Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Why shouldn’t he have gone to Afghanistan?

Why should he? - The BP share price has more impact on the UK now than a publicity trip by Cameron. I bet your stance would have been totally different had it been Brown

[drat01]

Obama is the guy that has talked the BP shares down,

The H word again. You were seemingly happy for Osborne to do worse with the UK economy pre the election

[Ads]

As he is the leader of the Government and we are at war, with just under 10% of the British Army deployed in theatre.

I’d have taken your bet and your cash, as I would be equally perplexed at what Brown could have done, short of punching Obama in the mouth to stop his anti-British rhetoric talking down BP. As Vince Cable quite rightly said, it doesn’t help anybody. The Federal government should be pulling its finger out and doing all it can to aid BP and then play the blame game later. But instead we have Obama playing the populist card with his “British Petroleum”- a company that doesn’t exist- rhetoric.

[Ads]

Obama is the guy that has talked the BP shares down,

The H word again. You were seemingly happy for Osborne to do worse with the UK economy pre the election

Do you get paid commission for every time you use the word hypocrisy? As to be honest, quite what you’re talking about with regards to me and what any of it has to do with this subject I have no idea.

[bickster]

Which country are we at war with? We're never at war until we win them and this one isn't winnable in the traditional sense

[Ads]

Which country are we at war with? We're never at war until we win them and this one isn't winnable in the traditional sense

I’m not particularly interested in a discussion on semantics. Our troops are in hostile country and its good that they’re getting the backing from both the populous and the Government.

[avfc89]

Which country are we at war with? We're never at war until we win them and this one isn't winnable in the traditional sense

Agreed.

[drat01]

As he is the leader of the Government and we are at war, with just under 10% of the British Army deployed in theatre.

I’d have taken your bet and your cash, as I would be equally perplexed at what Brown could have done, short of punching Obama in the mouth to stop his anti-British rhetoric talking down BP. As Vince Cable quite rightly said, it doesn’t help anybody. The Federal government should be pulling its finger out and doing all it can to aid BP and then play the blame game later. But instead we have Obama playing the populist card with his “British Petroleum”- a company that doesn’t exist- rhetoric.

what are you talking about again? So Cameron goes on a secret jaunt to Afghanistan and manages to get some great publicity and eye catching headlines at a time when questions are being asked about a) his lies and hypocrisy on SA's and when the BP issue is having an effect on a already fragile economy. If he had delayed or delegated that trip, would it have had such an effect? Of course it wouldn't

As for talking down BP, again were you so unhappy when Osborne was doing worse pre election? Of course you were not.

The US gvmt, the UK gvmt, even the UN should be pulling together on this. Cameron has gone for the cheap publicity option, maybe if he had been involved from the start some of the rhetoric coming from the states may not have happened?

The marketing man and his entourage can not get away from their publicity opps it would seem.

[bickster]

I’m not particularly interested in a discussion on semantics. Our troops are in hostile country and its good that they’re getting the backing from both the populous and the Government.

Thats good, we weren't having one

If our troops are in a hostile country, how come no one supports the other side as you claimed? Surely we're in a friendly country? Helping them rid themselves of insurgents or have you misread the script?

[Ads]

I don’t really see the comparison between comments Osborne made about the economy and this situation to be honest, it’s you that’s making the tenuous link, not me. If pumping £250 billion into the UK economy only moved it by 0.3%, then I doubt comments from the then shadow chacellor would have seen investors scurry away, particuarlly when every man and his dog was aware of what was going to be found in the books.

Its clear that Obama’s jingoistic ranting has had a significant and tangible effect on BP’s share price, putting pension funds here and over there at serious risk and potentially thousands of US jobs.

I ask again what is Cameron supposed to do?

This is a problem for the Federal government, BP and its American contractors to sort out- instead we’re hearing boorish comments such as “I need to know whose ass to kick”.

I don’t see any politics about Cameron going to Afghanistan to mingle with the troops. I see it as his job, just as it was Brown’s and just like it was Blair’s. I didn’t criticise them for it and I won’t start now.

[Ads]

I’m not particularly interested in a discussion on semantics. Our troops are in hostile country and its good that they’re getting the backing from both the populous and the Government.

Thats good, we weren't having one

If our troops are in a hostile country, how come no one supports the other side as you claimed? Surely we're in a friendly country? Helping them rid themselves of insurgents or have you misread the script?

I said hostile country, not a hostile country. Its a turn of phrase that you’ve over looked. Your misreading of it has lead to you assuming I meant Afghanistan was a hostile country, when what it actually means is that Helmand is Dodge City.

We were both wrong- this is a battle of semantics.

I also don’t think I claimed anybody supported anybody, so where that outburst comes from beats me.

[Awol]

Jon, what Obama said on the Falklands recently what fair considering that as the president of the USA he has also a right of duty to protect his country's interests with South American countries.

Bullshit. The Falklands are a self governing British protectorate, colonised by us at a time when Argentina was still run by Spain. The UN policy of self determination means that the Islanders express wish to continue with the status quo makes it an open and shut case. Obama chose not to recognise this and in doing so gave the Argentinians indirect encourgement to continue with their ludicrous claim - all this despite our unswerving support for their foreign policy, which in regard to Iraq was undoubtedly illegal.

You talk previously about how you though Blair blindly followed the US and condemn it, but then you expect Obama to do likewise with the UK.

No I don't, see above.

You say no mention of the other country interests in the whole BP saga, but again is that true?

Yes. He's a word removed.

The facts are that BP, which the UK has a massive investment in are at fault here and rightly so that is being discussed.

As the prime contractor BP certainly carries responsibility, but not sole responsibility as Barry O is trying to maintain. Fact is he doesn't have the balls to take on the big beasts in his own country who share that responsibility/culpability. Much easier to resurect a dead company name in order to focus anger outside the country, "kick some ass" and try to shore up his tanking domestic popularity in time for the elections in November.

You say its a commercial matter and no interest to the UK gvmt, but that is not true. Because as you say BP is a large financial influencer in many parts of the UK economy and at this time we are supposed to "be in this together" - or again is this something that ConDem's can pick and chose where to apply?

What do you expect them to do, put on some wetsuits, pile up the government IOU's and use them to plug the leak? The UK Gov can no more do anything about this than the US Gov. The only people who can fix it and are trying like mad to do so are BP themselves. Meanwhile Obama is trying to destroy them.

As for his trip to Afghanistan, was it necessary? What would have the impact been if he had said, I am staying here to try and broker a solution to the BP issue

What solution?

and if we have to send anyone to Afghanistan maybe Clegg or Ashdown can go. The fact that publicity was seemingly behind some of the media reporting shows the motives out.

Cameron was slated to go and see the troops and the BP issue was no reason at all not to do so.

Bottom line is that Cameron is floundering on this one. No one knows what is happening, there are conflicting stories coming from the ConDem's, their biggest supporters are questioning what is happening and Cameron in particular. Osborne is like a little boy lost and interestingly people like Johnson making waves. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence given that we may well face bigger issues in the coming months

Floundering on which one? Afghan? BP? What? the rest of that passage above seems equally meaningless to be honest .

[drat01]

Bullshit. The Falklands are a self governing British protectorate, colonised by us at a time when Argentina was still run by Spain. The UN policy of self determination means that the Islanders express wish to continue with the status quo makes it an open and shut case. Obama chose not to recognise this and in doing so gave the Argentinians indirect encourgement to continue with their ludicrous claim - all this despite our unswerving support for their foreign policy, which in regard to Iraq was undoubtedly illegal.

No need for the swearing. But as you have started what you are saying is complete and utter crap. As with Regan before him the US can declare itself to be neutral, **** all to do with history and completely right for them. He has not supported Argentina's claim nor as he endorsed ours. Again you conveniently forget that the US does not have to support us on everything, again amazing considering your stance re Blair and the US

Yes. He's a word removed.

Oh dear

As the prime contractor BP certainly carries responsibility, but not sole responsibility as Barry O is trying to maintain. Fact is he doesn't have the balls to take on the big beasts in his own country who share that responsibility/culpability. Much easier to resurect a dead company name in order to focus anger outside the country, "kick some ass" and try to shore up his tanking domestic popularity in time for the elections in November.

BP carries a large responsibility as does a lot of other organisations and ultimately nations. Frankly your anger towards Obama is OTT at the best. So again you are upset he is being a president - a politician - but then are happy with Osborne and Cameron. Double standards

What do you expect them to do, put on some wetsuits, pile up the government IOU's and use them to plug the leak? The UK Gov can no more do anything about this than the US Gov. The only people who can fix it and are trying like mad to do so are BP themselves. Meanwhile Obama is trying to destroy them.

Silly comments. There is an obvious need for more intervention and assistance from Gvmt resources. A leader would facilitate that. Instead it seems that Cameron is more happy to getting some publicity shots out there and bury news about hypocrisy and Gvmt spending on SA's etc

What solution?

what the heck are you talking about? A solution to the BP issue

Cameron was slated to go and see the troops and the BP issue was no reason at all not to do so.

Cameron went to Afghanistan to grab headlines and deflect from other things. He did not have to go and could easily have put it off for a short time.

Floundering on which one? Afghan? BP? What? the rest of that passage above seems equally meaningless to be honest .

Sigh - all I put that down to is the fact it's Friday and its the weekend in certain parts of the world.

Cheers

[Awol]

Bullshit. The Falklands are a self governing British protectorate, colonised by us at a time when Argentina was still run by Spain. The UN policy of self determination means that the Islanders express wish to continue with the status quo makes it an open and shut case. Obama chose not to recognise this and in doing so gave the Argentinians indirect encourgement to continue with their ludicrous claim - all this despite our unswerving support for their foreign policy, which in regard to Iraq was undoubtedly illegal.

No need for the swearing. But as you have started what you are saying is complete and utter crap. As with Regan before him the US can declare itself to be neutral, **** all to do with history and completely right for them.

It has to do with the right of self determination for all peoples as enshrined in the UN charter. Following that logic Argentina has no claim but Obama refuses to recognise the fact. That's not crap at all, it's absolutely correct.

He has not supported Argentina's claim nor as he endorsed ours. Again you conveniently forget that the US does not have to support us on everything, again amazing considering your stance re Blair and the US

No they don't have to support us but they quite legitimately could and in doing so make the situation more stable by taking the wind of latino sails. That reinforces my point that Obama is no friend of the UK.

Yes. He's a word removed.

Oh dear

Oh dear what, oh dear that he hasn't mentioned the culpability of the American companies involved and is focusing solely on blaming BP, or British Petroleum as he disingenuously calls it?

What do you expect them to do, put on some wetsuits, pile up the government IOU's and use them to plug the leak? The UK Gov can no more do anything about this than the US Gov. The only people who can fix it and are trying like mad to do so are BP themselves. Meanwhile Obama is trying to destroy them.

Silly comments. There is an obvious need for more intervention and assistance from Gvmt resources.

Serious question, what intervention could they possibly make? It is BP who have the deep sea drilling experts and a flotilla of clean up ships, not the UK Government. There is absolutely nothing they can do about this at all, other than asking Obama to stop making ludicrous comments and damamging the pensions of millions of British (and Amercian for that matter) people. BP is 40% owned by Brtish interests and 39% owned by American interests, but clever old Barry O doesn't care about that, just about trying to make himself sound tough.

What solution?

what the heck are you talking about? A solution to the BP issue

Such as? I'm intrigued to know what you think he could possibly do and what resources we have that could be deployed by government?

Hint: There are none.

Cameron was slated to go and see the troops and the BP issue was no reason at all not to do so.

Cameron went to Afghanistan to grab headlines and deflect from other things. He did not have to go and could easily have put it off for a short time.

He went to visit the troops because he was due to. Big deal? No, not at all.

Floundering on which one? Afghan? BP? What? the rest of that passage above seems equally meaningless to be honest.

Sigh - all I put that down to is the fact it's Friday and its the weekend in certain parts of the world.

Cheers

Yeah cheers, Sunday night here and I'm at work in the morning so you're well of the mark with that little bit of innuendo.

[tonyh29]

Why shouldn’t he have gone to Afghanistan?

Why should he? - The BP share price has more impact on the UK now than a publicity trip by Cameron. I bet your stance would have been totally different had it been Brown

funny enough I was going to ask you to link to your post where you condemed Brown for doing to Afghan during the largest debt crises this country has ever seen

Of course Cameron should have gone , he hasn't got an election to face for 5 years is not as if he is using it as a pre election publicity tour ... Now who would be so shamless as to do that .. Cough

[tonyh29]

Yeah cheers, Sunday night here and I'm at work in the morning so you're well of the mark with that little bit of innuendo.

That's one heck of a time zone change there Jon , where are you, Neptune ?

[Awol]

Yeah cheers, Sunday night here and I'm at work in the morning so you're well of the mark with that little bit of innuendo.

That's one heck of a time zone change there Jon , where are you, Neptune ?

Weekend is Thursday and Friday so Friday is my Sunday. Very wierd.

[drat01]

If you say so Jon, So many of your points I think are to use your phrase, bullshit, but can't be arsed to really go into war and peace mode as you clearly have an issue with Obama and anyone who criticises the UK.

No condemnation whatsoever of anything the ConDem's do seems to be the stance

[drat01]

Why shouldn’t he have gone to Afghanistan?

Why should he? - The BP share price has more impact on the UK now than a publicity trip by Cameron. I bet your stance would have been totally different had it been Brown

funny enough I was going to ask you to link to your post where you condemed Brown for doing to Afghan during the largest debt crises this country has ever seen

Of course Cameron should have gone , he hasn't got an election to face for 5 years is not as if he is using it as a pre election publicity tour ... Now who would be so shamless as to do that .. Cough

and funny enough I was going to ask you to point out where you supported any Labour visit to the troops. But we can go around in circles because of course the Tory devotees would never thing that to be hypocritical now would they?

Cameron did not need to go, it was a good day to deflect from bad news, end of really. A marketing politician.

[tonyh29]

I know it's eating you up inside that Cameron Is PM and the new government have made a good start in undoing years of labour harm but there really are no point to be scored by going on and on about a visit to the troops