Birds of a (polluted) feather

DougS

It's a good job Hague isn't a detective!

I'm not sure if Obama dislikes us or hates us but there's certainly no sign of any friendship at all.

I've got the same opinion of him as I had when he was running for President: no policies, just a few catchy phrases and play the rest by ear.

Tancred

A few well aimed comments from Cameron would stick a pin in this pompous windbag of a President.

America is waking up to the fact that he is all style and no substance. He hasn't any grasp of his countries vulnerability and just how tired the world is of America right now.

He is the leader of the US and yet he is lashing out at the British due to some irrational hatred of "Britain", the British and, maybe, white people generally.

Just give him a shove, Cameron.

The America voters will do the rest.

John B

Sorry to remind you, but Boris was one of the cheer-leaders for Obama. He wrote an article in the Telegraph recommending him. So much for Boris' judgement!

Greg

What would you expect from this left-of-centre government and the transnational progressives who run the show?

Let the transnational progressives run a business in their borderless, iRainbow-pod world where human kindness and fraternity know no bounds.

Chaos in the making.

Tiberius

If Boris were Prime Minister, he would not have said what he did.

Nachman

Note how Obama calls it "British Petroleum" it has not been called that for years.

paulg

Cameron has got it about right.
The American people are justifiably very anger with American B.P.

But what Cameron must emphisis to the president is that his rhetoric is having a detrimental effect on BP's long term ability to sort out this mess.

If the share price is depressed any more in the states the company can either go bankrupt or be sold to a foreign company.

Obama will soon find himself and his administration held hostage to fortune, unless he starts putting his brain in gear before engaging his mouth.

Max

The Anglo-Persian oil company, that became British Petroleum in 1954, pressured the British government and the League of Nations to back off their commitment to the Balfour agreement; thus, Israel received approximately twelve percent of the land intended for them. (www.watch.org)

Who cares, let BP fold! Most of the Brits I've met are Jew haters anyway.

DJPNZ

There's no doubt about it, first BP, now the Falklands, next Britain's seat at the United Nations, and so it will go on under President Obama.

For now, BP is easier prey and Obama is making it his patsy (www.bpbarackspatsy.wordpress.com) as he tries to recover his dwindling popularity.

Britain needs to stand firm. However, there's none so blind as those who won't see, the 'special relationship' is over. We have been a laughing stock in the corridors of US power for decades and now we have a President who not only mocks us, bullies us and demeans us, he's intent on destroying us.

It is interesting that we have accepted that we should fund the compensation ourselves for the disasters that were caused by a melt down in Wall Street - many of which have at their root, indictable behaviour that should be pursued. The scale of our financial disaster in pure dollar terms would dwarf the impact of the Gulf of Mexico.

Perhaps then, Europe might have its uses after all. Maybe an unholy alliance with the French to launch a counter attack on the US for the mess which their bankers and financiers have left us in might act to serve as a reminder to the US that they have caused more devastation economically, than anything BP may or may not have achieved in the Gulf of Mexico. With that in mind, they should be warned, that unless they back off BP and stop whining, we will pursue their financial companies and make regulatory compliance very difficult for US companies that wish to trade in Europe.

Come on Cameron, let's see you mongrel!

Ray

There is a world of difference between what armchair statesmen (and I don't use the term pejoratively) like Boris Johnson and Norman Tebbit can say in public and what Her Majesty's First Minister can say.

Boris rightly seeks cool head, and therefore it is proper that Cameron avoids further fanning the flames already stoked up by Obama's childish petulance.

More important is what Cameron, Hague and the Foreign Office crew are saying to the Yanks in private. With thousands of British troops taking bullets in a US-led war in Afghanistan, our prime minister has a strong hand to play providing he is possessed of the subtlety to play it wisely.

Unlike Churchill's predicament during World War Two, at this precise moment the Americans need us more than we need them. Hopefully, the President can be reminded of that when he is next tempted to utter the words 'British Petroleum'.

John Thomas

Obviously Obama is bashing Britain to deflect U S unpopularity from himself; but his anti-Britishness goes back long before the oil spill incident, as seen by the (early on) removal of the Churchill bust from White House office (and probably he couldn't stomach looking every day at a statesman who was prepared to swim against the tide, and oppose everybody of power and influence, in pursuit of truth, unlike himself). Politicians today generally just go with the flow - look at ours.

Zachary

Obama removed Churchill's bust from the White House (because of the UK policy in Kenya, 1950s) and never was England's friend, despite the fawning of UK "progressives."

John Birch

That's right, Tancred. Obama is lashing out irrationally at British people and not at BP for the environmental disaster that has struck the Gulf of Mexico. Obama's rhetoric is mild compared to what a lot of other American politicians are saying and BP executives have only themselves to blame for the clumsy way they reacted to the oil leak.

Richard

BP has an exemplary record of wilful neglect of maintenance and repair in pursuit of profit for its shareholders. That this has backfired so badly should not exempt BP from blame and the costs associated.

Raymond in DC

Why should Britain be surprised at such treatment? It was, after all, a White House staffer who suggested that Britain is "just another country", and Obama who ordered the bust of Churchill returned to the UK.

But Obama, ever shifting the blame for failure onto others, has to take responsibility for his own failures and those of his administration. Why, for example, were Dutch offers of help - one for sweeping arms oil skimmers, a second to build long sand dykes to protect the shoreline - turned down? Why are millions of feet of booms sitting in warehouses?

Daibhidh

Obama's a campaigner not a president. Never owned a business in his life nor does he understand economics beyond a typically liberal chaotic view yet feels qualified enough to sack an infinitely more business and market aware man.

Richard

Isn't it understandable that Americans are angry with BP? I see no acknowledgement in most of the comments here that this is an appalling disaster. Maybe people here don't care much about wildlife and ecosystems, but what about the effect on the lives and livelihoods of people living on that coast? It's probably true that any major oil company might have had the same accident, but that doesn't exonerate BP. People get angry because they see their own powerlessness.

Yes, Obama's attacks on BP are merely opportunistic, unless he has serious plans to change the policy of deregulation that made this sort of accident more likely, and unless he really intends, for the longer term, to begin moving his culture and economy away from the present extent of its oil-dependency. Somehow I don't think that's the point most people here are making, though.

W. Smith.

"But at present, Britain’s Prime Minister and Britain’s interests are not on the same page."

...As if they ever were! He's worse than useless, as you've pointed out before, Melanie. What I cannot fathom is why you don't simply give up on the whole rotten lot of them and have done with it? They hate you. Why do you pine after them? Is it because they're members of the Conservative Party?

Conservative my elbow.

William Boyd

According to recent press one in six British pension dividend pounds (about 17%) come from BP whereas BP's pre-spill share (I'm quoting a 2007 FT statistic) of the FTSE 100 was around 7%.

The discrepancy is no doubt explained by the traditional risk premium associated with dividend returns for oil companies but that UK pension funds now find themselves over-exposed in this way suggests to me that it's not only banks who get their risk models wrong and indeed that's a matter of national concern.

I fail to understand how David Cameron can be said to be 'taking sides' (in a negative sense as presumably you mean to convey) with Obama with his remark "I completely understand the US Government’s frustration because it’s an environmental catastrophe".

I do trust Boris understands as much himself because it's clear that this is a spill on the scale of the Exxon Valdez every few days.

Take a page out of Micky Gove's prodigy (sic) Carol Vorderman's book Mel and do the elementary arithmetic involved yourself - as one who I dare say got through the 11-plus OK you should be up to it (and by all means email if you need a refresher course).

John A. Davison

Every move that Obama makes has one goal in mind, the destruction of the democratic process wherever it exists, in Israel, in Britain and above all in the United States. He is a Marxist through and through. What appears to be incompetence is in fact carefully calculated. Obama is the only truly danferous President ever to occupy the White House

Archie

Well, indeed so, Miss Phillips! It would appear evident that the scales have fallen from the Mayor's eyes - like the American public - as I seem to recall he wrote a paean or two to the President before the American election.

Nick

The US is the most polluting nation on the planet.

It is addicted to cheap oil. It's hard to feel any sympathy, to be honest, especially when you consider how many Iraqis died to secure American oil interests in the Middle East.

Dixon

Those wells wouldnt be off-shore and haemorrhaging into the ocean had not for many years "liberals" succesfully campaigned to block their being drilled on-shore. It is they, Obama's own people, who are to blame for the entire disaster.

Dan Cashearne

Richard.

"Maybe people here don't care much about wildlife and ecosystems"

How wrong you are. I had planned to go to the region in September, on a 'gator shooting holiday. Looks like it's buffalo and the odd surreptitious leopard at Kruger yet again. Which is a shame as I'm keen on diversity and reptiles are sadly lacking in my sporting portfolio.

Augustus

One could easily argue that what has happened to BP could just as easily have happened to Shell. Furthermore, it isn't entirely clear that it's BP's fault (fault, not responsibility). The safety systems on the rig aren't directly controlled by BP. Despite Haywards somewhat foolish remarks, BP have simply done what they could. It's a great pity that various measures appear to have failed,
but Shell would probably have done exactly the same, and made the same mistakes. And could Obama's sluggish handling of the crisis have anything to do with his strong ties to 'big labor'?

Lizzy

‘I completely understand the US Government’s frustration because it’s an environmental catastrophe’.

....meaning what, exactly? Aren't they all forgetting the 11 workers who died when the rig blew? Environmentalism trumps all.

porkbelly

Once again BP was in complete control of what happened on that rig. They are trying to hide their culpability behind a patriotic smokescreen, but evidently there are more than a few willing to shut their eyes.

Ian Hills

Since Obama is only occupying Afghanistan and Iraq to get his hands on Iranian oil - after all you can't win a war through air strikes alone - it seems rather hypocritical of him to attack an oil company. I expect he's trying to distract the public from his failure to deliver on his big election pledge - an American NHS. Of course, he could have afforded it if he hadn't been so interested in Iranian oil. All those troops and bombs cost serious money after all. Spouting pompous rhetoric about the environment, on the other hand, costs nothing.

Mark Noble

I can see that the cause of British pensioners is a matter of concern and that our Prime Minister should act on their behalf. The problem is that it seems that the powers of the regulatory authorities in the UK have been subordinated to the interests of the corporations that they are meant to police. Simply put, no justice is ever achieved for the victims of white collar crime. A decision to take risk of drilling in deep water whilst cutting the cost of safety procedures would seem to be at the core of the BP problem. The people who made these decisions will have been well rewarded.
In supporting the US President David Cameron is acting in the best long term interests of all of us in seeking to restore equality before the law.

gareth

Funny, but during the election excitement I actually read a few of Massie's, Liddle's and Bright's Blogs.....just remembered today looking at the comments stats and seeing that Melanie is worth all of them put together.
She is Fox and they are CNN.

Keep on Melanie - you're a bright morningstar to the ever growing number of us who go to you for the facts.

Dixon

"Ian Hills
June 12th, 2010 2:44am
Since Obama is only occupying Afghanistan and Iraq to get his hands on Iranian oil - after all you can't win a war through air strikes alone ..."

They did with Serbia.And Japan won a war with Russia with a few torpedo boats. anythings possible..but I fail to see your point...how you figure that a war in Afghanistan might render access to oil in Iran defies conjecture. ...Oh, th penny drops, in your world you think Obama might be planning to invade Iran! Crikey, if you cant be bothered to follow whats happening in the real world (as opposed to the Anti-American Disneyland of your Marxist narrative) then at leastlook at a map will you!

Derek BLADES

Many of us treasure this website for the amazing conspiracy theories that pop up from time to time. Ian Hills June 12th, came up with this classic: ".... Obama is only occupying Afghanistan and Iraq to get his hands on Iranian oil"

To get from Iraq to Iranian oil via Afghanistan suggests an exceptionally vivid imagination. Could I ask Ian Hills for some details? We all enjoy a good laugh from time to time.

JoeP

Why shouldn't pensions tied to BP be hurt. This silly idea that stocks can only go up is not a free market. Privatising profits and then socializing failures is not a free market either. The people who will or already have lost their livelihoods for the next twenty or more years. The losses which will come from this disaster down the road to the fishing industry and the tourist industry can't even begin to be calculated, and your worried about losses to your pension funds. Why aren't you asking how BP was so ill prepared for this disaster in the first place? When they promised they were prepared for this.

transfattyacid

I guess you haven't read this week's Private Eye then Melanie?

It appears BP took over the well, gave a cut and paste report on their safety procedures... including a japanese Shopping channel as a 24 hour supplier to their operations...

Sure that's the point of Capitalism - the more forms you give to a regulater, the less likely they are to scrutinise your opertaions.... see banking crisis for details.

What you overlook in this story is two things.

Firstly that Obama is to blame for the oil spill, as it is his government that oversaw the failures - much as the banking collapse was entirely the fault of the American non-Regulators.

And secondly it is Cameron's government's purpose to impoverisise the British people - hence 14 per cent of dividends due to pension funds will not be paid if BP do not pay a dividend.

If you don't believ this, then you only have to look at the decision to put Frank Field in charge of a review of Child Benefit.

And the US regulator to continue regulating when they appear unaware that Walruses are not in the Louisianna.

But then on that score who cares, since Louisiananananananans have mostly moved to California following the Katrina hurricane.

But politically what really matters is that two political lightweights - Obama and Cameron - can't take the blame - and everybody can get embroiled in a row that is completely pointless.

But then they wouldn't be lightweights unless they won fights by flailing countless tippy tappy blows in all directions - or in boxing parlance - showing style.

Zordana

Considering Obama might be an illegal President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMUiLjBRIao&feature=related)

Cameron should have wiped the floor with him. His ratings are plummeting so fast they'll be in the minus's soon. Why is Cameron so weak?
According to QT on Thursday, Brits are six on the board, Americans are twelve, Brit workers are 10,000, Americans are 20,000...the rig was American with American workers, how does that make it 100% our fault? Perhaps someone could help me out here?

Kepha

Good post. I'm a Yank myself, and am utterly appalled by the anti-British tone coming from some of our so-called leaders. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a technical-scientific problem, not a political one as Mr. Obama seems to want to make it.

And, again, please accept my apologies for our utterly uncalled for slight to your PM last year when, in return for an elegant desk crafted from the timbers of an historic ship, we gave him CD's he can't even use due to differing systems in our two countries.

john

If Obama was clean of prejudice he would impose finds that would cripple Union Carbide and bring Congress a plan that would rebuild Bopal and the lives of the inhabitants. He won't, of course. He won't even visit the town.

Dan Cashearne

john

It's 'Bhopal', it's 'fines', and most of all, it's planet Earth. How are you finding it on your visit?

Liz

Ah, Derek BLADES. Ironical, that. Particularly considering the fact that you contribute by far the largest dollop of conspiracy theory effluvium to this blog than anyone else.

Julie

Yes, BP is a British company, but is that a reason for the British to defend it? Better to be honest about the horrific ecological damage due to BP's negligence than to turn this into some kind of America v. Britain nonsense. If you're worried about BP stock, blame BP.

Ian Hills

"Dixon", and Derek BLADES (posting on June 12th) prove that modern educational theories don't work in practice. To win a war, you have to send ground troops in. They point to Serbia and Japan to disprove this. The so-called "war" against Serbia was just a few air strikes accompanied by heavy sanctions. And the Russo-Japanese war was a land and sea war. Now, in geography I learned that Afghanistan and Iraq are countries which flank Iran - which produces a third of the world's oil. In history we find that Iran has, several times, been invaded from both sides. And that the mullahs nationalised the foreign oil assets when they took over Iran. All right then, boys, suppose you tell ME why there were Anglo-American invasions either side of Iran. To force democracy and girls' schools on two foreign countries? You shouldn't believe everything you read in the Sun! BP, the biggest company in the world, is Anglo-American owned (40% of the shares being American). Big enough to own both Washington and London. Obama is temporarily playing to the green lobby. You shouldn't believe everything HE says, either!

Derek BLADES

Ian Hills, June 13, wrote "All right then, boys, suppose you tell ME why there were Anglo-American invasions either side of Iran." As one of the boys referred to, let me give my answer.

America and allies invaded Iran in the mistaken belief that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. America and NATO are in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from retaking the country and providing sanctuary to Al Qaeda. Now, please explain how Iranian oil fits in. Your "reasoning", such as it is, escapes me.

PS. Hardly worth correcting you on a mere factual matter, but Iran has the world's third largest known reserves of oil. It is far from being the third largest producer. The United States is in third place while Iran produces less than half as much.

Derek BLADES

Liz, June 13th, accuses me of contributing “by far the largest dollop of conspiracy theory effluvium to this blog than anyone else.”

That stings because I contribute mainly in order to debunk conspiracy theories – in particular that whacky one about an Islamic conspiracy to take over the world which lies at the heart of this blog site. I always look for the commonsense explanations for world happenings and these are mostly those offered by the mainstream British press and the BBC.

Please give me just one example of a conspiracy theory that I have promulgated.

Dutchie

@Melanie Phillips
Please read Shmuley Boteach! He strongly disagrees with you regarding Boris Johnson and BP.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=178431