email?Eira HughesHyde, Greater Manchester |
| • Amber Rudd is the latest bod-at-the-top to be called upon to resign because somebody somewhere in her department has mismanaged something. A head must roll, that is the media’s and public’s solution to all problems these days, a perfunctory revenge logically guaranteeing that everything will turn out right, because the person at the top, who knows the job and is in a position to immediately follow up what has gone wrong, has got the sack, and someone else without experience, and having to learn the ropes at top speed, can take over with no other qualification than that he or she is a new face. Peter ForsterLondon | • Amber Rudd is the latest bod-at-the-top to be called upon to resign because somebody somewhere in her department has mismanaged something. A head must roll, that is the media’s and public’s solution to all problems these days, a perfunctory revenge logically guaranteeing that everything will turn out right, because the person at the top, who knows the job and is in a position to immediately follow up what has gone wrong, has got the sack, and someone else without experience, and having to learn the ropes at top speed, can take over with no other qualification than that he or she is a new face. Peter ForsterLondon |
| • We want justice for the Windrush generation – legal aid now and compensation for all those threatened or removed. We want clear information for all those worried – our local law centre based in Moss Side is receiving dozens of inquiries from those in the community who don’t want to ring the Home Office for clarification in case the first response, as usual, is refuse – and possibly remove. Most of all, we want a political solution, not just calling for the home secretary to “do the honourable thing” – and who would she be replaced by? | • We want justice for the Windrush generation – legal aid now and compensation for all those threatened or removed. We want clear information for all those worried – our local law centre based in Moss Side is receiving dozens of inquiries from those in the community who don’t want to ring the Home Office for clarification in case the first response, as usual, is refuse – and possibly remove. Most of all, we want a political solution, not just calling for the home secretary to “do the honourable thing” – and who would she be replaced by? |
| We need a new government committed to repeal of the immigration laws which are inherently racist. Why not start with the commitment to “repeal the 1981 British Nationality Act and replace [it] with a citizenship law that does not discriminate against either women or black and Asian Britons” (a certain 1983 general election manifesto)? No one is illegal.John NicholsonImmigration barrister, Kenworthys Chambers, and chair, Greater Manchester Law Centre | We need a new government committed to repeal of the immigration laws which are inherently racist. Why not start with the commitment to “repeal the 1981 British Nationality Act and replace [it] with a citizenship law that does not discriminate against either women or black and Asian Britons” (a certain 1983 general election manifesto)? No one is illegal.John NicholsonImmigration barrister, Kenworthys Chambers, and chair, Greater Manchester Law Centre |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Listen / | |
| Walking the Brexit tightrope at Labour conference – Politics Weekly | |
| Sorry your browser does not support audio - but you can download here | |
| and listen https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2018/09/26-51111-gdn.pol.180926.podcast.mp3 | |
| Sorry your browser does not support audio - but you can download here | |
| and listen https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2018/09/26-51111-gdn.pol.180926.podcast.mp3 | |
| Amber Rudd | Amber Rudd |
| Immigration and asylum | Immigration and asylum |
| Theresa May | Theresa May |
| Race issues | Race issues |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |