WHEN the news about Tony Hayward’s departure finally leaked out from BP yesterday after days of rumours, it was almost anti-climactic.

Hayward, most agree, had to go. His uncertain handling of events after the Deepwater Horizon explosion in April failed to inspire confidence, and as the scale of the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico became clear he seemed ill- equipped to handle the media and political firestorm that resulted.

He infamously said the spill would have a “very, very modest” environmental impact because the Gulf was “a big ocean”. And his performance in front of a Congressional committee was underwhelming, as politicians with an eye for the TV cameras spent more than seven hours attacking his reputation.

Some of the criticism was unfair. He was, for example, pilloried for taking a short break with his son on a yacht in Cowes – though they were in fact his first days off since the spill occurred two months earlier.

But, regardless, he became a hate figure, the scapegoat for all that was going wrong in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

One headline in the New York Daily News read: “BP’s CEO Tony Hayward: The most hated – and most clueless – man in America.”

I was in the US a few weeks ago when the oil was still gushing into the sea, and when anti-BP bile was pouring out of the US news networks like BP’s oil was pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.

It’s no secret that the likes of Fox News are allowed to be more opinionated than our more restrained anchors, but it was still a surprise to see just how strong the criticism was.

The oil spill has also become deeply political – particularly as senators, governors and congressmen gear up for the mid-term elections in November. Foreign companies make easy targets, and BP – British Petroleum, as its critics are so keen to point out – has become a bit of a pantomime villain.

It has become a cross between an evil, cold-hearted Brit of Hollywood imagination and a bumbling toff straight out of a PG Wodehouse yarn.

One infamous comment from New York congressman Anthony Wiener sums it up: “Here's a viewer’s guide to BP media briefings. Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum they are not telling you the truth.” Even President Obama, who has been stung by criticism of his own slow response to the slick, said Hayward should be sacked.

BP deserves most of the criticism it has received. Its response to the environmental crisis has been slow, and its PR policy has been ineffective.

But BP matters to us all. No matter how much people may want to rejoice in the comeuppance of a rich and powerful man, and the humiliation of a corporate giant, it’s not that simple.

BP, to use a Marks & Spencer-esque phrase, is not just a company – it is one of the companies for pension funds and investment funds.

Merseyside Pension Fund, for example, has a “significant shareholding” in BP, and so thousands of pensioners want – even need – BP’s share price to recover, and fast.

We all need a strong BP, a refreshed company fit to clean up the Gulf, compensate all those affected, and hunt for new revenue streams.

Hayward was not the man to lead BP into the future. It needed a new face at the top.

Bob Dudley, a Mississippian who BP says has an “affinity” with the Gulf Coast, appears well-placed to repair BP’s ravaged US reputation. Wish him luck.