This scapegoating of BP shames America



[headerlinks

It was nothing less than bear-baiting.



For more than seven hours, the hapless BP chief executive Tony Hayward was humiliated, scorned and harangued by aggressively rude and, more often than not, posturing U.S. congressmen.



In the gallery, members of the public behaved hysterically and histrionically and at times Mr Hayward was denied the chance to speak. It was an unedifying spectacle unworthy of the world's only superpower.



Testing time: BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward testifies before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee

Yes, BP has many disturbing questions to answer over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and its public relations campaign has been nothing short of disastrous.



But President Obama's behaviour has been an affront to the dignity of his office.



Cynically distracting attention from his own lame response to the disaster and plummeting opinion polls, he has for weeks resorted to every cheap trick in the huckster's book to demonise British (as he stresses) Petroleum.



Last night, this scapegoating appeared to have worked, with Mr Hayward stripped of direct responsibility for tackling the spill.



To say that David Cameron has been muted in response is an understatement. Doubtless he has been working assiduously behind the scenes, but it is in the all-too public arena that the damage is being done to our economic interests.



The Prime Minister should tell Mr Obama that when the negligence of American banks over toxic mortgages caused financial devastation, UK politicians did not stoke anti-U.S. feeling.



Nor did this country seek to apportion blame for the many environmental and energy disasters involving U.S. firms.



It is perhaps unfair to point out that hundreds of British soldiers have died supporting America in its misguided incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq.



It is, however, entirely fair to say that if America's leaders devoted as much energy to solving the BP tragedy as they are now spending on demonising the company, it would be better for everyone.





Budget for the future

It was only six weeks have passed since its messy birth but the coalition has acted impressively to fix Labour's financial mess.



The first £6billion of cuts came swiftly with the axing of wasteful quangos and needless consultancy contracts.



On Wednesday, George Osborne announced a revolution in the regulation of the financial sector - placing the Bank of England in sole charge of the City, ending the responsibility- blurring tripartite system (the Bank, FSA and Treasury) introduced by Gordon Brown.



All change: Chancellor George Osborne has announced sweeping cuts to fix Labour's financial mess

The next day the Treasury said it was axing £2billion in unaffordable bribes - from free swimming to a new hospital - announced by Labour before the election.



However, it is the budget which will reveal the coalition's determination to reduce crippling public borrowing which stood at £16billion last month alone.



The early signs are that Mr Osborne will deliver the harshest measures since Geoffrey Howe put 'sick man' Britain on the road to recovery in 1981.



'But the fact is Britain - with its £900billion of debt and bloated public sector - has been living beyond its means for too long.'



Holidaymakers will be clobbered with new plane taxes. 'Sin' taxes will head skywards. Corporation tax ... Capital Gains Tax ... VAT. Nothing will escape scrutiny.



Many will worry that increasing taxes and slashing spending could turn the fragile recovery into a new recession.



But the fact is Britain - with its £900billion of debt and bloated public sector - has been living beyond its means for too long. This week it was revealed public sector staff spend nine fewer years at work over their lifetime than private employees and earn 30 per cent more.



Mr Osborne has a unique opportunity to put Britain on a sound financial footing. The only way this can be achieved is by recalibrating the relationship between the state, which is too big, and the private sector, which is too small.





