Printable View
Well, Obama said he wanted to stop the contractual agreement involving BP, as in, British Pensioners, by stopping Beyond-Petroleums dividends.
He also called it British Petroleum, when 2/3rd's of its staff are American, even the board of the directors, trying to sweep up an anti-British mood to look though and gain support for the November elections and other such popularist American rabble nonsense.
Now you're getting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Colonists, not natives. You are going to send Megas into a fit. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Oh, not like Obama's rhetoric so much any more now that you're on the receiving end? :evil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
CR
You mean, using the same rhetoric Bush used?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Plus, your point is invalid as it assumes I loved his rhetoric when I haven't, I only said it is a positive improvement over Bush in the past.
How is it "rhetoric" to refer to BP as British Petroleum?
Populism, of any kind, suxxorz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
IMHO
They changed their name, officially, to just 'BP' a while back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
Well that's got nothing to do with anything.Quote:
You mean, using the same rhetoric Bush used?
No, I said 'liked', not loved. And it was not intended as serious debate.Quote:
Plus, your point is invalid as it assumes I loved his rhetoric when I haven't, I only said it is a positive improvement over Bush in the past.
Generally yes.Quote:
Populism, of any kind, suxxorz.
CR
Whatever, it's not like the exploitation cares very much who is being exploited as long as it got some good ROI?Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Much like your snippy backhanded 'contribution' which was inaccurate in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I could call you out on this, but I will just say you ill-advisely stated it, simply because I have a preference for Democrat over Republican in the two-party state or think he is currently doing a better job than Bush jr did.Quote:
No, I said 'liked', not loved. And it was not intended as serious debate.
Actually, to be fair to you Beskar, you've always struck me as one of those Euros who prefer Obama to Bush and the American Right, while at the same time classifying Obama as a Moderate or Moderate-Conservative by your own standards/goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Now, on to the other hat:
CR, Beskar:
If you two simply must continue to snipe at one another, take it to PM please.
I can't argue with that, it seems pretty accurate to a tee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think I once spoke to Lemur about it, and we joked that Maggie Thatcher was classed as a Socialist by American standards.
:bow:Quote:
If you two simply must continue to snipe at one another, take it to PM please.
That reminds me actually, I am not sure if there is a way for the American viewers to see it, but Obama's remarks were brought up on Question Time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...me_10_06_2010/
What is also interesting, Ideological wise, I would describe Katie Hopkins as having similar views to Crazed Rabbit (Very Pro-Privatisation and Free-Market). Unfortunately, if I had to classify myself some one there, the closest would be Salma Yaqoob based on the talk itself.
Yikes. When even die-hard bastions of liberalism like Rolling Stone are after you, you know you've got a serious PR problem if you're working for the Obama administration.
Quote:
Like the attacks by Al Qaeda, the disaster in the Gulf was preceded by ample warnings – yet the administration had ignored them. Instead of cracking down on MMS, as he had vowed to do even before taking office, Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the agency's culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous drilling operations by BP – a firm with the worst safety record of any oil company – with virtually no environmental safeguards, using industry-friendly regulations drafted during the Bush years. He calibrated his response to the Gulf spill based on flawed and misleading estimates from BP – and then deployed his top aides to lowball the flow rate at a laughable 5,000 barrels a day, long after the best science made clear this catastrophe would eclipse the Exxon Valdez.
It only gets worse from there... :shame:Quote:
Even after the president's press conference, Rolling Stone has learned, the administration knew the spill could be far worse than its "best estimate" acknowledged. That same day, the president's Flow Rate Technical Group – a team of scientists charged with establishing the gusher's output – announced a new estimate of 12,000 to 25,000 barrels, based on calculations from video of the plume. In fact, according to interviews with team members and scientists familiar with its work, that figure represents the plume group's minimum estimate. The upper range was not included in their report because scientists analyzing the flow were unable to reach a consensus on how bad it could be. "The upper bound from the plume group, if it had come out, is very high," says Timothy Crone, a marine geophysicist at Columbia University who has consulted with the government's team. "That's why they had resistance internally. We're talking 100,000 barrels a day."
The median figure for Crone's independent calculations is 55,000 barrels a day – the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez every five days. "That's what the plume team's numbers show too," Crone says. A source privy to internal discussions at one of the world's top oil companies confirms that the industry privately agrees with such estimates. "The industry definitely believes the higher-end values," the source says. "That's accurate – if not more than that." The reason, he adds, is that BP appears to have unleashed one of the 10 most productive wells in the Gulf. "BP screwed up a really big, big find," the source says. "And if they can't cap this, it's not going to blow itself out anytime soon."
Even worse, the "moratorium" on drilling announced by the president does little to prevent future disasters. The ban halts exploratory drilling at only 33 deepwater operations, shutting down less than one percent of the total wells in the Gulf. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Cabinet-level official appointed by Obama to rein in the oil industry, boasts that "the moratorium is not a moratorium that will affect production" – which continues at 5,106 wells in the Gulf, including 591 in deep water.
Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components – a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to "catastrophic" errors. In a May 19th letter to Salazar, 26 congressmen called for the rig to be shut down immediately. "We are very concerned," they wrote, "that the tragedy at Deepwater Horizon could foreshadow an accident at BP Atlantis."
The administration's response to the looming threat? According to an e-mail to a congressional aide from a staff member at MMS, the agency has had "zero contact" with Atlantis about its safety risks since the Deepwater rig went down.
What is truly fascinating to me is that unlike Bush with Katrina, where the media immediately seized on a narrative of incompetence regardless of the facts, Obama went into this disaster with quite a bit of support from both the Left and the Right. Through sheer incompetence, both in actually managing the disaster and in PR, he squandered that initial good will and is suffering the worst poll numbers of his presidency. As much as I dislike the man's policies, I was prepared to give him a pass on this, but he has actually been a highly ineffectual leader. Very disconcerting, although not surprising I suppose.
Very easy to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
BP is known as BP. And yes indeed, they used to be named British Petroleum, but no more. BP is nowadays very "multinational", and I do believe it is more US controlled (don't have exact figures at hand, so might be wrong, anyone?).
However, by using the phrase British Petroleum instead of BP he tried to shift the burden of guilt over to jolly good old England. A jab in the nuts for the commonwealth.
Basically, cheap rhetorics to blame-shift - "Don't look at me, they did it!"
The sad thing is that many (if not most?) Americans will fall into such cheap traps, and disregard questions such as how could WE have let this happen in the first place. Please do bear in mind exactly where this happened and under what legislation, to try to blame-shift Britain seems feeble, to say the least.
Skimming the thread, are we?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Secondly, I realize that playing the ref is a thirty-year tradition in the rightwing playbook, but don't you ever get tired of declaring every news source that isn't WorldNetDaily or National Review to be a Tool of Teh Evil Libruls? I know you're young, but you have heard of P.J. O'Rourke, yes? I'll let you take guesses as to who published him for the majority of his career. Yes, the "die-hard bastion of liberalism." Not that this will cause you cognitive dissonance, but still, it bears mentioning.
Very much so. I've drifted in and out between the hybrid discussion and the spat over whether the B in BP is "beyond" or "British". My apologies, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You must be confusing me with someone else.Quote:
Secondly, I realize that playing the ref is a thirty-year tradition in the rightwing playbook, but don't you ever get tired of declaring every news source that isn't WorldNetDaily or National Review to be a Tool of Ten Evil Libruls?
O'Rourke? Really? He's your example of balance at RS? In any event, you are aware that he left RS a decade ago, correct?Quote:
I know you're young, but you have heard of P.J. O'Rourke, yes? I'll let you take guesses as to who published him for the majority of his career. Yes, the "die-hard bastion of liberalism." Not that this will cause you cognitive dissonance, but still, it bears mentioning.
As for my claim of a liberal slant at RS, and especially an affinity towards Obama, I'll let you be the judge...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What's a TV? Its a television. What's a PC? Its a personal computer. What's a BP? Why, sir, its British Petroleum. Everyone knows this, its not a secret. Regardless of what they are "officially" called, BP still stands for British Petroleum. They are one and the same, and anyone trying to look into more into the phrasing is doing so with an agenda at heart. Tell me, have you seen anyone blame the commonwealth for the spill? Any? And yes, I believe this is at the fault of BP. Their property, not the US Gov't. Blaming legislation for the what was a failure by the company is a cheap cop-out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Where to start on this one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
A TV is a television, I give you that one. Well done you! I applaud your effort.
However, BP is not a short form of British Petroleum, although it was up until the year 2000.
BP became very much international, currently only 40% of shareholders are British.
As they changed the name from British Petroleum to BP they also coined a new corporate slogan, "Beyond Petroleum". Short form of that would be BP.
So, so much for your endearing claim.
As to the second part of your post, the one in bold - one might argue that legislation exist to put a leash on company's such as BP, you know, to keep them from (as a strictly theoretical example, of course) cause huge amounts of damage.
Thank you for your time though, it is refreshing to hear from someone else than my intellectual friends.
You really are a mean person aren't you kadagar. And a very self sure one as well. If you thought about what you said you would probably realize that 40 percent of a companies shares is often a controlling margin disbarringeveryone else who owns stock being against you.
Furthermore bp is in fact an international company with operations in far more than just the usa.
Finally my "most brained" (as you would so eloquently say) friend there who says bp didn't work around the legislation. We already know they weren't really prepared for something like this despite what they say.
The new question is, "should the us ban off shore drilling"
Hell no possibly the most kneejerk reaction I have ever seen absolute rubbish "solution"
Google search: British Petroleum. First hit? www.bp.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Yahoo search? www.bp.com/gulfofmexicoresponse
Bing? www.bp.com
British Petroleum = BP. :book: Also, you seem to have this odd fixation with the national makeup of the company. How exactly is that relevant to the oil spill? Do you actually think people would be less upset if it was an American based company who screwed up? Or have you been sleeping through the financial crisis? Forget about Enron? Or, for a more pertinent example, Exxon?
So, legislation should be there to prevent a company from doing damage? So you're next leap in logic is that it is not the company's fault for doing damage?Quote:
As to the second part of your post, the one in bold - one might argue that legislation exist to put a leash on company's such as BP, you know, to keep them from (as a strictly theoretical example, of course) cause huge amounts of damage.
Clearly.Quote:
Thank you for your time though, it is refreshing to hear from someone else than my intellectual friends.
I believe that in Britain, it seems to have become something of a national concern, the idea that Obama and co. are happily Brit bashing is starting to take hold especially after the percieved insult he did us when returing the bust of Churchill to the British embassy. I suppose if anything it may now be simply a matter of diplomacy and statesmanship if Obama were to cease calling BP British Petroleum and stop making statements like the one in which he said he wanted to "kick ass", it comes across as infantile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
It may also be advisable if the American media stopped pandering to hysteria and perhaps shut up a bit, especially after what happened at Bhopal, looks highly ridiculous.
And I would say that Britain has little to fear- I see little possibility that the two countries will cease their "special" relationship. I haven't been keeping super close tabs exactly on the number of times he's specifically said "British petroleum", but I seem to recall most of the references in fact being BP. Its fuss over nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar
As for the media and Bhopal... well, telling the media to quiet down, regardless of how silly they might look is a fruitless endeavor. One only needs to oggle at Glenn Beck's ratings to see that the silly and preposterous is extremely profitable... somehow. Obviously this doesn't compare at all to Bhopal, but it is a disaster in its own right. That it doesn't compare to one of the worst disasters ever(if not worst) does not mean its utterly unimportant either. Plus, with 24 hour news, agencies are dying for time to fill. Its either the oil spill, or the 79th annual Clarke county frisbee competition. Blame Ted Turner, if you wish.
my answer in bold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
What I don't deserve a response ;) I accept that as an admission of defeat :clown:
Prove you wrong? What's to prove wrong?
Obama referred to BP as British Petroleum, which they are commonly known by. You are the one assigning connotation. Now, since you seem to love proof, can you prove to me that the connotation was that the British are all at fault?
Could the government have done more? Sure, that's possible. By requiring the proper valve-thingy or whatever that safety hatch device was that BP didn't install, damage could have been lessened. However, blame first and foremost lies with the company.
Yes you obviously won. Well done you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Well, either my connotations were wrong, or you have a president who go by 10 year old facts. Either or would be quite scary, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
And no, the point you should take from previous thread was not that the connotation was that the British were all at fault, rather an attempt to shift the burden from legislation to... ... (wont repeat myself, re-read my post).
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Looks like the point was that he was shifting the blame to Britain to me. Oh, and a cheap snipe at Americans. :book: Anyways, yeah, legislation probably could have done something. But, like I said, and the point you refuse to admit to, is that BP is ultimately the ones who bear the most responsibility. Their handicraft was ultimately what failed to prevent the spill, not the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Oh, and 10 year old facts? More like 10 year old name. People refer to old names all the time. Hell, my dad still calls the White Sox ballpark Comiskey, even though that concept died under corporate sponsorship long ago. So, hardly concerning.
Not really. Amazingly, most Americans don't keep up with annual corporate rebranding efforts. Obama was reflecting how most Americans view BP, based on nearly 50 years of the old name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Actually, many in Britain do have alot to fear, and many also wish for us to finally start talking to the U.S as equals, something which has not be seen to be done since Suez, I must admit that this issue of the endandgerment of the special relationship comes more from Britain than the U.S, I think many do actually wish for our PM to do what Hugh Grant did in Love Actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaseikhaan
Obama's rhetoric. although helping to stem a tide of, unfair, anger directed at him, is nonethless endagering the willingness of his nation's closest ally to remain just that.
I think, ultimately(although certainly I have no proof either way), that Obama's reference is explained by PJ. Americans don't keep up on re-branding efforts for the most part, especially when they're so vague- BP becoming... BP. Yes, a different BP, but there's really not much of a connection to "Beyond Petroleum". I really don't have much more to offer than that and to say that its not something to be looked into too much. Now, what does bear watching are the possible stock and dividend consequences. From what I've heard, a fair number of UK citizens have a vested interest in the company. My guess is that's the more immediate source of concern. Last I heard, BP stock is not taking this well. Not that I'm accusing people of the UK of being greedy- but if you've invested money, you certainly wouldn't want to see it disappear because of what could possibly be perceived as the interference of a foreign gov't.Quote:
Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar
Reminds me of the innocent Germans getting blamed for something before they were even born.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
So you think he should have made the entire national guard dive down to the leak right away? I think there is a difference between sending aid to a city and fixing a leak 1500 hands (feet?) below sea level when not even the experts have any idea or equipment to do it. What exactly can he do? Dive down himself and tell the oil that by presidential edict it has to stop coming out of the pipe? Sending helicopters to evacuate people sounds a lot easier to me. I don't even get what they criticise now about his "crisis management"? What can he manage? Should he have the BP executives and their scientists tortured until they come up with a way to stop the leak?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Seriously, what can he really do to stop the leak? Or should he have the navy collect all the oil? Does the Navy even have any means to handle oil leaks other than firing tons of explosives into it?
I mean just tell me WHAT he should do? With Katrina that was pretty clear and simple but here I seriously have no idea? :inquisitive:
And concerning the name, I also thought it was British Petroleum, and I work for Aral, which is their brand in Germany. :laugh4:
So the American leadership resorts the the usual tactic, blame someone other than yourself. The situation would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. Successive US administrations have invited oil companies to come and drill up their shore line, all for the lust of that black substance which keeps America moving. Quite frankly, it was only a matter of time till something like this happened. Let me guess, if it was Dutch Shell at the other end and not BP, would the Dutch leader be receiving a phone call? Or is it just those damn colonials which did it to undermine American interests?
But alas, Obama puts on his mean face and lashes out at "those British". If one good thing will come from the spill, hopefully its a complete collapse of the "special relationship", better known as the "you jump, we say how high relationship". Quite frankly this relationship has been pretty rotten since Suez and the only time its ever been working properly is the Maggie and Ronnie show. You might say Blair and Bush worked well if they weren't both idiots and weren't disliked by the majority of their respective electorate.
So maybe the spill might cause a rift which means we don't have to talk for a few months, you know, till your begging us for more troops in Afghanistan. Of course, will do as your say and everything will be restored in this world. All this depends on Mr Cameron having the balls to stand up to Obama, which of course, he wont. I feel I speak on the part of perhaps a majority of Britain's when I say the attempts to incriminate us are ridiculous and hopefully this will cause the rift in the relationship many desire. I personally don't want anything to do with the special relationship. I deplore it, I think we get shafted by it and quite frankly it completely undermines what little dignity we have left as a country. Funnily enough, "those Europeans" are a lot more sound than the Yanks these days. Hopefully we'll wake up and see that soon.
I'm sorry, is this all in reaction to the President saying "British Petroleum," or is there more to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Another notch to add to the belt of years of being degraded as a country in the name of the "Atlantic Alliance". Tell me, how would you feel to the relationship if you were on the other side of the ocean? In all fairness to Obama however he isn't worse than the last guy. It was a complete outrage that as millions marched in London in protest to a war that easily the majority of British people didn't want, our respective leaders were snuggling up on the sofa, claiming it was in both our countries interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As I said, I think the relationship is completely unhealthy and should be ditched. It's almost a totally one way thing. Then again, that's just my opinion. I'm sure many will feel differently but I cant help but feel this recent attempt by Obama to blame someone shows a complete lack of disregard for what's supposedly meant to be "Americas best ally". You are aware he's ringing Cameron today to give him a talking down? What exactly does that aim to serve other than appealing to what seems to be quite a healthy anti-British sentiment by some within the US who are more than happy to see us as culpable and responsible.
Maybe Obama should do his homework. There's nothing Cameron or any other British person can do. The majority of BP share holders are, surprise, surprise, are Americans.
I wonder, would anybody hesiate to call ExxonMobil or Chevron US companies?
No matter how global BP is - it is headquartered in the UK and I think it paid 6 billion USD of corporate taxes in the UK last year.
What would the raection have been if BP had decided 1 or 2 years ago to move headquarters to the US? would there have been an outcry about a "British" company leaving the country?
Or maybe its to do with the fact phoning our PM to take action is futile because BP is a private country. Its irrelevant where the headquarters is, the only reason its still here is because BP could never be bothered to move it. And no, there wouldn't of been an outcry if BP did relocate to America. Over the last 20 years nearly all the major industries which were once state owned in this country have become privatised, usually being bought out by the far East. Most people don't seem to mind this and acknowledge that as companies become privatised, a burden is taken off the state and as responsibility for the company moves from the public into the hands of private investors, it means the state, as a whole, which Obama's phone call to the PM seeks to highlight, has no further responsibility for that company or its actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
The only thing possibly connecting BP to the state is that a tiny majority of its shareholders are "ordinary people", encouraged by Mrs Thatcher to buy up shares as part of the "share-owning democracy". They account for a tiny % of the company however and most of their money has gone into pensions which will probably be hit quite heavy when the bill for BP's clean-up arrives.
BP ownership structure December 31, 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
(assuming the data is correct as BP apparently is not able to get its pie charts right...)
Yanno what'd be funny? The White House sends 10 Downing a bill for BP cleanup, and The Brits mail back some of their US 30-year Treasuries - of which they are the #2 holders in the world (after China).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
So the % difference in terms of companies/ institutions with a stake in BP is 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
All this still doesn't take away from my main point. What does the British Government have to do with this? Or do you believe somehow that because BP pays taxes to the UK government, the UK government some how has responsibility? When an individual pays taxes to the government does that make them responsible for the actions of the government? Or does that make the state responsible for actions of the individual as they pay taxes to the government?
The answer is no. Its privately owned and thus not our PM's responsibility. Obama needs to go find someone else to attack his fire at to help take the heat of the Gulf fishermen off his back. I heard there were some Chinese guys working on the rig when this all went off. Maybe we can blame them. Or here's a better idea. Keep to vocal criticism up on BP but leave the PM out of it. The last thing we need from the US is another b-slap to make us look even more incapable of forging our own direction as a country than we already are.
Hehehe, I guess the hopey-changey honeymoon is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
OK, perhaps I am missing something here. Did Obama ask the British Government to take responsibility? From what I gathered in this thread and in the news the discussion was about Obama refferring to "British Petroleum" instead of just BP. The reaction here seemed to be that not only stopped BP referring to itself as British Petroleum but that it also actually should not be considered a British company. The latter is clearly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
He didn't ask them to take responsibility, but he is certainly looking to shift some of the blame onto them. What other reason does he have to phone "call me Dave"? As a general rule of thumb too, the Americans never ring us unless they want something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
I thought that call was a call that had been arranged anyway and that the BP situation would be one topic (especially as the tensions grew in the last days). Is there any source for "Obama calling Cmaeron about BP" (to shift blame to the British Government)?Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
There seemed to be some furor about the demand that BP should cut dividend to pay for the damage. Anything unreasonable about that?
It greatly affects British pensioners who are dependant on the dividend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
So you are actively punishing poor old people.
So it seems BP is very British after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Sorry, but if you are investing in a company you are not only participating in their profits, you also take the risk if the company messes things up and has to pay for it.
The risk was in the privatisation, it was one of the clauses tied into it. Then I disapproved the privatisation in the first-place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Please elaborate - how would British pensioners have fared better without the privatisation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Meh. I really don't get the kaffuffle. There may be one or two ejits pointing fingers in this general direction, but unless I'm mistaken none of them are in office. And it's hardly surprising. Were the tables turned and a largely (if not wholely, or technically) American company behind an ecological disaster at our shores we'd probably be burning American flags and shouting anti-US slogans at every opportunity. It's a none issue, with tempers raised by the populist press and bumbling politicians.
That said, I'd be chuffed to see Anglo-American relations cool a tad, and our government pluck up the balls to break with past policy of clinging so tightly to Washington's skirts. This, however, is not a good reason to do so. A desire to pursue an independent foreign policy? A good reason. Anger at their even handedness (how dare they!) in a heated diplomatic exchange re: our territorial claims? Yeah, I'd go with that. Some important fellow in a monochrome mansion making use of an unofficial yet appropriate name? That, I'm afraid, is just pathetic.
BP is a largely American company, especially since the merger with Amoco. With over 2/3rds of the company and board of directors being American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Because all the incidents happened after the privatisation, thus, it wouldn't have occured in the first place. Even more amusing, all the incidents on BP's record occured after the merger with Amoco.Quote:
Please elaborate - how would British pensioners have fared better without the privatisation?
Pure conjecture. Is there anything tangible to back up this claim? I think there are are plenty of examples that companies with a significant shares held by the government mess up as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Wow.
All this because President Obama referred to a company that operated in America for 56 years as British Petroleum as.... British Petroleum? Such outrage might be valid if they had changed their name to something completely different, but what exactly is BP supposed to reference? Does FedEx not mean Federal Express anymore?Quote:
Has the worm turned at last? As the oil continues to gush in the Gulf of Mexico, angry rhetoric has gushed from President Barack Obama's lips. His rabid denunciations of BP have damaged the interests not only of that company but of most British people, in a way that must make us wonder whether he leads a friendly country.
Vince Cable, the new Business Secretary, calls Obama's rhetoric 'extreme and unhelpful'; London mayor Boris Johnson says it's 'anti-British', adding that 'BP is paying a very, very heavy price indeed'.
Bemusingly, David Cameron says only that he understands the U.S. administration's 'frustration', although he promises to take up the matter with Obama, after the Prime Minister returns from Afghanistan - where British troops are fighting and dying on behalf of the United States, it may be recalled.
'Extreme and unhelpful' is no exaggeration. Obama has played to the gallery by saying that he would like to sack Tony Hayward, head of BP; the president talks in a cheap way about 'kicking ass'. Whether or not the American president can kick our asses, he can certainly hurt our wallets and purses.
As BP's share price has plummeted, it has lost £55billion of its market value, and the company's entire outlook is very bleak, which affects most of us. Every British insurance company, building society and pension fund has large holdings of BP shares in its portfolio.
If you have a pension, at present or in prospect, your income falls with every sour word Obama speaks. It's a fine way for a friend to behave, if indeed we should regard the president as a friend.
His rhetoric is repellently hypocritical as well as demagogic. Quite apart from the fact that Hayward and his colleagues have every interest in plugging the spill, for years past BP has filled Washington's coffers with tax revenue, and fed the American people's unquenchable thirst for cheap petrol.
When Obama continually refers to BP as 'British Petroleum', which is no longer its formal name, he is saying something revealing about himself, and his Anglophobic spite will come as no surprise to those who have followed his career, and read his memoir Dreams From my Father.
He seems to have made up the part about his father being tortured by the British in Kenya, but there's no question that Obama nurses a disdain for and even dislike of this country.
And if Obama had set out to malign Britain over some deep seeded hatred, according to the shareholder percentages by nationality, he is hurting Americans just as much.
There are plenty of substantive issues with the way the Obama administration is handling this. Read the article Lemur posted and I unthinkingly reposted. This, however, is not one of them - and such attacks against Obama are asinine and hopefully not supported by the majority.
Couldn't agree more. I'm surprised that so many brits are getting worked up about this. BP must accept responsibility for the oil spill, but what's that got to do with the responsibility of the British people?
You are linking the Daily Mail again :whip:, everyone who is British on this forum depises it. It is a hate mongering paper. It is the British version of fox news and should be flushed down the toliet.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
BBC news, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, kin, there are new sources out there which are respectable opposed to tabloid trash.
Obama, Cameron discuss BP. Me thinks there's some hysterical politics being played in the UK and US. It's all about the pr. Many US pension funds also stand to lose a bundle. BP can generate huge amounts of revenue and is worth far more alive than dead. Let's see, create fear in BP's ability to survive this disaster and drive down the price. Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.
By George, I think 'e's got it.Quote:
Government then eases up on the rhetoric just after the Titans of Industry & Finance snap up those cheap shares and shazam.
So: lesson learnt, eh? Money will always out.
One-one tie in the WC for US V UK. Sportsman's result or Political ploy? You be teh judge.
Cynicism aside. Really. Thanks for all you Laddies have given. Your Grampas' lives, your heritage, your money, your tendency toward shucking it all and starting anew. We picked those up and ran with them, like a schoolboy with the newly-found ball (a bit uncertain in which way to run... but running for Hell nevertheless!).
Glad I am not the only one who thinks this/ :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill
I've heard a lot of talk about foreign help being turned down- glad to see they finally ended that stupidity.Quote:
Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.
assumption of guilt/liability coloured by political views?
interesting article:
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/artic...rty_lines.html
The Conservatives are at it again, sucking on the teet of big oil, greasing up on the ol' backhanded funnelling of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
And what are you sucking on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Just like the poor old pensioners, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
when BP pays pensions pensions privately which the gov't cannot afford to pay publicly, and when they pay tax that allows our wonderful social security system to function, i damn well expect them suck HARD on that teat, even if it's the hindmost one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Could you detail how the average conservative poll respondent is getting greased up on money funnelled from big oil?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I don't know if the poll responses are so much colored by political views as a person's base values that form their political beliefs also form their responses to stuff like this. Of course the option that BP is not at fault - that this could have happened to anyone - is incorrect. Such incidents of late have only happened to them because of how they operate.
In related news, I was much amused by the 'deadline' for BP to come up with a new plan to contain the oil. As though they were just lollygagging before and a government official saying there's a deadline will make them suddenly work harder.
Also, one city gets fed up with the unified command buearacracy in responding to the oil spill:
CRQuote:
Curry said what the commissioners did Monday was “send a loud and clear message” to the Coast Guard, the state Department of Environmental Protection and others that Okaloosa County’s permit requests should be acted on immediately.
The commission met in an emergency meeting alongside the Destin City Council. The two governing bodies confronted a full room of obviously frustrated people, many of whom advocated filling in the entrance of the pass to close it down completely.
It was agreed that filling in the pass was a bad idea that could have serious environmental impacts.
Jay Prothro, BP’s representative for Okaloosa County, and two representatives of the Coast Guard were also present.
While Martha LaGuardia, a commander with the Coast Guard, argued that moving ideas and plans through the chain of command was the proper way to do things, Harris made it known the County Commission was tired of the often tedious and sometimes unproductive bureaucracy.
“We’ve played the game. We’re done playing the game,” he said.
Are you suggesting they give such responses without having to be bribed? It is a crime! these poor conservatives choosing theQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
stupidincorrect choices without having be paid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Both irrelevant points. Pension has nothing to do with the poll responses, which even as CR said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
"Of course the option that BP is not at fault - that this could have happened to anyone - is incorrect."
So the fact conservative respondants are putting that down as their answer? It isn't pensions, and accusing them of being bribed is me being nice, because the alternative is that they must be....
Feel free to finish off that sentence.
Not at all, it is an intelligent political move. He IS rather adroit at Chicago-school politics, PJ, and this is one example of maximizing the political gain from a situation. What do you think his career is, anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Remember, Obama is part of the camp that believes government control is as good or better than private control of resources in many ways -- notably equitable distribution; that only government mandate can initiate change in time to avert a crisis as the free market is responsive and not proactive; and, that only a strong central government is positioned to make the necessary changes and therefore needs to acquire the power necessary to fulfill its responsibilities.
From that rubric, how could he NOT leverage this issue to achieve the end state he and his peers believe to be in the best interests of the USA?
Thomas Friedman disagrees.
Come to think of it, I too disagree. Yet again free enterprise shows itself willing to have America's children wallow in polluted filth, like some nine-year old Indian girls recycling batteries, or Niger delta dwellers.
But shame on the government for interfering with it. Such power-grabbing. What nerve to protect the health, safety and environment of American citizens.
Poor HoreTore thought I was having a stab at Norway in that other thread, whereas I was really being quite complimentary: the difference between Venezuela or Nigeria and Norway is a strong state, ran by and for its citizens, instead of operating for big oil, letting itself be exploited for the benefit of private interest. America, I am not so sure. Not quite sure where on the line running from Nigeria to Norway it sits.
It was the government that capped certain damages at $75 million, not the free market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
And aside from the hyperbole, that's why we have the legal system and class action lawsuits.
CR
To the contrary, I think this was a clumsy, highly transparent move, and very obviously political. I don't see it changing any mind either. He didn't adequately connect the oil spill to cap and tax (which would bend logic more than even his impressive rhetorical skills could manage). And on a completely different level, it takes quite a bit of gall, while the oil is still pouring into the Gulf, to seize on these people's misfortune to pimp stillborn legislation that can only be tangentially linked to the disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If I was a resident of the area, I would be pretty pissed off if the president used what had to be between a third and a half of his time that was billed as an update on the oil spill situation to push legislation with a primary focus on taxing coal.
I guess it doesn't matter though, they're already beyond angry at Obama's response.
@CR: except that it assumes everyone involved has sufficient financial backbone to see through a 10 year legal battle against BP? Not to mention that there is damage which is not quite as easily repaired by a big, fat stash of greasy banknotes or the equivalent of a class action lawsuitvictorysettlement.
With a bit of bad luck 50 years from now the local inhabitants will still be dealing with the environmental (and by extension financial) backlash.
It is not relevant to the poll results - it is a response to your post which was not at all relevant to the poll either but rather seemd to be a cheap shot without any facts behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You are implying that the conservative responses were driven by benefits they receive from "big oil", while before you were lamenting that it would be poor pensioners who would suffer if BP would be forced to cut the dividend.
So what is your view on BP's responsibility? I think I made clear that I believe that they are very much responsible for the current mess and that they should pay for it.
What is your view? Should they pay or should they not (to protect the interests of British pensioners). It is somewhat difficult to eat the cake and keep it.
I completely agree with the principle and practice of seizing corporate assets of companies who screw up big time. However I wonder if this is going to be an 'exceptional case' because it's a British sounding company doing something bad near/in the US.
Will the same principle be applied if, for example, Namibia wanted to seize US company assets if they caused an ecological disaster? I very, very, very much doubt it.
Hah - of course not. One of my colleagues in India was actually quite puzzled to see how the very existance of BP seems to be jeopardized (considering e.g., the reactions on the stock market) while Union Carbide got away with a rather "mild" settlement of 470 mUSD 5 years (!) after BhopalQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
The Bhopal disaster was complicated by the ownership structure of the site if I remember correctly but I could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Deliberately obfuscated, rather than complicated I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Hyperbole? What hyperbole? I was being perfectly nuanced and rational. :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The problems with litigation management of risk instead of solid regulation are twofold:
Enterprise becomes a casino. Environmental and safety measures are costly. Thus, by necessity, a corporation must operate at the limit of what is legally allowed, lest a cheaper competitor moves in. Operating in this manner, odds are greatly enhanced that something will go wrong. In which case disaster ensues, and the corporation is sued into oblivion. This does not create a functioning market, it creates a casino.
(Government is not anti-market. A government creates a market, decides the kind of market. In resource and oil, roughly: strong refulation, strictly enforced, creates a market in which corporations compete on innovation and efficiency (Nordic market). Weak regulation, strictly enforced, creates a casino (US market). Weak regulation, wantonly enforced, creates exploitation and corruption (Nigeria market).)
Litigation happens after the fact. The idea is not to find compensation for damages, the point is to prevent damages. Environenmental and health disasters have effects that can not be undone, regardless of the size of financial compensation.
They don't need to cut the dividend in order to exact a punishment on BP, since BP doesn't get hurt by dividends anyway, and shareholders who would benefit from dividends already experienced a over 40% loss on their stocks. There is no need to punish pensioners of both British and Americans nations on-top and contribute to the governments of both nations deficiet, as the government will have to get the money from elsewhere to account for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
So in reality, do you actually want to pay money instead of BP actually paying it? Tell me, I want to know. Do you want a larger deficit, bigger budget, for a cheap shot which only punishes the tax-payers more?
There are other ways to pay, just simply cutting the dividend payout means we get getting nothing from it, and end up just experiencing budget crisis elsewhere. You should extract additional payment or longterm deals for BP to deal with the mess.Quote:
So what is your view on BP's responsibility? I think I made clear that I believe that they are very much responsible for the current mess and that they should pay for it.
What is your view? Should they pay or should they not (to protect the interests of British pensioners). It is somewhat difficult to eat the cake and keep it.
Agreed, Enterprising cowboys who want to do everything as cheap and nasty as possible. What is even worse, when they relocate public sector duties to the private because it is cheaper, which makes me always wonder "Why are they cheaper? How can it actually be cheaper to pay someone to do something yourself?". It is because the private sector does a terrible job at it, and can get away with the taking blame as they get a pocketful compared to a public sector body which would affect polls, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
PJ:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Most politics is not subtle, despite our romanticized view of the process. At its core it boils down to: "help my supporters who got me this gig" and/or "now that I have the power, I'm gonna do what's right (definition almost always subjective on this last)." Chicago school politics is even more bluntly in this category. Incumbents brag about the pork they've brought home and, when opposition rears its head, they squelch it by whatever means available. THAT is where President Obama learned his business. The folderol over Blagovich's apparent retailing of the Senate Seat makes me laugh -- people are reacting as though that WASN'T S-O-P for the area. It was really more of the same-old, same-old and I suspect none of the parties truly thought that it was particularly unethical. Same with the "jobs to stay out of the primary" thing -- that's the way the game is played.
I thought the speech fell short because he didn't take full advantage of the opportunity to hammer the "Make BP pay" theme. THAT is what his supporters and many of those affected want to hear most. He did some of that, but many folks want to hear that BP will be taxed/fined to cover all of the cost of recovery as well as providing subsistence payments to all those impacted by the spill. In addition, the more ardent lefties WANT "cap-and-trade" as a first step to dramatically reducing our carbon output and shifting towards wind, solar, and geo-thermal energy sources (and some of them want that to segway even further into a shift in energy consumption that puts us more in line with other developed nations on a per capita basis).
Obama's goal was to say enough to placate those on his side of the aisle regarding these issues, while not being so overtly anti-corporate as to antagonize the mugwumps and the semi-involved/semi-ignorant who are the mass of the US voting pool. They want the problem to be dealt with decisively (mostly unaware as to what that entails), so he wants to appear decisive on this issue, while still focusing on the leadership goals with which he began his presidency.
All-in-all, he really wasn't speaking to me. After Axelrod's comments on Sunday, I knew they were doing what the government could do: insisting on two relief wells as added safety, providing an ideas group, keeping the pressure on the BP team, and bringing in (however late) others with needed resources. It's not like the government has the tools to do more, the rest is just political agendaneering -- which is what I expected to hear and what I heard last night. Again, I'm a voter but I vote for candidates in the other half of the economic/conservatism end of the scale, so he really has written me off already.
Leadership? A bit, though not ringingly. Effective Politics? Yeah, probably....I just wish he was working towards an end-state I preferred.