The British backlash over President Obama and the BP crisis

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

I was astounded and disgusted at the headlnes in The Express this morning. Right wing rag that it is, and usually so supportive of Washington State Department manipulation, I can't fathom why The Express editor has turned on Obama.

BP is 40% owned by US shareholders. American governments have always protected Wall Street over the victims of disasters. There will be those here who think it is a more complex issue (economics graduates have to try and appear competent) than it really is. The fact is oil companies are above the law; despite our protests they will come out of it all smelling of roses as always. Dollars buy friends.

 

[dandelion]

The UK government has not acted in the last 24 hours to calm down the situation. The action this evening might seem inflamatory. It is in theory possible that we are seeing posturing - the UK government wants to demonstrate that the UK is not the poodle of the USA (which was how the cartoonists saw Blair and Brown). But I don't think Cameron would have chosen this issue to make that point.

I cant imagine either side would want to be starting like this! Today some spokesman said the two planned to talk, but not about the oil spill. Yeah right. Like I believe that.

Then after the election he [Cameron] managed to stitch together the most unlikely coalition.

Actually, it wasnt. I think it was brilliant, but Portillo was touting it on TV before the election and I cant believe he was the only one. It just wasnt timely to suggest openly the possibility of such a thing before polling.

I'm inclined to think he is acting on a plan. The rumour I've heard is that the UK government is interested in buying BP. I have no idea of the practicalities or otherwise of this. Nor can I quite work out why the UK would want BP. Buy cheap, put UK government clout into the legal battles, sell at a profit? Seems unlikely to me. I don't get it, but I think Cameron has a plan.

Well..whenever this started I thought, 'oh dear, what are the consequences of BP going bust?'. If I did, surely there must be someone in the treasury whose job it is to notice this sort of thing and devise a plan for how best to handle it.Extraordinarily enough there are some bright people in the civil service somewhere.

 

[dandelion]

The worst thing that BP could do is start to publicly fight back. Even the Republicans are going to stick with the anti-BP line, even when they could use the "Why is Obama needlessly pissing off an ally?" line.

Only up to a point. If the US president has already said he is going to tear the company to pieces, well, there isnt much point in cooperating with him. BP is cooperating only so far as it is in its interest to do so. If the president makes it clear that he is utterly opposed to Bp, then its time to reach for the lawyers. All those US pension funds are already reaching for their own lawyers to sue BP for failing to safeguard their assets, and this includes safeguarding them against the US government.

 

[maxcok]

Actually his push for more offshore drilling was yet another misguided "centrist" attempt to placate moderate Republicans for a hypothetical anti global warming bill.

That too, like his concessions to Republicans in the Healthcare debates. I didn't say I was happy with it.

his fourth trip to the region in his life? Or since he's been in office?

He hasn't been down there 4 times since the oil leak

This upcoming trip will be his fourth since the explosion.

Try to keep up, doll.

 

[TomCat84]

Only up to a point. If the US president has already said he is going to tear the company to pieces, well, there isnt much point in cooperating with him. BP is cooperating only so far as it is in its interest to do so. If the president makes it clear that he is utterly opposed to Bp, then its time to reach for the lawyers. All those US pension funds are already reaching for their own lawyers to sue BP for failing to safeguard their assets, and this includes safeguarding them against the US government.

Well, if BP's aim is to ensure a boycott by American consumers, then that's what they should do

 

[Jason]

I can't fathom why The Express editor has turned on Obama.

Neither can I. But the newspaper editors know something we don't, or think they do. Yes The Express and The Mail were both pretty much over the top this morning (Fri). But now Saturday's The Times and The Guardian are going for pretty over-the-top stories. These are broadsheet and reputable - and The Guardian is to the left of centre.

Something is brewing. Cameron and Obama talk Sat at 3pm (British Summer Time) so there will presumably be a statement from Whitehall that makes the UK evening news. But I suspect the decision will be made in backrooms before these guys talk, ie is being made tonight. Of course it might just be a fizzle. But I think we are being softened up for something.

Stock tips for BP are on hold and buy (do your own homework if you are interested). Something is happening. And I don't know what!

 

[TomCat84]

I actually think part of all this govt posturing on the US side is due to trying to atone for the mistakes made in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez disaster. There was a multi billion dollar judgment levied against Exxon, which eventually got whittled down to a few million after almost two decades of legal wrangling.

I for one, find it interesting that all of a sudden the Republican Party is demanding a strong federal government response to something.

 

[Jason]

I assume everyone in the USA following the thread has seen John Napier's letter to Obama. I don't think I've spotted a mention of it on this thread. John Napier is president of RSA (insurance company) and his intervention is surprising (and presumably with a nod from the government).

If you haven't seen it yet, here it is:

Dear President Obama,
Please forgive this open letter but your comments towards BP and its CEO as reported here are coming across as somewhat prejudicial and personal.
There is no doubt that BP, as a UK PLC, is totally committed to do everything possible to contain the oil leak and meet all its obligations in the USA.
The existing CEO is the best person to deliver that effort and has made that personal commitment and made himself available in the USA.
In your words, “he has taken the heat” and not hidden in his office. The real response has been total. You could argue a poor PR performance, but BP are not alone in that.
There is a sense here that these attacks are being made because BP is British.
If you compare the damage inflicted on the economies of the western world by polluted securities from the irresponsible, unchecked greed and avarice of leading USA international banks, there has not been the same personalised response in or from countries beyond the US.
Perhaps a case of double standards? Deep sea oil exploration was pushed forward as part of a USA oil security strategy as have a number of foreign policy initiatives in key areas in the world where we are standing shoulder to shoulder.
Whilst we all recognise the seriousness of the situation there is a need to put some balance back into the situation.
Many of us applauded your promise of a new approach to politics, USA foreign policy and world leadership.
Both you and the CEO of BP are caught up in the resolution of issues dealing with the emerging risks of strategies that you did not necessarily determine.
The immediate issues are very challenging but are best solved working together in a more Statesman like way.
The leak may take time to fix, and it will be, but Afghanistan and Iraq will take much longer.
We can all agree that the first and absolute priority is to stem the leak. Perhaps the second one is to ensure the reputation of the Presidency outside the USA is seen as objective, balanced, able and capable of taking the heat when under pressure.
We liked the Obama we saw at your election, can we have more of it please.
Yours sincerely,
John Napier

 

[TomCat84]

I assume everyone in the USA following the thread has seen John Napier's letter to Obama. I don't think I've spotted a mention of it on this thread. John Napier is president of RSA (insurance company) and his intervention is surprising (and presumably with a nod from the government).

If you haven't seen it yet, here it is:

Dear President Obama,
Please forgive this open letter but your comments towards BP and its CEO as reported here are coming across as somewhat prejudicial and personal.
There is no doubt that BP, as a UK PLC, is totally committed to do everything possible to contain the oil leak and meet all its obligations in the USA.
The existing CEO is the best person to deliver that effort and has made that personal commitment and made himself available in the USA.
In your words, “he has taken the heat” and not hidden in his office. The real response has been total. You could argue a poor PR performance, but BP are not alone in that.
There is a sense here that these attacks are being made because BP is British.
If you compare the damage inflicted on the economies of the western world by polluted securities from the irresponsible, unchecked greed and avarice of leading USA international banks, there has not been the same personalised response in or from countries beyond the US.
Perhaps a case of double standards? Deep sea oil exploration was pushed forward as part of a USA oil security strategy as have a number of foreign policy initiatives in key areas in the world where we are standing shoulder to shoulder.
Whilst we all recognise the seriousness of the situation there is a need to put some balance back into the situation.
Many of us applauded your promise of a new approach to politics, USA foreign policy and world leadership.
Both you and the CEO of BP are caught up in the resolution of issues dealing with the emerging risks of strategies that you did not necessarily determine.
The immediate issues are very challenging but are best solved working together in a more Statesman like way.
The leak may take time to fix, and it will be, but Afghanistan and Iraq will take much longer.
We can all agree that the first and absolute priority is to stem the leak. Perhaps the second one is to ensure the reputation of the Presidency outside the USA is seen as objective, balanced, able and capable of taking the heat when under pressure.
We liked the Obama we saw at your election, can we have more of it please.
Yours sincerely,
John Napier

Outside foreign pressure is going to do nothing to sway the image that Obama projects to the American public. There is no way he is going to allow himself to look like he's controlled by foreign interests.

 

[sbat]

Really Sbat, your hyperbole and blatant misrepresentations are starting to put you squarely in the company of certain other prominent posters on the board. Surely that's not how you want to be regarded.

<Sigh> This tired line? I'm open to folks disagreeing with me. But that last bit is really unecessary. You don't hold a monopoly on the truth, and in reality, you know just as much as I do about what goes on in Obama's mind.

If you would point out how anything I've said is hyperbole or blatant misrepresentation, I could debate that with you. But I'm sure it's easier to strongly disagree with someone and simply hyperbolize how far they are from the truth that you so clearly have a monopoly over.

Tell me once where I have claimed that my opinion or assessment represented the totality of my understanding of the issue at hand. The majority of my responses on the BP related threads are limited in scope to the specific comment made by a poster above me.

For example, the comment you're referring to represents my thoughts on ONE dimension of Obama's motivations. I don't think Obama is a one-dimensional person - I've even stated that belief.

But, in spite of all that, if you don't like what I have to say, you don't have to respond to it. At the end of the day, this is an online political forum - it's not an academic journal, or a Congressional committee. It's not that serious.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I for one, find it interesting that all of a sudden the Republican Party is
demanding a strong federal government response to something.

It's politically expedient for them to flip-flop from their historical position against regulation and govt intervention, in an effort to try and hide the fact that it is their own corrupted policies in years past that led to this disaster.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Oh for fuck sake. You can't have it both ways. Before he made his kick ass comment, you Republi-bots were bitching and moaning that he wasn't being harsh enough, that he was being too much the professorial Preisdnet, and fact finding and the like. Now that he shows anger, you bitch and moan about that too. You guys cant help it- you either hate that there's a black president, or you hate that there's a Democratic president (or both), but for some reason, whatever the fuck he does, you jump on him. There is no "rally round the Preisdent" mentality, like there was after 9/11....you would be quite incapable of it. On the one hand, you want government to stay out of the way of business, and for government not to guarantee health care- but on the other hand, you complain about Obama not doing enough. I think he's had the right mix of anger and behind the scenes action. But what the fuck do you want him to do? Congress hauled the companies in question in front of a committee, and they all pointed their fingers at each other. An offshore oil rig EXPLODED, KILLING 11 MEN. It then set off one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of the US, and you're mad at him for not talking to the CEO of BP? For fuck sakes, you'd thunder against him talking to the CEO if he did, saying he was too close to business.

I only want it one way. I want the president to do his job. Not a very good idea to play hardball when millions of jobs are at stake between England and the United States. He ignored all phone calls from BP. He should have been on the phone right way saying look guys we will work together and fix this problem. He did not. Now after 50 days he will speak to the CEO of BP. I find your cursing and racist statements vulgar. We can discuss issues without such talk.I have taken Bush to task as i did the president before him and continue with the next president if i see fit. Bush caught hell over his late reaction to Katrina. Rightfully so.

 

[D_Abraham Slinkin]

This disaster is as much now a British problem as an American one. Almost every single Pension fund as massive investments in BP, BPs share price fall has wiped BILLIONS of peoples Pensions over here - at a time when Pensions have already faced a kicking.

But the fault here is US regulation. In the UK and other countries, safety is ENFORCED. In the USA, it isn't. If a company is legally able to make shortcuts; it will. The fact that the safety precautions taken in almost every other country would have prevented this disaster is outrageous. This is something that should happen in China, I am personally shocked how little the US government is doing. If I was an American taxpayer, I would be wondering why the US government is allowing BP to run the cleanup - their ability to run things has been proved to be none existant, you don't let a muderer gather evidence from his crime do you.
Some dodgy dealings going on here.

 

[Jason]

Pretty much across the board the UK Saturday papers have gone on anti-Obama stories - Have just seen The Independent which has half of the front page on the topic.

The Star goes with the headline "Lets Spank the Yanks" though they might be talking about football.

The sober comment is that it is in no one's interest - UK or US - for BP to go out of business, and that Obama's comment is unhelpful - or bullying, or illegal, or stupid. The less sober comment is that Obama has gone out of his way to hurt Britain and Britain's interest to deflect attention from his own internal problems.

I don't think there could be this sort of media attention without tacit support from the government.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I only want it one way. I want the president to do his job. Not a very good idea to play hardball when millions of jobs are at stake between England and the United States. He ignored all phone calls from BP. He should have been on the phone right way saying look guys we will work together and fix this problem.

And this would have helped how exactly?

Please spell out this alternate reality you dream of.

 

[Jason]

This disaster is as much now a British problem as an American one. Almost every single Pension fund as massive investments in BP, BPs share price fall has wiped BILLIONS of peoples Pensions over here - at a time when Pensions have already faced a kicking.

But the fault here is US regulation. In the UK and other countries, safety is ENFORCED. In the USA, it isn't. If a company is legally able to make shortcuts; it will. The fact that the safety precautions taken in almost every other country would have prevented this disaster is outrageous. This is something that should happen in China, I am personally shocked how little the US government is doing. If I was an American taxpayer, I would be wondering why the US government is allowing BP to run the cleanup - their ability to run things has been proved to be none existant, you don't let a muderer gather evidence from his crime do you.
Some dodgy dealings going on here.

I thinktl991 might have hit on something here.

The emerging UK view is still fragmentary but it does seem to be that the USA is partly (or even primarily) culpable because of a lax enforcement regime - the contrast is with the UK enforcement regime in the North Sea (which is draconian) and where the responsibility for enforcement and safety rests ultimately with the UK government. The UK government may well take the view that the US government is not acknowledging its failings. Presumably this could be fought through the US courts, with numerous UK companies and perhaps the UK government stating that the USA has some or even primary responsibility for the accident. I have no idea what the outcome would be, but I suspect Obama wouldn't like the process.

The economic damage to the UK if BP doesn't pay its dividend or goes pear-shaped is enormous. There's a lot of eonomic damage to the US as well. Obama talking down BP seems senseless.

 

[sbat]

I thinktl991 might have hit on something here.

The emerging UK view is still fragmentary but it does seem to be that the USA is partly (or even primarily) culpable because of a lax enforcement regime - the contrast is with the UK enforcement regime in the North Sea (which is draconian) and where the responsibility for enforcement and safety rests ultimately with the UK government. The UK government may well take the view that the US government is not acknowledging its failings. Presumably this could be fought through the US courts, with numerous UK companies and perhaps the UK government stating that the USA has some or even primary responsibility for the accident. I have no idea what the outcome would be, but I suspect Obama wouldn't like the process.

The economic damage to the UK if BP doesn't pay its dividend or goes pear-shaped is enormous. There's a lot of eonomic damage to the US as well. Obama talking down BP seems senseless.

Let's not forget that Obama is a human. He has an intensity of feeling - this is what allows him to speak so powerfully and empathetically. In this case, to a certain extent, it has gotten the best of him. He takes great pains to present himself in a professional and polished manner, but a person in the spotlight as much as any modern politician is cannot hide themselves fully all the time. His reaction reflects to a certain extent the outrage he feels as an empathetic American citizen.

The convoluted thing is that, just like for September 11, the American public at large would probably be more unsettled by a president that was completely unemotional in his reaction/rhetoric. There is some expectation of a strong desire for retribution, of standing up for American citizens. Fundamentally, there is a large segment of the population that needs to be able to relate emotionally to the things the president says and does to fully comprehend. People, by and large, aren't really aware of the impact that a president's reaction will have on the complex machinery of the global economic system - how can they when PhD economists don't even have a grasp on it.

Bush's political strength was through his families personal wealth and oil connections. Obama's strength is through the confidence he garners from the American public - something much less tangible and certain. This scenario demonstrates the intrinsic untenability of Obama's attempt to be pleasing to both the world and to his domestic constituents - when there is a conflict between the two, he MUST forsake the former because he lacks ownership of the tangible resources to survive an extended period of ridiculously low approval ratings the way Bush could.

 

[FRE]

Even partially absolving BP of culpability is just plain wrong.

Of course there should have been better enforcement of environmental and safety standards. Even so, it is BP and / or related companies that bear primary responsibility. Saying that BP should be absolved would be like saying that a drunk driver should be absolved of responsibility for killing someone simply because the police were not sufficiently diligent in enforcing laws against drunk driving.

 

[b.c.]

....There are concerns that Obama may talk away all confidence in the company...

LOL... Since when has Obama the power to bestow or "take away" confidence in BP??

If you ask me, BP is going a "bang up" job of doing the latter themselves, not only based on their historically dismal environmental record, but based on their lack of forthcoming and their mishandling of this entire disaster from the start.

Now BP's possible demise is Obama's fault too?? Fuckin' PLEASE!

 

[sbat]

LOL... Since when has Obama the power to bestow or "take away" confidence in BP??

If you ask me, BP is going a "bang up" job of doing the latter themselves, not only based on their historically dismal enviornmental record, but based on their lack of forthcoming and their mishandling of this entire disaster from the start.

Now BP's possible demise is Obama's fault too?? Fuckin' PLEASE!

Not completely. As you said, BP is playing a strong role in sinking its own life boat. But if Obama didn't think things he said didn't have an impact on market activity, he wouldn't put so much effort in semantics when job growth isn't as high as expected.

When he repeatedly says, "we're going to make BP pay as much as possible because they are fully responsible" and estimates for the amount of damage are rising daily, investors will start selling BP stock because the financial prospects for the company are grim. Follow star's thread about BP being a good buy (or a good short sell) now because of plummeting stock price.