IF a week is a long time in politics, then the past seven days must have seemed like an eternity for Amber Augusta Rudd.
After claims of “callous and cruel” treatment of the Windrush Generation, the Home Secretary has been a picture of concern and contrition.
Appearing(bravely perhaps) before Westminster hacks at a parliamentary lunch, she described how, with a deal of understatement, it had been “a challenging week” and recalled how one of her predecessors Ken Clarke told her that being Home Secretary was “probably the most dangerous job in government”.
“I didn’t realise quite how right he was,” Ms Rudd declared.
On the same top table was David Lammy, the Labour MP for Tottenham, who has been among the most vociferous critics of the Government over Windrush.
READ MORE: Rudd branded disingenuous on targets for immigration
As Ms Rudd cracked a joke or two to ease her way into her speech before the feral beasts of the Press and then went through an exegesis on Windrush, a thunderous expression never left his face.
At one point, the Secretary of State was asked if she had during the past few days contemplated resigning or even offered her resignation. She did not answer the question, which probably meant she had.
But Theresa May cannot afford to lose her “human shield” because once gone, Labour would go directly after her given she was Ms Rudd’s predecessor at the Home Office.
Indeed, Lord Blunkett, a previous holder of the poisoned chalice, stressed he did not think Ms Rudd should resign even though he was surprised she had not done “her homework” on migrant removal targets.
Yet, he also mentioned another aspect to this particular political prism; that is, to lose Remainer Rudd would risk "imbalancing" the Cabinet composition on Brexit, which would “not be in the best interests of the country".
READ MORE: Amber Rudd faces fresh calls to resign over migrant removal targets
On Wednesday in a car crash appearance before MPs, the Home Secretary denied targets were used. Yet, inconveniently, a 2015 inspection report, showed they had been.
A day later, Ms Rudd stressed she had never agreed to use removal targets for migrants, adding those used by her department "were not published targets against which performance was assessed".
One has to ask: what is the point of a target if it is not to assess performance?
To add to Ms Rudd’s discomfort, Rob Whiteman, the former border chief, described her claim not to have known about migrant removal targets as "disingenuous".
And now we have a leaked Home Office memo, which referred to "a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18," adding: “We have exceeded our target of assisted returns."
This prompted more calls from Labour and the SNP for the Home Secretary to go.
Political blood is now in the Westminster water and Ms Rudd is engaged in a daily battle for survival.
READ MORE: Amber Rudd raises prospect UK could remain in Customs Union
Come Saturday night as the Sunday paper front pages drop, she could be forgiven for hiding behind the sofa. Any more screaming headlines about Windrush victims and she could be dispatched by the Westminster sharks.
And just to ensure Ms Rudd, if she is able to survive the weekend, does not feel she has completely escaped troubled waters, Labour has tabled a debate for Wednesday - on Windrush.
Next week promises to be just as long and dangerous for A A Rudd as this week has been.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel