Rudd.......GONE

[Bulletguy]

 

Finally Rudd has resigned so Treezer has now lost her human shield.

 

She wrote in her resignation letter that she is resigning after "inadvertently misleading" the Home Affairs committee (re. targets). That's pseudo yabba for "i lied,,,,,,err but i didn't mean to"! And since appearing before the Home Affairs committee "i have become aware of information provided to my office" (re targets).

 

"Aware of....."!!!? Holy smokes!! 8-) Top tasks in her role were terrorism /crime and immigration. Either she was doing the job very badly when it comes to "not being aware" of the immigration targets, or lied. This shows she was lying as she knew damn well about targets being set over a year ago when she wrote this letter to May headed "Immigration Enforcement".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/amber-rudd-letter-to-pm-reveals-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target

 

Rudd fell on her sword for her boss who was chief architect of the wicked "hostile environment" with the 2014/16 Immigration Act she created during her tenure as HS which Rudd then inherited, so now it's time May went. It's that Act which snared up innocent British citizens.

 

Perhaps they need target figures for how many Ministers should be deported from the Cabinet Office in any 6 months period now!

 

Letter here;

 

Rudd is a Remainer so that will prove interesting to see where her loyalties go from here! The Brexit Bun fight of Downing street! Yet another mess. *-)

 

Well done to the Guardian and Amelia Gentleman for their tenacity in pushing on with this.

 

It just shows what a respectable newspaper can achieve, when most of its rivals sink into nothing more than spreading smear stories, hate, hysteria and lies.

 

Lammy is right about these points;

 

 

 

 

 

[antony1969]

Good ... All Leave voters will be pleased with that ... Lets have a decent Leave voter please Mrs May

[John52]

Rudd's had to resign because the Guardian and the Opposition have exposed her lamentable failings.

Like Boris Johnson, she should have beeen sacked, or better still never appointed, but, since calling the election she said she wouldn't, May is too weak to sack anybody who knows too much in case they turn on her and she loses her job too

May must remember when Thatcher tired of Sir Geoffrey Howe and took away some of what he considered to be his entitlements.

Howe knew too much, exposed her as a fraud, and the Iron Lady was forced out of Downing Street in Tears . :-S

[Violet1956]

Lie or no lie it’s no surprise that there were targets for removal of illegal migrants, how else would the government ensure that the executive was doing a better job than it had done in the past on that front? So now it has become politically inexpedient to keep removal targets - all a bit too convenient one might think, even though it is clear that the Windrush issue should not be conflated with the problem of illegal migration. Indeed, is it not a tad insulting to the “Windrush generation” to do so? The government stands to benefit from not being called to account for its performance in removing illegal migrants. A lesson in how to turn a disaster into a triumph? A stroke of genius worthy of Malcolm Tucker.

 

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 10:48 AM

 

Lie or no lie it’s no surprise that there were targets for removal of illegal migrants, how else would the government ensure that the executive was doing a better job than it had done in the past on that front?

 

 

 

For years the governments have admitted that they have no idea how many illegal immigrants there are in this country - so setting targets for getting rid of them was bound to go wrong.

 

( For instance - IF there are in fact only 20,000 illegal immigrants - and they set a target of getting rid of 30,000 a year - how can that target be met ? )

 

 

:-|

 

p.s. In my experience it's o.k. to set targets for yourself - but don't set them for anyone else as there is a fair chance they will cheat.

 

;-)

[Violet1956]

The target in Amber Rudd's letter of January 2017 was to increase removals by 10% Malc as I read it. That was a target in relation to all people "above the radar who had their cases" turned down or who were detained pending removal as I read it so it wasn't dependent on speculative figures about the number of illegal migrants.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/29/amber-rudd-letter-to-pm-reveals-ambitious-but-deliverable-removals-target

 

P.S. I agree with your observation about targets often resulting in cheating/unwanted behaviours but that arises when there are inadequate checks and balances within and without them.

[malc d]

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 11:26 AM

 

 

 

P.S. I agree with your observation about targets often resulting in cheating/unwanted behaviours but that arises when there are inadequate checks and balances within and without them.

 

 

That is only practical if the targets are within your immediate environment ( office or workshop ) otherwise you need an army of auditors who can easily be fooled by experts in the art..

 

 

[Barryd999]

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 6:33 AM

 

Good ... All Leave voters will be pleased with that ... Lets have a decent Leave voter please Mrs May

 

Ho Ho Ho! Have you seen who her replacement is? (lol)

 

The Brexpress and Daily Heil readers will be delighted I am sure. Guffaw!

[Bulletguy]

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 6:33 AM

 

Good ... All Leave voters will be pleased with that ...

Those capable of looking at the bigger picture won't......because they will realise as long as she was subservient to May (an inny/outer/hmm/maybe herself), they were 'safe'. Now Rudd can speak her mind so effectively she could be a bit of a loose cannon.....but typically you hadn't thought of that had you?! ;-)

 

Lets have a decent Leave voter please Mrs May

Tough......you've got a Remainer. (lol)

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 10:48 AM

 

Lie or no lie it’s no surprise that there were targets for removal of illegal migrants, how else would the government ensure that the executive was doing a better job than it had done in the past on that front? So now it has become politically inexpedient to keep removal targets - all a bit too convenient one might think, even though it is clear that the Windrush issue should not be conflated with the problem of illegal migration. Indeed, is it not a tad insulting to the “Windrush generation” to do so? The government stands to benefit from not being called to account for its performance in removing illegal migrants. A lesson in how to turn a disaster into a triumph? A stroke of genius worthy of Malcolm Tucker.

That's true but her undoing was when asked if the HO had set targets Rudd claimed she did not set, see or approve any targets for removals. It's unfortunate that 'illegal' has become conflated with 'legal'.....but it's easy to see how it has.

 

Personally i don't like the use of the term as it reminds me of production 'targets' (off topic but look at the horrendous damage caused when government set 'targets' for the CSA....that resulted in suicides). From past experience i found once a 'target' had been reached, more was demanded and a higher 'target' set because senior management got seriously big bonuses. In production it's all cost driven...money, so the more they produce the more money they make. At least that's the theory on paper which sounds brilliant......until it all goes pear shaped and the sh*te hits the fan.....what we can now call the Windrush debacle.

 

The fact Rudd appeared not to know what was going on in her own department also meant she had to go.

[Bulletguy]

 

Oh look. Here is the next "Minister" lining up for resignation. Better still just deport her and have done with.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-deportation-targets-home-office-amber-rudd-chris-grayling-a8329366.html

[antony1969]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-30 1:11 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 6:33 AM

 

Good ... All Leave voters will be pleased with that ... Lets have a decent Leave voter please Mrs May

 

Ho Ho Ho! Have you seen who her replacement is? (lol)

 

The Brexpress and Daily Heil readers will be delighted I am sure. Guffaw!

 

Ah well ... Won't make much difference ... According to you he'll only have a maximum of 11 months in the job ... Then we'll have Diane Abbott in the job according to you ... Old "white people love to play divide and rule" and "black mothers make better mother's" ... That's real racism from a real racist but she's a Marxist so it won't upset the red brigade on here

[Barryd999]

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 3:00 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-30 1:11 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 6:33 AM

 

Good ... All Leave voters will be pleased with that ... Lets have a decent Leave voter please Mrs May

 

Ho Ho Ho! Have you seen who her replacement is? (lol)

 

The Brexpress and Daily Heil readers will be delighted I am sure. Guffaw!

 

Ah well ... Won't make much difference ... According to you he'll only have a maximum of 11 months in the job ... Then we'll have Diane Abbott in the job according to you ... Old "white people love to play divide and rule" and "black mothers make better mother's" ... That's real racism from a real racist but she's a Marxist so it won't upset the red brigade on here

 

No, I said by the time we leave the EU there may well be an election and we wont properly leave the EU until the end of 2020 if we leave at all of course. You seem to be under the impression that I would welcome a Corbyn Government but I was simply pointing out that because of the poisoned chalice that is Brexit almost definitely guaranteed to bring this country down unless its somehow swerved at the last minute it could well finish the Tories off and allow Labour to sweep in. The entire situation is so volatile none of us know who will be in charge six months, a year or two years from now.

 

I am starting to think though that Theresa May is still very much a remainer and possibly is playing a clever and long game with Brexit.

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-30 3:15 PM

 

I am starting to think though that Theresa May is still very much a remainer and possibly is playing a clever and long game with Brexit.

Best described as a 'waitandseer'. In other words, anything that goes bad it's "them Remainers fault"...anything with the slightest whiff of looking 'good' will be "we told you all along". (lol)

 

It's been a bad day for the Beano boys who've ducked behind the parapet.....so here's some easy 'reading' for 'em. (lol)

[Violet1956]

Bulletguy - 2018-04-30 2:04 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 10:48 AM

 

Lie or no lie it’s no surprise that there were targets for removal of illegal migrants, how else would the government ensure that the executive was doing a better job than it had done in the past on that front? So now it has become politically inexpedient to keep removal targets - all a bit too convenient one might think, even though it is clear that the Windrush issue should not be conflated with the problem of illegal migration. Indeed, is it not a tad insulting to the “Windrush generation” to do so? The government stands to benefit from not being called to account for its performance in removing illegal migrants. A lesson in how to turn a disaster into a triumph? A stroke of genius worthy of Malcolm Tucker.

That's true but her undoing was when asked if the HO had set targets Rudd claimed she did not set, see or approve any targets for removals. It's unfortunate that 'illegal' has become conflated with 'legal'.....but it's easy to see how it has.

 

Personally i don't like the use of the term as it reminds me of production 'targets' (off topic but look at the horrendous damage caused when government set 'targets' for the CSA....that resulted in suicides). From past experience i found once a 'target' had been reached, more was demanded and a higher 'target' set because senior management got seriously big bonuses. In production it's all cost driven...money, so the more they produce the more money they make. At least that's the theory on paper which sounds brilliant......until it all goes pear shaped and the sh*te hits the fan.....what we can now call the Windrush debacle.

 

The fact Rudd appeared not to know what was going on in her own department also meant she had to go.

Chris Grayling's attempt to shield TM was laughable -suggesting TM was unaware of the "target" what a dope! The January 2017 letter from Ms Rudd was sent to her. Yet again TM appears to be able to distance herself from the s**t that has hit the fan. Dodging a bullet (no pun intended Paul) as opposed to being a person of integrity holds sway it seems in the stinking mire of modern politics here in the UK.

 

On targets I think it likely that those of us who have not enjoyed self-employment status have been victims of crude measures that distorted the effective discharge of our duties as employees. I remain on the fence as to whether there should be no targets set in any field of human endeavour. When it comes to targets set by government for the executive I am concerned that without them the latter would have free rein to ignore government policy and that would result in our democracy being substantially undermined.

 

Off topic on the CSA - that was another debacle that caused the genuine to be hounded whilst the disingenuous continued to get away with their misdemeanours scot-free. Many year's ago, before the CSA was introduced, I was involved in the enforcement of child maintenance against defaulters. It was a humane system that was largely successful in separating the "can't pay" from the "won't pay". Why was that you may ask? I would say that it was because there was a due regard paid to the expertise and judgement of people who were not ticking boxes nor were they subject to any targets on how much money they collected. So yes I do understand people's disquiet over about targets in general because some are so crude, particularly in the sphere of law enforcement, that injustice will inevitably result. Still I'm not quite persuaded that a government should abandon all targets they wish to set for the executive in the sphere of immigration or in any other sphere.That would give the unelected Sir Humphrey's of this world cart-blanche to do whatever they liked and would compromise the government's ability to implement the mandate given to them by the electorate.

These are very interesting times. I think we are all getting a bit more wised up when it comes to the machinations of government and politics in general. That's one positive I suppose. I'm struggling to think of any others.

[antony1969]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-30 3:15 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 3:00 PM

 

Barryd999 - 2018-04-30 1:11 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 6:33 AM

 

Good ... All Leave voters will be pleased with that ... Lets have a decent Leave voter please Mrs May

 

Ho Ho Ho! Have you seen who her replacement is? (lol)

 

The Brexpress and Daily Heil readers will be delighted I am sure. Guffaw!

 

Ah well ... Won't make much difference ... According to you he'll only have a maximum of 11 months in the job ... Then we'll have Diane Abbott in the job according to you ... Old "white people love to play divide and rule" and "black mothers make better mother's" ... That's real racism from a real racist but she's a Marxist so it won't upset the red brigade on here

 

No, I said by the time we leave the EU there may well be an election and we wont properly leave the EU until the end of 2020 if we leave at all of course. You seem to be under the impression that I would welcome a Corbyn Government but I was simply pointing out that because of the poisoned chalice that is Brexit almost definitely guaranteed to bring this country down unless its somehow swerved at the last minute it could well finish the Tories off and allow Labour to sweep in. The entire situation is so volatile none of us know who will be in charge six months, a year or two years from now.

 

I am starting to think though that Theresa May is still very much a remainer and possibly is playing a clever and long game with Brexit.

 

Alright Barry when we leave the EU which happens in 11 months ... You said Labour could put a monkey in charge and they would beat the Tories and it was highly likely that would happen before Brexit , which takes place in 11 months ... So in less than 11 months we'll have Abbott as our Home Secretary according to you ... You know her who said racist nasty stuff towards whites about how we love to divide and rule and how black mothers make better mothers and thats without mentioning how she hoped the IRA would beat the British ... Suppose her racism doesn't count or her leaders or what seems like most of her parties though ... Remember when folk used to say UKIP were racist ... Nothing compared to this Government in waiting

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 4:05 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-04-30 2:04 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 10:48 AM

 

Lie or no lie it’s no surprise that there were targets for removal of illegal migrants, how else would the government ensure that the executive was doing a better job than it had done in the past on that front? So now it has become politically inexpedient to keep removal targets - all a bit too convenient one might think, even though it is clear that the Windrush issue should not be conflated with the problem of illegal migration. Indeed, is it not a tad insulting to the “Windrush generation” to do so? The government stands to benefit from not being called to account for its performance in removing illegal migrants. A lesson in how to turn a disaster into a triumph? A stroke of genius worthy of Malcolm Tucker.

That's true but her undoing was when asked if the HO had set targets Rudd claimed she did not set, see or approve any targets for removals. It's unfortunate that 'illegal' has become conflated with 'legal'.....but it's easy to see how it has.

 

Personally i don't like the use of the term as it reminds me of production 'targets' (off topic but look at the horrendous damage caused when government set 'targets' for the CSA....that resulted in suicides). From past experience i found once a 'target' had been reached, more was demanded and a higher 'target' set because senior management got seriously big bonuses. In production it's all cost driven...money, so the more they produce the more money they make. At least that's the theory on paper which sounds brilliant......until it all goes pear shaped and the sh*te hits the fan.....what we can now call the Windrush debacle.

 

The fact Rudd appeared not to know what was going on in her own department also meant she had to go.

Chris Grayling's attempt to shield TM was laughable -suggesting TM was unaware of the "target" what a dope! The January 2017 letter from Ms Rudd was sent to her. Yet again TM appears to be able to distance herself from the s**t that has hit the fan. Dodging a bullet (no pun intended Paul) as opposed to being a person of integrity holds sway it seems in the stinking mire of modern politics here in the UK.

It was and of course now begs the question as to why May is still here after she seems to have misled Parliament over the target issue. Time for her to go too. Her days of dodging bullets are over......she's full of holes! I've pondered over which has been the worse female PM, her or Thatcher, and it's hard to decide!

 

On targets I think it likely that those of us who have not enjoyed self-employment status have been victims of crude measures that distorted the effective discharge of our duties as employees. I remain on the fence as to whether there should be no targets set in any field of human endeavour. When it comes to targets set by government for the executive I am concerned that without them the latter would have free rein to ignore government policy and that would result in our democracy being substantially undermined.

Watching F1 yesterday i thought of 'targets' as i watched the pit crew at work. Refuel and tyre changes done in 4 seconds or less. But they are against the clock where every nano second counts plus they practice, practice, practice over and over again. Government can't do that, plus they aren't in a race. They have to, or should, act in accordance with the law and ensure they get it right before lunging ahead.

 

Off topic on the CSA - that was another debacle that caused the genuine to be hounded whilst the disingenuous continued to get away with their misdemeanours scot-free. Many year's ago, before the CSA was introduced, I was involved in the enforcement of child maintenance against defaulters. It was a humane system that was largely successful in separating the "can't pay" from the "won't pay". Why was that you may ask? I would say that it was because there was a due regard paid to the expertise and judgement of people who were not ticking boxes nor were they subject to any targets on how much money they collected. So yes I do understand people's disquiet over about targets in general because some are so crude, particularly in the sphere of law enforcement, that injustice will inevitably result. Still I'm not quite persuaded that a government should abandon all targets they wish to set for the executive in the sphere of immigration or in any other sphere.That would give the unelected Sir Humphrey's of this world cart-blanche to do whatever they liked and would compromise the government's ability to implement the mandate given to them by the electorate.

These are very interesting times. I think we are all getting a bit more wised up when it comes to the machinations of government and politics in general. That's one positive I suppose. I'm struggling to think of any others.

Regards the CSA, introducing targets was catastrophic. Instead of chasing the "won't pay" they went after the soft option......those that were already paying and whose files were readily accessible via the courts and whacked them with impossible demands. They were the easy targets to grab. That caused chaotic irreparable damage which won't ever be forgotten.......just like the Windrush debacle which has wrecked God knows how many peoples lives.

 

Another example which came to mind was disability benefits (i can't remember exactly which one) but once again, targets from IDS caused that. The Tories gave the job of halting the benefits to a private company. A friend of mine was on benefits at the time he received his letter stating "as from X date your benefit will cease as you are fit to resume work.." blah blah.

 

A few very important points had been completely overlooked.

 

1) He was permanently disabled after suffering a serious stroke and 2) he had been fully retired for six years!!! He spoke to his GP about it who told him hardly a week was going by without him seeing these letters. He had pre-printed letters ready to send back to them! They won't need worry about trying to pinch pennies off my mate any longer though....he died last year before he even got to state pension age.

[antony1969]

Car crash ! ... Car crash ! ... According to Barry heres the lady who's going to be our Home Secretary in less than 11 months ... She's going to be controlling our borders ... Oh Lordy ... Her interview today ...

... Now if she's better than Amber Rudd who I had no time for yonks ago we is in da sh8t good and proper ... You Labour racists must be so proud

[Violet1956]

I have some idea about how difficult it must be for you to have a mate who fell victim to such harsh, discriminatory and cruel policies that were implemented in the most incompetent way possible though I have no personal experience of the same Paul. I question this government's determination to not be the "nasty party" when they continue to outsource the responsibility for caring for some of the most vulnerable members of our society to the private sector where profit is king.

[Violet1956]

oops-double post-sorry

[Barryd999]

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 5:40 PM

 

Car crash ! ... Car crash ! ... According to Barry heres the lady who's going to be our Home Secretary in less than 11 months ... She's going to be controlling our borders ... Oh Lordy ... Her interview today ...

... Now if she's better than Amber Rudd who I had no time for yonks ago we is in da sh8t good and proper ... You Labour racists must be so proud

 

As I keep repeating I Said before 2021 its quite likely that Brexit will finish the Tories and Labour could easily sweep to victory but if they do it will be down to Brexit. Could be sooner I dunno. There is nowhere for the Tories to go now. They are pretty much scuppered. A split party thats pulling itself apart, Brexit will be a disaster if it continues and that will be the end of them. As I said I dont cherish the thought of Diane Abbot being in charge of even the Governments biscuit tin, I Am simply pointing out what I Think may happen as a result of the disastrous road we have gone down.

 

Put it another way. If Brexit did not exist, if it had never happened I suspect it would be business as usual for the Tories.

[Bulletguy]

Violet1956 - 2018-04-30 6:05 PM

 

I have some idea about how difficult it must be for you to have a mate who fell victim to such harsh, discriminatory and cruel policies that were implemented in the most incompetent way possible though I have no personal experience of the same Paul. I question this government's determination to not be the "nasty party" when they continue to outsource the responsibility for caring for some of the most vulnerable members of our society to the private sector where profit is king.

Fortunately he was a 'water off a ducks back' type and just laughed at the lunacy of government but not everyone is like that. What often amused me, there was a political divide between him and his wife and whilst he was to the left, his wife was very much staunch Tory and pro everything Tory.......until something like that happened, and then she'd talk her way out of it. She was always talking down the NHS and flying the flag for private healthcare yet when her husband had his stroke, the NHS was the first place she ran to.

[antony1969]

Barryd999 - 2018-04-30 6:37 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-30 5:40 PM

 

Car crash ! ... Car crash ! ... According to Barry heres the lady who's going to be our Home Secretary in less than 11 months ... She's going to be controlling our borders ... Oh Lordy ... Her interview today ...

... Now if she's better than Amber Rudd who I had no time for yonks ago we is in da sh8t good and proper ... You Labour racists must be so proud

 

As I keep repeating I Said before 2021 its quite likely that Brexit will finish the Tories and Labour could easily sweep to victory but if they do it will be down to Brexit. Could be sooner I dunno. There is nowhere for the Tories to go now. They are pretty much scuppered. A split party thats pulling itself apart, Brexit will be a disaster if it continues and that will be the end of them. As I said I dont cherish the thought of Diane Abbot being in charge of even the Governments biscuit tin, I Am simply pointing out what I Think may happen as a result of the disastrous road we have gone down.

 

Put it another way. If Brexit did not exist, if it had never happened I suspect it would be business as usual for the Tories.

 

Im sorry to make you feel you need to repeat it but Brexit , the UK leaving the EU starts March 2019 not 2021 ... 11 months away

[Brian Kirby]

I think it worth remembering what a mish-mash the Home Office, even after the formation of the DoJ, is.

It has responsibility for:

 

Border Force

HM Passport Office

Immigration Enforcement

UK Visas and Immigration

Police Services (England and Wales)

Fire and Rescue Services (England)

Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism

 

Some of these will be fairly straightforward, but others are definitely not, involving layer upon layer of technical and political complexity.

 

It is, IMO, ridiculous to expect any individual whose starting point is that their initial qualification for the job is to have been elected an MP, to be able to master the full brief in all those areas.

 

Any Home Secretary is therefore bound to rely upon their Ministers (of whom there are currently 5) to have command of the detail in their individual sectors.

 

I am clear that Rudd had, in the end, to go, but she is, IMO, more victim than perpetrator. She was perhaps too loyal to her friend, possibly too hesitant in seizing control and stamping her own agenda of the department - which I suspect is in part why she got the job.

 

Personally, I think the HO requires further pruning to make its spread of activities more focused and manageable, and to allow Home Secretaries some chance of maintaining an effective overview of what is going on.

 

There have now been 28 Home Secretaries since 1945, giving an average tenure of only 2.5 years. Hardly likely to be sufficient for a new appointee to work themselves in, find their feet, master their brief, and become properly effective. Most have been replaced as a result of happenstance, or a failure to have the right command of the detail when "events" intervened. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the current formation of a department with such important functions. In short, it's a mess!

[Violet1956]

I agree with Brian. The responsibilities of Home Secretary have become too widely spread over diverse, extremely important and problematic areas of government. The time is ripe for dividing them into separate Ministries.