The demotion of BP CEO Tony Hayward may give a lot of people satisfaction, but I don't see it as any particular cause for rejoicing. Now, if it can be shown that his aggressive cost-cutting strategies led to the Gulf oil disaster, or that he mismanaged the recovery or relief efforts, (neither of which I am convinced of) then it might be a justifiable move. But by itself, his penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth and committing public relations gaffes and faux pas is both irrelevant and exaggerated. In fact, an abrupt change in leadership at such a critical point in BP's history might be counter-productive.

I guess every tragedy needs a scapegoat, and I'm sure if the well had turned out to be a resounding success he would have been first in line to claim credit, whether deserved or not. And perhaps the symbolic gesture of sacking the man will somehow translate to progress on other fronts. But I also think the apparent destruction of Mr Hayword serves no purpose, except to warn those who might follow him. And I say "apparent", because he really hasn't come off all that badly; I'm sure he will escape prison and the poorhouse. Firing Mr Hayward is just another PR move on BP's part. It should not distract us from what happened, or what should happen now.