Maybe Amber Rudd had just had enough of the criticism and broadly felt disbelief in her role on immigration figures and just decided to go. Her critics will have no doubt applauded and her supporters wept but there is, perhaps, something more fundamental at stake here. As a nation we hold high the notions of diversity, non-segregation, equality and many other aspirations on the same theme. Yet at the same time we know that immigration is both a political and social bomb that could go off at any moment. We have a population growth that is exploding - the bomb there has already gone off - but it has exploded in an unbalanced way that, if progressed for, say, the next decade, will render the indigenous British population a minority in its own country. Some would argue: 'So What ?' and others - generally the more silent across the political spectrum - would feel a shudder of apprehension about how the mixture of all these diverse races can possibly integrate with each other in an acceptable way. Maybe history is not the most useful barometer on this but it does show that we have been a white, Christian island for around 1,500 years now but in a decade hence we may be something else. It is a hugely emotive subject and one that has caused Amber Rudd to bail out from - its complexities, legalities and social implications - quite apart from the divisive political ones - are more than a handful to cope with to everyone's satisfaction. Her departure is a shame. I'm no great fan of hers but I do believe she was tackling what she thought were the key issues. Her lack of attention to detail is said to be the root cause behind her resignation - and that, I suspect, is a flaw that is widely replicated around our political 'masters'. However, it does pose the thought at exactly what it is that the so called professional civil service is up to. Their advice and steerage on this has been very much off-track - but they don't pay the price for negligence. But at the end of all this hand wringing and teeth gnashing we still have the immigration issue to contend with. There are seemingly two essential choices - curtail immigration and access to the UK and continue with the illegals deportation strategy to try and control the numbers entering the country or accept that this is a systemic change as to who the British are and will be in the future and just let events unfold without regulation. Neither are attractive options but it is the stuff of which will bring down a government at a stroke - and may well yet do.
More missiles are falling on Syria. Nobody seems to know who fired them but given they landed on Assad supporters it seems reasonable to assume it is not the Syrians themselves or their pals, the Russians and Iranians (or are they devious enough to shoot at their own just to blame the West ? Nothing is beyond belief these days). The danger is, as ever, in escalation. Will Syria strike out at someone with chemical weapons again - or will the Russians and Iranians make a hostile move. But against whom ? No doubt it will be against an innocent civilian population somewhere rather than at some specific military target - that has become the hallmark of this tragic war. Let us hope that escalation is restrained by wise minds. Foreign interventions - our own included - are neither helpful nor conclusive. They are merely the interference of vested interest. The downside to that, of course is a blanket acceptance of the carnage and suffering of innocents and, as usual, the UN has bared its gums and whimpered about this and that whilst succumbing to the idiocy of Russian and periodic Chinese vetoes barring more robust action.
I see Michel Barnier is strolling around the border lands of Ireland seeing for himself what a catastrophe the UK is facing once Brexit occurs. How simple life must be in Brussels if all he has to concern himself with is screwing Britain. His sidekick, Guy Verhofstadt thinks we should agree to an 'association agreement' to satisfy Europe's perverse understanding of trade and customs unions but to do that would not only betray the very ethos of Brexit but it would tie this country to the EU almost inextricably for the next generation. Along with that we'd have the costs and restrictions we now have and not be able to sit at the table to be heard when the EU comes up with its next preposterous idea. Maybe the time has come for the EU to start contemplating what the UK departure from its ranks means for them - economically, socially and in terms of the slippery slope to oblivion that European federalism entails. The UK may be the first to engage in this battle with the EU but I doubt we'll be the last.