The coalition policy on raising tuition fees is the right thing to do.
Firstly, Britain is a fairer place with more people having the opportunity to attend university. It offers a chance for the majority of people in this country to educate themselves for its inherent worth and to learn the skills to do a job that will be more financially beneficial and offer a greater choice of career. It is an access to opportunity and credit must go to the previous Labour government for this radical widening of higher education. The sign of a truly great policy is its endurance and all parties agree that higher access to education is right.
But the more people that go to university the more it costs the government. So there are two solutions to the funding gap. Either raise general taxation and the whole country pays a share in educating the youth which is vital for the future prosperity of this country. Or the students pay for it themselves either through a loan or graduate taxation.
The first option through general taxation is unfair although there is some appeal. It does benefit the entire country to be more educated and skilled but the main beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. There is aline to be drawn between the common and the individual good and I think it is here. It is right that everyone pitches in to fund state education up to 18 free for all. The same can be said for healthcare, defence and other state duties. But higher education is not one of these.
Once a person becomes 18 they are an adult and they are responsible for the choices they make. The important thing is that higher education remains a viable choice and not that it is provided for free on a plate. The cost of university both encourages responsibilty for the decision and a choice to invest in your future. The current policy allows that option but does not hand it to students on a plate, it is the right decision.
The bill on Thursday will propose no up front payments, in fact no payments until a grauate earns £21,000. This means if you earn less than that your entire life you never repay a penny - university is free. if you earn more than £21,000 then you pay a small amount back per week at a tiny rate of interest. It will take a long time to pay back but it is a negligible amount and the less you earn the less you pay, the more you earn the more you pay. It is a very fair taxation.
A so-called graduate tax would do exactly the same but this policy is more prcatical and fairer as it tracks the cost of tuition to each individual so they pay for the investment they have made in themselves. If university funding was to be funded entirely out of general taxation then it would still add taxes to people's wage packets.
It is the fairest possible outcome for tuition fees and the Labour party was right to introduce fees in the first place and then order the Browne report. The Conservative party is right to follow and the change in stance by Labour is wrong.
Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are a total hilarious shambles. Even the architects of the policy Vince Cable and Danny Alexander flirted with abstaining even as prominent government ministers. Many Libe Dems will vote against inclusing former leaders Menzies Cambpell and Charles Kennedy, some will abstain, some are calling for a delay and others will vote for. The party are an utter spineless, cowardly embarrassment. They want to govern but only when it is easy. They have designed a policy and are now trying to disown it. Disgrace.
They, of course, were thriled to be sweeping up the student vote during the election by emphatically and repeatedly claiming they could abolish fees. This was astonishingly cynical and irresponsible behaviour by a major political party. It was purely to eat up as many votes as possible. The passion Clegg shows fo the scrapping of fees despite the fact that we know he was having doubts about the policy and knew it to be unworkable is telling. Even Gordon Brown refised to rule out a VAT rise before the electio even though he knew it was a vote winner. Even he wouldn't go as far as to promise something he knew to be preposterously impossible to keep. (The Lib Dems bombastically taunted the Tories for a potential VAT rise during the election before, needless to say, voting for one in June.) The Lib Dems betrayal and deceit over this policy is breathtaking.
Please watch the following selction of videos from the election campaign;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc8i8ujDHHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXw7yqHfxDI&NR=1
Monday, 6 December 2010
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Tory tax raid on children
George Osborne's tax raid on children has drawn criticism from everywhere on the political spectrum- from the Trade Unions to the Daily Mail. Fair play to Boy George because I'm struggling to think of any other measure that could draw such a consensus of criticism.
Naturally, he has already started to backtrack and we are sure to see the inevitable U-turn in the exact same way as Gordon Brown when he abolished the 10p tax rate. "Compensating measures" have been discussed by cabinet ministers, which is odd as there was nothing to compensate prior to the decision.
It is a stupid decision. A couple who both earn £43,000, giving them a combined income of £86,000, will keep their benefit whereas one person earning £45,000 with the other earning zero will lose the benefit - that is not fair. Furthermore, if a person with one child goes 1p over the threshold of £43,875 then they lose £1,000, if they have three children they lose £2,500 a year. That means that a three child family will need to receive a £2,500 wage increase just to make the same money whereas a couple earning nearly £90,000 between them still get the cash. It's not right.
I do think the Tories have an instinctive dislike for universal benefits and would like to see them purely means-tested. But I think the main problem here is one of sheer incompetence, and also complacency because their popularity has remained stubbornly adequate despite talk of cuts. Osborne and Cameron felt invincible - they had the press in their pocket, the IMF in their pocket and, of course, the Lib Dems firmly in their place, plus they've narrowly avoided having to face David Miliband at the dispatch box.
Things were going great and they will last forever won't they? It's funny how quickly the game can change. I'm coining a new phrase and I invite you to join me - a week is a long time in politics.
Naturally, he has already started to backtrack and we are sure to see the inevitable U-turn in the exact same way as Gordon Brown when he abolished the 10p tax rate. "Compensating measures" have been discussed by cabinet ministers, which is odd as there was nothing to compensate prior to the decision.
It is a stupid decision. A couple who both earn £43,000, giving them a combined income of £86,000, will keep their benefit whereas one person earning £45,000 with the other earning zero will lose the benefit - that is not fair. Furthermore, if a person with one child goes 1p over the threshold of £43,875 then they lose £1,000, if they have three children they lose £2,500 a year. That means that a three child family will need to receive a £2,500 wage increase just to make the same money whereas a couple earning nearly £90,000 between them still get the cash. It's not right.
I do think the Tories have an instinctive dislike for universal benefits and would like to see them purely means-tested. But I think the main problem here is one of sheer incompetence, and also complacency because their popularity has remained stubbornly adequate despite talk of cuts. Osborne and Cameron felt invincible - they had the press in their pocket, the IMF in their pocket and, of course, the Lib Dems firmly in their place, plus they've narrowly avoided having to face David Miliband at the dispatch box.
Things were going great and they will last forever won't they? It's funny how quickly the game can change. I'm coining a new phrase and I invite you to join me - a week is a long time in politics.
Friday, 30 July 2010
The Five Days when Clegg lied and lied
Nick Robinson's excellent all access review of the five days that changed Britain following the 2010 general election revealed one thing very clearly - Nick Clegg is a liar and a treacherous, double dealing scumbag.
As Paddy Ashdown and Simon Hughes laughed at how the Liberal Democrats were trying to get the best deal for themselves their leader was displaying the worst possible advert for his beloved coalitions. The party that finished THIRD in the general election was loving being at the centre of attention and the kingmakers, so much so that Nick Clegg begged Gordon Brown not to resign so their narcissistic fantasy could last just a little bit longer.
One of the biggest surprises was the Lib Dem demand that Labour promise to cut spending now. This is absolutely shocking for so many reasons. Firstly, the Lib Dem manifesto that they had campaigned on for the last three weeks mentioned no such thing and actively and vigorously campaigned against the Tory cuts. Should I mention the VAT tax bombshell poster? No, that would be too easy. The fact that Clegg and Vince Cable changed their minds over cuts is astonishing, absolutely unbelievable. To think that overnight they can change the central theme of their entire manifesto shows a level of such stunning hypocrisy that even Westminster has never seen. It is an affront to democracy and challenges every single Lib Dem MP's place in parliament, as they lied to the electorate.
Originally Nick Clegg says he changed his mind after a phone call with the governor of the Bank of England (why on earth is he involved in politics anyway??) but when Mervyn King denied this was the case, Clegg effortlessly changed his story. Now he says he changed his mind during the election campaign!! The campaign when he was talking up the dangers of cuts. Why didn't he tell the voters that he was ripping up his manifesto mid-way through the election?
The second shocking point about the Lib Dem offer to Labour is the idea that Labour would abandon its economic policy. How dare they ask a party with 200 more seats than them to reverse a key manifesto pledge that is the central tenet of a progressive government. Labour is not the Lib Dems. We stand by our core election pledges and the fact that they thought the economy was even up for negotiation shows the vacuous and flippant nature of Lib Dem 'pledges'.
The other reminder of treachery surrounds David Cameron telling his own MPs that Labour was offering Alternative Vote without a referendum. Not true. But guess who was at the centre of things again - Clegg. He says he may have been offered that by Labour at some point in the future. What?!! So, if he would have been offered that would he have abandoned his spending cuts? But, mainly, he wasn't offered it and he clearly tricked Cameron into thinking he had been so he would offer him a referendum. You may think this was good tactics by Clegg but it just goes to show the double dealing scum that he is and how his principles are so transient and malleable. So desperate for power was he that he would do or say anything - Britain will be unforgiving at the next election.
As Paddy Ashdown and Simon Hughes laughed at how the Liberal Democrats were trying to get the best deal for themselves their leader was displaying the worst possible advert for his beloved coalitions. The party that finished THIRD in the general election was loving being at the centre of attention and the kingmakers, so much so that Nick Clegg begged Gordon Brown not to resign so their narcissistic fantasy could last just a little bit longer.
One of the biggest surprises was the Lib Dem demand that Labour promise to cut spending now. This is absolutely shocking for so many reasons. Firstly, the Lib Dem manifesto that they had campaigned on for the last three weeks mentioned no such thing and actively and vigorously campaigned against the Tory cuts. Should I mention the VAT tax bombshell poster? No, that would be too easy. The fact that Clegg and Vince Cable changed their minds over cuts is astonishing, absolutely unbelievable. To think that overnight they can change the central theme of their entire manifesto shows a level of such stunning hypocrisy that even Westminster has never seen. It is an affront to democracy and challenges every single Lib Dem MP's place in parliament, as they lied to the electorate.
Originally Nick Clegg says he changed his mind after a phone call with the governor of the Bank of England (why on earth is he involved in politics anyway??) but when Mervyn King denied this was the case, Clegg effortlessly changed his story. Now he says he changed his mind during the election campaign!! The campaign when he was talking up the dangers of cuts. Why didn't he tell the voters that he was ripping up his manifesto mid-way through the election?
The second shocking point about the Lib Dem offer to Labour is the idea that Labour would abandon its economic policy. How dare they ask a party with 200 more seats than them to reverse a key manifesto pledge that is the central tenet of a progressive government. Labour is not the Lib Dems. We stand by our core election pledges and the fact that they thought the economy was even up for negotiation shows the vacuous and flippant nature of Lib Dem 'pledges'.
The other reminder of treachery surrounds David Cameron telling his own MPs that Labour was offering Alternative Vote without a referendum. Not true. But guess who was at the centre of things again - Clegg. He says he may have been offered that by Labour at some point in the future. What?!! So, if he would have been offered that would he have abandoned his spending cuts? But, mainly, he wasn't offered it and he clearly tricked Cameron into thinking he had been so he would offer him a referendum. You may think this was good tactics by Clegg but it just goes to show the double dealing scum that he is and how his principles are so transient and malleable. So desperate for power was he that he would do or say anything - Britain will be unforgiving at the next election.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Coalition of cuts: Artless and heartless
The UK Film Council has been abolished in the first step of a systemic attack on the arts. Clearly the coalition does not believe the arts are for everyone, only those who can afford it.
In order to make a good film you must be commercially successful and pander to the populus. Everything has its price for the Con-dems. Nothing is sacred and everything can be sacrificed in their rabid bid to reduce the size of the state. Never mind the 900 films the UK Film Council has funded and promoted in the last ten years. Who cares about the flurry of British cinema and the growth of the UK film industry far, far beyond anything the government did.
Labour made museums free for all because museums should be available for veryone, not just those who can afford it. It is a simple principle which equalises the so-called ‘high arts’ for everyone but it is being threatened. When will it be decided that we should pay for museum entry because it is not cost-effective. Anything that does not make the government money must go. Only the small state ideology is sacred, it is an obsession that is destroying everything in its path.
There is no heart, no passion, no culture, no style to this money-obssessed, cutting disgrace of a government. Every single one of us will be hit by these viscious cuts and Britain will be far, far poorer for it - in every way. The pace and sclae of the cuts are unneccessary, it isn’t happening in the US. Don’t let them lie to us that the deficit can’t be avoided, it can be.
In order to make a good film you must be commercially successful and pander to the populus. Everything has its price for the Con-dems. Nothing is sacred and everything can be sacrificed in their rabid bid to reduce the size of the state. Never mind the 900 films the UK Film Council has funded and promoted in the last ten years. Who cares about the flurry of British cinema and the growth of the UK film industry far, far beyond anything the government did.
Labour made museums free for all because museums should be available for veryone, not just those who can afford it. It is a simple principle which equalises the so-called ‘high arts’ for everyone but it is being threatened. When will it be decided that we should pay for museum entry because it is not cost-effective. Anything that does not make the government money must go. Only the small state ideology is sacred, it is an obsession that is destroying everything in its path.
There is no heart, no passion, no culture, no style to this money-obssessed, cutting disgrace of a government. Every single one of us will be hit by these viscious cuts and Britain will be far, far poorer for it - in every way. The pace and sclae of the cuts are unneccessary, it isn’t happening in the US. Don’t let them lie to us that the deficit can’t be avoided, it can be.
Monday, 21 June 2010
Why Christianity is so ridiculous
By all reasonable scientific estimates the universe was created 13 billion years ago and the earth around five billion. Obviously these are ballpark figures but you get the idea – a very, very long time ago. God created the universe then, for 8 billion years, he either decided, or was waiting to, create the earth where human beings can live.
When the earth was created it spent its first 4.5 billion years as a useless volcanic rock with no life, no sky, just molten fire destroying everything it touched. Then it began to cool and eventually just a few million years ago (roughly 12.9 billion years after the creation pof the universe) the first life was created as a single-celled bacteria-like amoeba living at the bottom of the ocean. This amoeba breeds and its ancestors evolve and adapt to their surroundings in the most brutal and morally neutral process ever discovered – evolution. All the way through this process when millions of species are being wiped out by adaptation god sits in his sky unmoved by the plight of his evolveing creature. But then a mere 2010 years ago he, after 13 billion(!!) years, decides to intervene in the world he has created. He, seemingly, arbritraly picks a half-evolved mammal known, we now call a homo sapient be his chosen stage of evolution in which to intervene.
Human beings covered the globe 2000 years ago - the Chinese could read and write, parts of Asia were making forays into medicine and the arts and Europe was dominated by the greatest empire ever known. The Romans and the Greeks had been philosophising for centuries but, naturally, god chose not to approach these ‘fancy’ civilisations with their intelligence and ability to record information. He wanted his ‘son’ (who is also god and his own father and a ghost – that is one fucked up family) to be born into an illiterate, superstisious, paranoid tribe of ferocious backwards warriors who thought brutality and human sacrifice was natural. This was where he chose to, eventually, tell his creation – the universe – he existed.
But he was not satisfied with just telling the universe, manifested in the form of a half-evolved mammalian lifeform, that he existed, why would you be? He commands his creation to worship him everyday, he demands temples be built in his honour, he demands entire lives to be dominated by worship of Him. Is god so insecure that his creation must worship him or he will trap their souls in an underground fireball, with a fire-breathing dragon who is the most evil force that can exist – the devil. Of course the idea that half-evolved mammalian lifeforms, made entirely of stardust originating from the Big Bang 13 billion years ago have souls, is rather spurious and perhaps contestable but let’s go with it.
The insecure god then sacrifices his son (who is also god etc..) to take on the sins of the rest of the mammals he has become and takes over their sins. If one considers human beings flawed the ability for redemption is one of the most crucial features of life and one which on must cherish and strive towards. So, Mr Christ how dare you perform some kind of vicarious redemption for me – I’ll take responsibility for my own ‘sins’ and atone for them as I see fit. But, of course, it doesn’t matter what I think because god is omnipotent and has all human actions, thoughts, pre-life, afterlife under constant surveillance so you can never escape. This kind of dictatorial rule is extremely similar to modern day North Korea. The only difference being at least you can die in North Korea whereas with god that’s where the real torture and malevolence begins for eternity, for those who dared not worship him and obey his rules during their puny 70 years on this random sphere spinning through an enormous universe, through infinite dimensions and parallel existences. That seems rather harsh to me.
In the face of this evidence you believe there is a personal, loving god who knows you exist and cares for you then you are stupid, ignorant and a fool. We need evidence and it is going to take a hell of a lot to overturn the mountain of facts that make it so probable it’s almost certain there is no god.
When the earth was created it spent its first 4.5 billion years as a useless volcanic rock with no life, no sky, just molten fire destroying everything it touched. Then it began to cool and eventually just a few million years ago (roughly 12.9 billion years after the creation pof the universe) the first life was created as a single-celled bacteria-like amoeba living at the bottom of the ocean. This amoeba breeds and its ancestors evolve and adapt to their surroundings in the most brutal and morally neutral process ever discovered – evolution. All the way through this process when millions of species are being wiped out by adaptation god sits in his sky unmoved by the plight of his evolveing creature. But then a mere 2010 years ago he, after 13 billion(!!) years, decides to intervene in the world he has created. He, seemingly, arbritraly picks a half-evolved mammal known, we now call a homo sapient be his chosen stage of evolution in which to intervene.
Human beings covered the globe 2000 years ago - the Chinese could read and write, parts of Asia were making forays into medicine and the arts and Europe was dominated by the greatest empire ever known. The Romans and the Greeks had been philosophising for centuries but, naturally, god chose not to approach these ‘fancy’ civilisations with their intelligence and ability to record information. He wanted his ‘son’ (who is also god and his own father and a ghost – that is one fucked up family) to be born into an illiterate, superstisious, paranoid tribe of ferocious backwards warriors who thought brutality and human sacrifice was natural. This was where he chose to, eventually, tell his creation – the universe – he existed.
But he was not satisfied with just telling the universe, manifested in the form of a half-evolved mammalian lifeform, that he existed, why would you be? He commands his creation to worship him everyday, he demands temples be built in his honour, he demands entire lives to be dominated by worship of Him. Is god so insecure that his creation must worship him or he will trap their souls in an underground fireball, with a fire-breathing dragon who is the most evil force that can exist – the devil. Of course the idea that half-evolved mammalian lifeforms, made entirely of stardust originating from the Big Bang 13 billion years ago have souls, is rather spurious and perhaps contestable but let’s go with it.
The insecure god then sacrifices his son (who is also god etc..) to take on the sins of the rest of the mammals he has become and takes over their sins. If one considers human beings flawed the ability for redemption is one of the most crucial features of life and one which on must cherish and strive towards. So, Mr Christ how dare you perform some kind of vicarious redemption for me – I’ll take responsibility for my own ‘sins’ and atone for them as I see fit. But, of course, it doesn’t matter what I think because god is omnipotent and has all human actions, thoughts, pre-life, afterlife under constant surveillance so you can never escape. This kind of dictatorial rule is extremely similar to modern day North Korea. The only difference being at least you can die in North Korea whereas with god that’s where the real torture and malevolence begins for eternity, for those who dared not worship him and obey his rules during their puny 70 years on this random sphere spinning through an enormous universe, through infinite dimensions and parallel existences. That seems rather harsh to me.
In the face of this evidence you believe there is a personal, loving god who knows you exist and cares for you then you are stupid, ignorant and a fool. We need evidence and it is going to take a hell of a lot to overturn the mountain of facts that make it so probable it’s almost certain there is no god.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Some thoughts on conviction...
‘There are two sides to every story’, I hear far too often. There may be two sides but sometimes, often even, one side is more worthy and, dare I say it, more right than the other. This is conviction and passion and it defines me in everything I am.
It’s not easy to be this way and there is no doubt you need a very thick skin because conviction scares those who don’t have it. The person who makes a clear choice, who shows passion for one side of an argument is seen as stubborn, irrational or close minded. It is rarely thought of as genuine or strongly held belief and is often seen as purposefully controversial or stuck in one particular frame of mind. This has been my experience and I do not agree. The indecisive and the undecided suffer from an irrational superiority complex that suffocates their decision making process.
Being broad minded is not confined to an inability to decide but the ability to view all options and opinions on a matter and make an informed decision. For instance, I joined the Labour party when I was 16 years old. People either laugh or look at me slightly bemused when I tell them this. How could you engage in politics, they’re all bastards, right? (don’t worry I’m not going to answer this it’s merely rhetorical…although I would if you ask me).
When a decision such as joining Labour is made there is an offensive, boorish and lazy assumption that I am some kind of class warrior who automatically hates rich or so-called 'posh' people. Stereotypes always come in the most extreme form and it is this kind of caricature that attempts to belittle conviction. And it can work in the same way with Conservatives too before you ask, when they are painted as fascists or right-wing zealots.
My opinions, I would like to think, are considered, subject to constant self and external scrutiny and never absolute such as my logical reasoning towards atheism. Nothing, in my experience, is perceived as more irrational or provocative as atheism even by non-believers. I do not know why. But I am much worse than just your ordinary non-believer because I want to argue against religion – I'm an anti-theist. The inherent conservatism in human blood stirs when somebody attempts to argue that large swaths of human history were misguided and, worse still, that billions of people today are totally wrong. They deserve our active ridicule and contempt and must be confronted at every opportunity. I will always fight religion and the attempt to brainwash the weak and needy by offering them the crutch of irrational faith.
Without going into the reasoning behind this (there is much and once again I would be delighted to explain another time) this kind of forthright talk gets one into trouble. I am not advocating decision or conviction for its own sake but I am suggesting that those (me in this instance) who hold values and strong passions should be taken seriously. It is not a stunt or 'for effect' it is always what I believe, it is who I am and, although nothing is absolute, I can’t see myself changing. Conviction can be a good thing, don’t belittle it – I'm convinced of it.
It’s not easy to be this way and there is no doubt you need a very thick skin because conviction scares those who don’t have it. The person who makes a clear choice, who shows passion for one side of an argument is seen as stubborn, irrational or close minded. It is rarely thought of as genuine or strongly held belief and is often seen as purposefully controversial or stuck in one particular frame of mind. This has been my experience and I do not agree. The indecisive and the undecided suffer from an irrational superiority complex that suffocates their decision making process.
Being broad minded is not confined to an inability to decide but the ability to view all options and opinions on a matter and make an informed decision. For instance, I joined the Labour party when I was 16 years old. People either laugh or look at me slightly bemused when I tell them this. How could you engage in politics, they’re all bastards, right? (don’t worry I’m not going to answer this it’s merely rhetorical…although I would if you ask me).
When a decision such as joining Labour is made there is an offensive, boorish and lazy assumption that I am some kind of class warrior who automatically hates rich or so-called 'posh' people. Stereotypes always come in the most extreme form and it is this kind of caricature that attempts to belittle conviction. And it can work in the same way with Conservatives too before you ask, when they are painted as fascists or right-wing zealots.
My opinions, I would like to think, are considered, subject to constant self and external scrutiny and never absolute such as my logical reasoning towards atheism. Nothing, in my experience, is perceived as more irrational or provocative as atheism even by non-believers. I do not know why. But I am much worse than just your ordinary non-believer because I want to argue against religion – I'm an anti-theist. The inherent conservatism in human blood stirs when somebody attempts to argue that large swaths of human history were misguided and, worse still, that billions of people today are totally wrong. They deserve our active ridicule and contempt and must be confronted at every opportunity. I will always fight religion and the attempt to brainwash the weak and needy by offering them the crutch of irrational faith.
Without going into the reasoning behind this (there is much and once again I would be delighted to explain another time) this kind of forthright talk gets one into trouble. I am not advocating decision or conviction for its own sake but I am suggesting that those (me in this instance) who hold values and strong passions should be taken seriously. It is not a stunt or 'for effect' it is always what I believe, it is who I am and, although nothing is absolute, I can’t see myself changing. Conviction can be a good thing, don’t belittle it – I'm convinced of it.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Stand up to Obama's Britain hating
Barack Obama is hurting British families with his incessant attacks on British Petroleum. As president his rhetoric has been irresponsible, flippant and he is hurting us as a nation with his viscious onslaught against one of our largest companies.
There is no doubt the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was not just bad but horrific. There is also no doubt that BP must bear the brunt of the blame as the operator of the burst pipe and sunken rig. It is their operation and their responsibilty and the 11 who died leave blood on the hands of these corporate suits. No question about it and I have no issue with the US president saying so in measured terms.
But Mr Obama is not measured and he must accept that as president it was his decision to allow offshore drilling and his regulatory and supervisory regime that governed it. He has a large responsibilty too. What I can not accept is the politically motivated attacks on a British firm simply to deflect criticism from himself. Moreover, if it was an American oil company I very much doubt the attacks would have been so vitriolic as to crushingly drive down the share price of an economically crucial company. But what does Obama care - it's a British company.
Well, Mr Cameron you're the prime minister so what are you going to do about it? Are you going to allow this anti-British rhetoric damage our economy from a politically motivated president? Or are you going to say no, how dare you intentially damage one of our companies to save your own skin. With his protectionist 'buy America' sentiments and now this one has to question whether Mr Obama is the internationalist he'd have us believe or just a popularity obsessed jingoist. Get a grip prime minister and stand up for Britain.
There is no doubt the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was not just bad but horrific. There is also no doubt that BP must bear the brunt of the blame as the operator of the burst pipe and sunken rig. It is their operation and their responsibilty and the 11 who died leave blood on the hands of these corporate suits. No question about it and I have no issue with the US president saying so in measured terms.
But Mr Obama is not measured and he must accept that as president it was his decision to allow offshore drilling and his regulatory and supervisory regime that governed it. He has a large responsibilty too. What I can not accept is the politically motivated attacks on a British firm simply to deflect criticism from himself. Moreover, if it was an American oil company I very much doubt the attacks would have been so vitriolic as to crushingly drive down the share price of an economically crucial company. But what does Obama care - it's a British company.
Well, Mr Cameron you're the prime minister so what are you going to do about it? Are you going to allow this anti-British rhetoric damage our economy from a politically motivated president? Or are you going to say no, how dare you intentially damage one of our companies to save your own skin. With his protectionist 'buy America' sentiments and now this one has to question whether Mr Obama is the internationalist he'd have us believe or just a popularity obsessed jingoist. Get a grip prime minister and stand up for Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
