Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Jun 12, 2010 2:57 am

Senior figures including London mayor Boris Johnson have voiced concerns about the tone of the US president's comments as he seeks to minimise political damage from the disaster.

Mr Johnson demanded an end to the "beating up" of the oil firm yesterday, urging the American administration to avoid "name calling" and "buck passing". And the chairman of insurance giant Royal Sun Alliance, John Napier, warned Mr Obama's criticism was "unstatesmanlike" and lacked "balance".

However, despite an alarming slump in BP's share price, the Prime Minister merely said he understood the US government's "frustration".

He is due to discuss the situation with the president in a "routine" phone call over the weekend.

Speaking on a visit to Afghanistan, Mr Cameron said: "Obviously everyone wants everything to be done that can be done. Of course that is something I will be discussing with the American president."

Last night Chancellor George Osborne contacted BP chief executive Tony Hayward on the orders of the PM.

Following the phone call, Mr Osborne said: "We are all concerned about the human and environmental impact and as the Prime Minister has said, we understand the concerns of the US administration.

"The Prime Minister is also clear that we need constructive solutions and that we remember the economic value BP brings to people in Britain and America."

It also emerged that Mr Obama had requested a meeting with BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and other "appropriate" company officials on June 16 to discuss the response to the environmental crisis.

Yesterday Mr Johnson echoed previous comments by business leaders by suggesting that the "anti-British rhetoric" was becoming a matter of "national concern".

He added that BP was paying "a very, very heavy price" for what had been an accident, and pointed out that UK pension funds had a "huge exposure" to BP. The firm is estimated to account for one in every seven pounds of dividends paid to British shareholders.

Mr Johnson acknowledged that the spill was a "huge environmental disaster", but added: "I think that the best thing now is not to get into too much name-calling and buck passing and attempts to damage the reputation of a great British company but to get on, to work together to sort it out."

In an open letter to the president, Mr Napier warned that his "comments towards BP and its CEO (Tony Hayward) as reported here are coming across as somewhat prejudicial and personal".

"There is a sense here that these attacks are being made because BP is British."

He went on: "Whilst we all recognise the seriousness of the situation there is a need to put some balance back into the situation...

"The immediate issues are very challenging but are best solved working together in a more statesmanlike way."

In recent weeks, Mr Obama and other US politicians have repeatedly criticised the response of the firm, and called for it to suspend dividend payments.

Members of the US administration have also insisted on referring to BP as "British Petroleum" - a name it dropped more than a decade ago.

Earlier this week, the president suggested that Mr Hayward should be sacked and slammed BP for spending money on advertising and shareholders while "nickel-and-diming fishermen or small businesses here in the Gulf".

A US State Department spokesman played down any suggestion of a rift with Britain last night.

"BP is a private company and this is about the impact of a tragedy in terms of the explosion of the oil platform and the resulting oil spill," he said.

"This is not about relations between the United States and its closest ally."

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/830428-cameron-must-stop-obamas-anti-british-attacks-on-bp

How is this being perceived on the other side of the pond?

by **TexasBlue** Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:14 am

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:How is this being perceived on the other side of the pond?

Well, it's being reported here. ABC News did a piece on it. It basically said that via the people involved in the story that Obama needs to STFU and be more presidential. Of course, FNC is having fun with it. But i watch other news here and they're grabbing it.

Watching others news is giving me the impression that the love-fest the media has had with him is slowly going away. More and more, i'm reading that he's getting the heat from liberals now. But that's only in the media and gov't. The left in the public sector are still wearing their blinders and bowing to every move he makes.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:50 am

What he said was out of order, not because of what he said, but because of his position. We expect it from the media, but we don't expect it from world leaders... at least, not from those that do not lead banana republics and tin pot dictatorships.

His coldness toward us has been noticed by all sections of the media here. Personally I don't care because I find this whole "special relationship" forced and false, a propaganda piece for the Bush-Blair platonic marriage. I also think we need to forge stronger ties with Europe in order to make the EU work better than it has. the EU is our major import and export market, not the US.

But back to Obama's attitude toward Britain, I wondered at the time whether his iciness toward Gordon Brown was a case of "I'm not getting too involved with you, your government isn't likely to last through the next election". I guess we will see when he meets 'Davey Dave' Cameron in person for the first time.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:49 pm

You're starting to see the arrogance of Obama. Bush had his arrogance with going to war without help and then asking for it later. But this president is out in the open with it. People are taking notice here. I know you're over there and i'm here and because of that, one can be slightly detached from it. But the thing is, our politics and policies do affect the globe. His attitude towards BP is counter-productive. Sometimes i think he's acting that way to pacify the far left in this country. At other times, i think he's just that way. It's ok to be tough and all that but there's a time and place for it.

All i can say is that i can't stand Obama's policies on many things but that i also liked the man personally. The latter is starting to fade from me. I'm starting to dislike the man overall. It's hard fr people to separate politics from personal things. I can like people who' politics are absolutely 180 degrees from me. But there comes a point that it's fades away.

I look for Obama to be more humble when the GOP smokes the Dems this fall in the mid-terms.

Btw, i found your elections fascinating a few weeks ago.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:10 am

I'm also wondering whether his hard line against BP is a general hardline against oil companies. He is attempting, remember, to push the green aspect of his presidency and invest in clean fuels for the future. If he didn't crack down on BP, was he concerned that he might lose the support of the green lobby? or those university departments expecting funding for future fuels? Food for thought.

TexasBlue wrote:Btw, i found your elections fascinating a few weeks ago.

Thanks. So did we. I'd never seen anything like it. I know our system is complicated, but I think the result of this election has allowed people (including ourselves) to see how it works a lot better than anybody could ever have explained it before. I was glued to BBC News and the newspapers for a couple of weeks after that just to see what was going to happen next.

I can imagine that a coalition is still a strange concept on your side of the pond though and until you have a major third party, it will remain a strange concept that the major party in the election would make a pact with the third place finisher in order to form a government.

by **TexasBlue** Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:15 pm

I think his hard line is actually how he feels. He's a left wing president and the most left wing we've had since Roosevelt or even Carter. Because of that, he'll be a one-termer.

But he may be trying to win favors with the green movement here. I don't know if it's working. I'm reading more things by the leftists over (yes, i read these sites) and week by week, they're getting more pissed off at him as time goes by.

It is a strange concept to us here because it's so different than what we have here. I'll still take mine over yours but it's none the less fascinating.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:17 pm

TexasBlue wrote:It is a strange concept to us here because it's so different than what we have here. I'll still take mine over yours but it's none the less fascinating.

That's fair enough. Personally I prefer a political system that changes according to necessity. I'm not sure I'd like having a rigid constitution as it could potentially become counterproductive at some point. Our political system is likely to change to make the voting system more reflective of the results in future.

by **TexasBlue** Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:06 pm

I wouldn't say our constitution is rigid or unmoving. It mostly places what rights we as citizens have and what the gov't is allowed to do and not do. It was drafted by the states back then.

I think i'll post the Bill of Rights and the amendments so you can see what they are. I'll bold the relevant stuff.

by Sponsored content

Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP

Re: Cameron must stop Obama's anti-British attacks on BP