Investors back BP as buy and Hayward to keep job

Nothing much to Cameron, is there? All PR and appearance. The heir to Blair indeed.

When will we learn. The Americans are strongly protective of their own interests at the expense of anyone UK included. The special relationship exists only in the mind of people in the UK. David Cameron has shown no desire to stand up for BP which is shocking.

BP has behaved in a timely manner,and met it's obligations (unlike Union Carbide the American poisoner of Bhopal )

Meanwhile, TransOcean & Haliburton have cleverly kept media attention on BP.

David Cameron is indeed a fitting heir to Tony Blair.

Obama & the US administration are behaving like a banana republic.

The so called 'special relationship' is a bad joke

Obama not to be outdone by Blair....has now got his own Poodle...... in David Cameron.........

A Sad day for British Interests....reaction would have been quite different if Andarko was the operator of the Well.

Please dont say we have an heir to Liar Blair-i really will up and leave the uk.I have not renewed my Conservative membership which came in the post this week. I fear we have more huff and puff and less action on all fronts with BP and his stance on crime is as lily livered as Blunkett. Get a backbone you bloody wimp!

I think Tony has done a fairly good job keeping a low and dignified profile in the wake of unjustified and at times indecent onslaught from the whitehouse. I am appalled that the British Govt has not defended BP. May be they were scared about their relationship with the big brother. we are an independent nation and not a poodle of USA and have to stnad up . The way the White house and specially one person has behaved is quite honestly deplorable. The response from No 10 was cowardly. When are we going to learn and stand up to these bully boys.

I am sure BP will come out stronger and less dependent from the USA. Blessing in disguise.

This investor is heartened by the survey!

Hayward has been most unlucky to have hit a crisis that developed such intense political overtones, but I find it hard to see what good it would have done for Cameron to take a more visible firm line, taking into account the head of political steam that had built up on the other side of the Atlantic.

Hayward may unfortunately have to walk the plank in the interest of BP's future, even though his main fault has been lack of ability to handle a very fraught public relations situation. It might have been better if he had not taken the point man role, even though that is what the chief executive would normally be expected to do.

The furore in the States, since the accident at BP's well, shows how insular and self-serving that country is, even in a Democrat period. Looks like the Republican dominance is still active and even a Democrat President has to toe the line. And from Dubya's period we know they like subserviance to America and GOP.

This being the case, BP should not sell unnecessarily to US firms, which will be ready to take its assets for beans, but hang on until the price is good for the company. Accidents happen and vultures always circle. Wait until the vultures die and see what arises from the ashes (must stop metaphores).

Let's stand up against the States and make them examine their own history of accidents. Their companies have had accidents too. Too many. And in British waters. The States administration is all bluster and its integrity is not believable. Maybe they want another controversy out of nothing, a legal battle, punish Scotland again. Shall we all become bored with the US and its ranting?

Bravo BP for doing a good job in incredibly difficult circumstances. World-wide drilling is becoming more and more difficult and accidents will happen in new situations. By the way, BP, don't use Chinese products (well-head gear) which are condemned in China.

The US has made itself a laughing stock and Obama will look into the abyss come November when he goes down as one of the most unpopular presidents in history. BP has been a lot more honourable than it should have been and could reasonably be expecte to have been. I note the comments above - the US cleary does not have the same moral compass as "British Petroleum". The US has tried its best to pin whatever it could on BP even the oil Diamond Offshore is still pumping into the Gulf right now. In the end there is only only loser in this debacle and that is the US consumer. I hope they will enjoy pushing their 4x4 's from pump to pump - they deserve nothing less.

Most Americans don't even know their own country let alone that the rest of the world exists!

Mostly opinionated, selfish and, per person, the biggest consumers on planet Earth!

They only smile when everything goes their way.

The BP problem is a disaster but disasters are best overcome by everyone initially showing a strong support for each other rather than scoring points for self political ehancement.

Obama has proved to be a great dissapointment. Cameron? Well, I never expected anything from him, why should anyone?

Cameron poodle correct - USA care little about the UK correct - BP great British Company - Correct - Unfortunate accident - correct the USA have a habit of invading countries with hidden untold wealth - correct .

It strikes me that they have seized their opportunitty to lay into BP push the stock down and will now pounce and buy bp for substantially less than its true value.im pround of BP .

Well done for the Scots and Jack Straw for refusing to kow-tow to the American congressmen. Their responsibility is to the British people, not to an American jurisdiction. If they want to ask questions, they can always come over here. The fact that this has only become an issue recently, and that their focus is on proving a BP connection, demonstrates what has been obvious all along: that the political-industrial union in the states is trying to destroy BP so it can pick up the pieces on the cheap. So what if BP put their case firmly with regard to oil rights in Libya? - do we suppose that US companies wouldn't have done exactly the same? Hypocrisy runs like a thread through the whole American position. Obama, a desperate president, has behaved like a despicable bully, Cameron is as weak as a butterfly, and only BP has behaved honourably, paying out compensation cheques almost from week one. They have worked tirelessly and against mighty odds to fix this problem and received scant recognition of their efforts, at least in the US. All other "partners" in the problem are trying to get out of their responsibilities and undermine BP. They would have been jolly pleased to share the profits, of course, if the oil had flowed.

I don't remember this type of vilification of any US companies (Occidental) or their CEOs when the Piper Alpha disaster killed 167 people in the North Sea. The Americans have shown themselves to be merciless hooligans of the worst kind.

And for those, BTW, that criticised Blair, remember his government's reaction to the BAe investigation which the Americans were so keen on? (again, to help their own defence industries) : he just closed down the discussion and told them to buzz off. I'm glad at least Alex Salmond and Jack Straw have shown some spine.

Arb.

One of the first things Obama done when he took up residence in the White House was to have the bust of Sir Winston Churchill removed. That sums up the value of the "Special relationship" between our two nations.

Does anyone still remember Union Carbide & Bhopal???? Everyone except the yanks!

I wonder if any Americans read these blogs, if they don't then, then we are all getting exercised for nothing, This debate as been going on for so long now that we are repeating ourselves,ad nauseum. Let it be said politely that the American establishment is peopled by knaves - base and crafty rogues - led by a thorough going mountebank. The rest of the populous are much the same as anywhere.

Asked about BP on TV in the USA a few days ago, David Cameron told viewers that BP would fully meet it’s responsibilities, i.e. reassurance for lawyers and others wanting to make claims against BP, even though it's not his money but BP's. The interviewer pressed him further about the damage to BP’s reputation in the US to which Cameron basically washed his hands and said it was up to BP to present their case.

So, when it comes to BP paying out Cameron can reassure American listeners will meet whatever obligations they think fit, but given the chance to point out that BP is effectively an Anglo-American multinational employing thousands of Americans having acquired Amoco in 1998 (the explosion at the Texas refinery in 2005 was at a former Amoco refinery where Amoco had installed unsafe plant before merging with BP) Cameron pointed out that it’s not his job.

Here we have a difference between Cameron and Obama. Cameron spoke words aimed to please the American public. Doesn’t he realise it’s not the American public who vote for him. While he’s there he should be doing a PR job for BP. In contrast, Obama has come in for a lot of criticism on Citywire blogs for his anti-BP stance. But we shouldn’t blame Obama. He’s a politician; he’s just doing his job. His job involves keeping on top of public opinion and if US opinion is strongly against BP then he’s just going to take up the public mood. The last thing he wants is the American public blaming him for handling of the crisis or feeling the US is picking up the tab. Pity that Cameron isn’t as savvy.

So, if so many people think BP is a screaming buy at 400p why has it wavered around this price for a week now? Something fishy here..... People saying one thing and doing another?

Obama like all other American presidents think of America first and will not do anything unless America gains a lot on the outcome. Obama as a politician did everything right, with election looming and public opinion against BP Obama had to criticise BP. Unlike our Cameron who appears to speak strongly at home but so weak in America most of the answers to all question while in America was to please the American public and his knowledge of world war history is pathetic despite his expensive private education and he needs to apologise to the British public for saying that Britain was a junior patner during the world war! So far he appears to be a novice apart from his continues rhetorics and favourite subject on DEFICIT.

Tony Blair was supposed to be G.Bush poodle , Cameron is the poodle to the whole of America probably to outdo Blair.

I don't think Hayward has any leadership skills, whatever his technical ability. His frontman role has been a disaster - seldom have I seen a more abject performance, beaten for ineffectiveness only by his pathetic but no doubt highly paid public relations team, all of whom should be fired immediately and retrained for jobs as beach attendants.

At no time have I seen or heard a proper advocacy on behalf of this great company, a major US oil producer, pioneer of Alaskan oil, direct employer of about 30,000 Americans, providing business and work indirectly for tens- hundreds?- of thousands more- and so on. I could personally have done a ten times better job, just calling a press conference with some interesting action in the background and hammering home the facts.

The story of the massive cleanup, the efforts to hire and help the local fishermen, the technical challenges, the day and night effort, was never, ever got across forcefully. It was lame, lame, lame - and Hayward is to blame.

Having spoken to my Russian cousin, Alexander,who said it serve the American Rednecks right if BP sold out to his mother country or China

Seimples

And I agree with him

The outlook for BP especially in the US which is 40/50% of the business is not at all good. The shares are a gamble until the spill is stopped and until the outcome of the (some reports say 300) lawsuits is clearer.

Oh come on, Jette Barton. If you're going to wait for ""the outcome of the (some reports say 300) lawsuits"' then you're going to be waiting for a decade or more. You'll have to make a judgement - that's what investing is all about.

The arrogant summons to our former ministers to appear before them by US politicians is intolerable.

Can anyone imagine Mrs Clinton appearing before a HofC committee?

Lockerbie was a constitutional surrender by Brown. Under the Scotland Act, certain powers were reserved to the UK government. They can be summed up as follows:

International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters.

Nationality; immigration, including asylum and the status and capacity of persons in the United Kingdom who are not British citizens

Defence of the Realm - - special powers, and other special provisions, for dealing with terrorism.

This makes it clear that Brown should have asserted his right to decide the case; but was he afraid of Salmond? Or was there a hidden agenda that Brown was happy to see acted upon by the Scots that left his hands clean in relations with Libya?

It was another miserable performance by that cardboard PM.

Bernard:

I'm afraid you've completely wrong about the situation. Scotland has and always has had a separate legal system from England since Scotland is a separate sovereign country. While the plane blew up over England, its trajectory meant that the wreckage landed on Scottish soil therefore it became a Scottish case. Hence the trial at Camp Zeist.

The American senators do not appear to appreciate this difference either.

Farther, it was a creep named Blair who was p.m. at the time of the bombing and who also negotiated the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, not Brown. He, in spite of being a lawyer , must have forgotten about the different legal systems. Or perhaps just ignored it. So you had the situation of the agreement being between Libya and England and the only Libyan prisoner in the UK being in a Scottish jail.

But you are right about the arrogance of the Americans. They think they can whistle and everyone else will jump to do their bidding.

With hindsight, it was just as well that Abedelbaset Al-Megrahe was not transferred under that agreement. It really would have given the Americans a stick to beat BP with. And also if he had actually died in prison, think what a furore that would have caused, another Jihad to beat us with. The fly in the ointment was that the man did not die around the three months stated. But of course he will be getting the very best of treatment that money can provide.

The kicker in all this is that the man is probably innocent and was fitted up. I thought so at the time of the trial and I still think so. If you look at some of the documents on his website you probably would think so yourself. There was not a shred of credible evidence to prove that he was involved. The Scottish legal system should be ashamed of itself. In fact it was probably the Iranians who at least funded the bombing after the USS Vincenes downed their A320. Check it out in Wikipedia. Another cowboy yank.

And, yes, Gordon,I'm ashamed to say he's Scottish, Brown was probably happy to keep out off it. Mr. McCavity in action.