He's a scapegoat- pure and simple. MPs are frantically trying to blame him in the hope that they will deflect some of the bad publicity away from themselves and onto him. Yes, he probably should have done more, but the fact is that even if he had wanted to there was simply not the political will to do so.
Sacking him would be a very verya dangerous precedent indeed.
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){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-19 10:10 am (UTC)Sacking him would be a very verya dangerous precedent indeed.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-19 01:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-19 01:54 pm (UTC)