I have a weird kind of sympathy for Amber Rudd. Despite disagreeing with her on most things, being disappointed that she didn't lose her parliamentary seat last year and generally wishing that she wasn't a thing (in the political sphere), I still feel a tiny piece of empathy towards her. This is because, since becoming relevant, Amber Rudd has been used as a pawn by Theresa May to go and clear up her messes.
Originally, she was pushed into turning up to the TV debates that May didn't want to do, probably because she was busy running through a field of... (No, I can't do it. I can't face another joke about Theresa May running through a field of wheat.) Anyway, Amber Rudd turned up, took all the flack for May not turning up, was laughed at, and then had to try to explain away the tricky parts of the Conservative manifesto. She didn't look as if she wanted to be there, and I don't blame her. I wouldn't want to turn up to a leaders debate as non-leader and then have to try to pretend that everything is wonderful. Which leads me to the Windrush Scandal.
If you don't know what the Windrush Scandal is, I will try to sum it up. At the end of the Second World War, people came from the Caribbean to the UK to re-build the country and to have better lives. 60 years later, the Home Office destroyed some documents to save space, or lost them because of an office move, or some other generic office-based paperwork excuse and then decided that, because the people couldn't prove that they were British, (even though they were, always had been British and, in a lot of cases, had never even visited to the Caribbean) the Home Office would deport them back to where they came from. Despite the answer to the question “where did you come from” being Harrogate or Newport in a lot of cases, the actual destination turned out to be Jamaica, with helpful advice being given such as “try to be more Jamaican”, which is hard for someone who has only ever lived in the northern suburbs of Watford. Those who weren't deported were denied healthcare, jobs, housing and other basic needs because they couldn't prove that they were legally resident in the UK all because the government had destroyed their documentation and then come after them complaining about the lack of documentation. This happened under the watch of both Theresa May and Amber Rudd, who may or may not have had unrealistic immigration and deportation targets.
So, mess number 2. Amber Rudd is set the impossible task of trying not to resign because of a mess created by Theresa May when she was home secretary. This didn't go well. Eventually, Rudd's lies caught up with her, and she was forced to resign for “misleading the Commons”. Not totally and utterly screwing up the lives of thousands of people for no good reason, misleading the Commons. (I'm starting to have less sympathy for her now.)
Theresa May accepted her resignation, and now we're left with a new person trying to clear up May's mess: Sajid Javid. Good luck to him. (Or not.)
But, why hasn't May resigned? This was her mess. She created the “hostile environment”, an environment which made deportation cool and on-brand. She ignored the warnings that such a hostile environment could create problems for people who were resident in the country legally, but had lost access to their documents, the specific examples given at the time being a wife who had fled from her abusive husband's house, or the Windrush Generation. She was also in charge of the home office at the time that these deportation and immigration targets were set. She is much more at fault than Amber Rudd for this entire mess. But, Rudd is the one who is out of a job: the latest casualty of May's exciting time as leader of this country.
This is not to say that Rudd shouldn't have resigned. She should. If one puts aside the fact that all her defences turned out to be not true, her defences didn't paint her in a great light either. Her main defence was the “yes it did happen, but I didn't know it was happening”. This is a really poor defence. This was essentially her admitting that either she was lying, or she was incompetent. Any time anyone uses the “I didn't know about it” defence, the next question should be “why?” Why did you not know about major government policy? Have you not been reading or watching any news for the past 8 years? What is the point of having someone in charge who can't keep track of it? Of course, the answer is either, “I did know, I'm just a lying cheat”, or “I'm useless, I should resign”. It turns out that Amber Rudd is the former, and Theresa May is both. Happy Easter.