MG Rover chairman John Towers and his fellow directors have been widely criticised for the demise of the Birmingham car-giant.
But in the first Commons debate focusing on the crisis since Longbridge closed its gates, opposition MPs tried to shift some of the blame on to the Government.
They highlighted the involvement of the Department of Trade and Industry in the murky events of early April, when it became clear how much trouble Rover was in.
MPs such as Julie Kirkbride (Con Bromsgrove) and John Hemming (Lib Dem Yardley) argued that Ministers were more concerned with getting the right headlines than anything else.
Mr Hemming and Charles Hendry, the Conservative industry spokesman, both introduced new information into the debate.
In particular, Mr Hemming claimed that Rover's directors agreed at a board meeting back in December that the manufacturer was insolvent.
He did not reveal the source of this information, but the MP, a Birmingham businessman who helped set up the Phoenix Consortium five years ago, is known to have good contacts on Rover issues.
Mr Hendry also gave the impression that he had spoken to someone close to Rover, but did not reveal his sources.
Labour MPs did not like the arguments pursued by opposition MPs, and were particularly noisy as Ms Kirkbride was speaking.
At one point, as she quoted from a column published in The Birmingham Post, written by Business Editor John Duckers, they barracked her for "reading from newspapers" instead of making a speech.
But they backed a call from MP Richard Burden (Lab Northfield), who led the debate, that an official inquiry must have no "no go areas".
This would presumably mean that it looked at the actions of the DTI, among other things.
Mr Hemming suggested the Government had been working closely with Rover behind the scenes, until things fell apart in April.
He said: "At a board meeting in December 2004, the board recognised the company was balance sheet insolvent."
The company could continue trading because it believed it was set to sign a deal with Chinese manufacturer SAIC, which would ensure its creditors were paid, Mr Hemming said.
He continued: "This is where the DTI got involved. The company was burning cash and a bridging loan was needed to handle the company's position, until the Chinese government could go through the regulatory processes and agree the deal."
The loan was agreed by the DTI in principle in February, he said.
But in April, the DTI changed its mind and the loan was no longer on offer, he said.
"That is the key issue - how we got to a position from where a deal that would have sorted everything out went all wrong."
Ms Kirkbride told MPs she was not the only one to believe the Government had hastened Rover's demise - and highlighted the Birmingham Post article, printed on April 22.
Quoting from the newspaper, she said: "The Government determined that it must not have a Rover crisis breaking in the days immediately before polling day. And it dare not risk that happening. So, it decided to dump the ailing car company well ahead.
"No one is suggesting that MG Rover might have necessarily been saved, but, it is maintained, the Government chose when it was to go down - not the company's chairman, Mr Towers.
"And I have to say I agree with that, bearing in mind that the previous Secretary of State announced that the company was going into receivership before the board had even decided to do so."
As Labour MPs complained, she said: "The Government's complicity is very clear. I am not surprised they are having a complete fit."
The debate was held at the request of Richard Burden, whose constituency includes the Longbridge site.
He highlighted the need for the results of an official inquiry, already announced by Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson, to be made public.
And he called on the Phoenix directors to give up their pensions - to help Rover workers.
He said: "Having left others so seriously exposed to the effects of failure, the Phoenix directors appear to have systematically insulated themselves from those effects."