I think the objection is the completely objectionable way in which he treated 2 MPs when they raised perfectly reasonable points about the expenses stuff. I saw one of those incidents on the television and wasn't impressed. From what I can gather there is a feeling that he has done this many times before, but less noticeably so. Maybe there is an element of scapegoat in this as well, but that's not the only/main reason as far as I can tell.
Oh don't get me wrong- he isn't blameless by any stretch of the imagination. But I do worry about the dangerous precedent being created and that the campaign against him is a smokescreen designed to divert attention away from others involved in the expenses row.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wellinghall) wrote2009-05-18 06:34 pm
no subject
no subject