Barack Obama's attacks on BP hurting British pensioners

BP’s position at the top of the London Stock Exchange and its previous reliability have made it a bedrock
of almost every pension fund in the country, meaning its value is crucial to millions of workers. The firm’s dividend payments, which amount to more than £7 billion a year, account for £1 in every £6 paid out in dividends to British pension pots.

BP is so concerned about Mr Obama’s power to affect share value that it has urged David Cameron to appeal to the White House on its behalf. Downing Street, however, has refused to get involved. “We need to ensure that BP is not unfairly treated ”“ it is not some bloodless corporation,” said one of Britain’s top fund managers. “Hit BP and a lot of people get hit. UK pension money becomes a donation to the US government and the lawyers at the expense of Mrs Jones and other pension funds.”

Mark Dampier of the financial services company Hargreaves Lansdown said: “[Mr Obama] is playing to the gallery but is not bringing a solution any closer. Obama has his boot on the throat of British pensioners. There is no point in bashing BP all the time, it’s not helpful. It is a terrible situation, but having the American president on your back is not going to get it all cleared up any quicker.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, Economy, Energy, Natural Resources, England / UK, Office of the President, Personal Finance, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Stock Market

9 comments on “Barack Obama's attacks on BP hurting British pensioners

  1. John Wilkins says:

    Hm. Seems that BP might bear some responsibility.

    Between those who want Obama to express outrage, and those who are suddenly worried about our relations to the British, the president cannot win. But the, nobody will win this environmental disaster.

  2. Daniel says:

    John,
    For once I totally agree with you, and I was a BP shareholder until a few weeks ago when I dumped all my shares. All organizational bureaucracies, even ecclesiastical ones, have problems dealing with crises. Our sinful human nature does not want to admit mistakes, whether willful or accidental. In our increasingly polarized and litigious society, this tendency is exacerbated as the “guilty” wish to avoid public humiliation and financial ruin that routinely occurs when the media and the political class pile on.

    The importance of a grounded faith, and the ability to stand on that faith, even when it causes you economic harm is a big part of the solution. I have been placed in ethically challenging situations within the corporate and government environment, and I found that going over what I would do beforehand (call it crisis planning or personal risk management) allowed me to handle such situations with less stress. Also, knowing beforehand what your “walk away” point is relieves some of the stress.

  3. Fr. Dale says:

    #1. John Wilkins,
    [blockquote]those who are suddenly worried about our relations to the British[/blockquote] I think most of us who are worried about our relations with the British are not “suddenly” worried. President Obama packed up and sent the bust of Churchill back to England that was a gift and remember also his snub of Gordon Brown.

  4. John Wilkins says:

    #3 Fr Dale, I probably would have included an explanation. He’s been a bit more clumsy, but on the other hand, I don’t think it’s a bad thing.

    As the son of an Indian, will say: I was taught that Churchill said the following things.

    “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.”

    “It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.”

    “I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”

    Given Obama’s background, I’m sure he knew Churchill was a racist, and would have been offended that Obama was president, even though he may have been a great wartime prime minister.

  5. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    #4 John Wilkins
    Winston Churchill was half American with Native American ancestry.

    #3 Fr Dale
    The Churchill bust was on loan from the British government art collection, so I doubt if offense was taken with its return.

  6. John Wilkins says:

    #5 So? Hitler had Jewish ancestry. Often, real racists are the ones most insecure about their background. Not to equate the two, but to note that this is utterly irrelevant.

  7. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    #6 Well, it was you who brought up the issue of race, and then racism into a discussion on BP, international relations and the return of Churchill’s bust originally lent to the White House because the former President was a fan. But interesting of course, in that slightly tangential way conversations sometimes go on T19 so thank you for that.

  8. John Wilkins says:

    #7 I will also admit that I may be totally wrong – he might just have wanted room to put a different bust, like one of Marx.

  9. Pageantmaster Ù† says:

    Groucho, Chico or Harpo?