I must say I found it very moving, and very well done. Such a contrast to yesterday's grotesque antics in Congress. A completely different situation, I know, but there was something very impressive about two countries showing such mutual respect and a shared sense of dignity. And once again, following on from his near-perfectly judged Bloody Sunday response, Cameron was on splendid form. He's growing into the office of PM better than I expected.

Prunella Minge wrote:
A completely different situation

Cameron was on splendid form


Could hardly be more different. De Gaulle - like Churchill saw, well in advance, what the Nazis were planning.

And like Obama, Cameron simply has a good speech writer; the former's gilded the lily; the jury is still out on Cameron...

But the question remains - what did this guy ever do? Apart from having a priviledged family and marrying into another.

It's been noted that Cameron tore up the speech prepared for him by civil servants (speech writers rarely 'do' the Commons) for Bloody Sunday and rewrote it himself, so that's a bit unfair.

As for the different events, well, as I said, that's clear, but my point was about conduct and tone, which could and should have been dramatically different in Congress. As an admirer of the best American political traditions and the founding ideals, that episode was appalling.

Prunella Minge wrote:
that episode was appalling.

Yes, appalling that they could not get any type of substantive reply to the questioning.

BTW Pru, you also failed to answer my question about Cameron - what DID he do?

Well unless you REALLY think he was literally comatose for his first few decades I assume you know. I've never voted Tory in my life so I'm hardly going to strain myself to compile a positive-sounding resume for him, am I? I guess Friday is a quiet day and you fancy a rather pointless debate but I've now got something to get finished before 6pm so I'm afraid it'll be one-sided! And we'll have to agree to disagree about how a serious congressional investigation should conduct itself regardless of whether the subject is forthcoming or not forthcoming. The likes of Waxman behaved disgracefully IMHO.

Prunella Minge wrote:
we'll have to agree to disagree about how a serious congressional investigation should conduct itself regardless of whether the subject is forthcoming or not forthcoming

Yes Pru - 'agree to disagree'

But I think we CAN agree that Hayward will be a lot more forthcoming in the inevitable legal cases/court proceedings which will plague BP - and its share price - for years.

If Hayward had held his hands up and said 'we messed up, made an error of judgement and I take full responsibility' - history would have been kinder to him and BP which may not now survive.

Martha wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
that episode was appalling.

Yes, appalling that they could not get any type of substantive reply to the questioning.

BTW Pru, you also failed to answer my question about Cameron - what DID he do?



Isn't a bit early to judge him ?. Should the fact he's a off really matter ?
I reckon about a year in the job is how long it will take to se what he's like.

The BP episode in Congress was a shambles and even worse are the current Republicans who actually demanded Congressmen should apologise !

Martha wrote:
Yes, appalling that they could not get any type of substantive reply to the questioning.

Martha

I didn't actually watch the hearing, so apart from the snippets that I saw on the news, am largely unaware of what went on .... but, isn't it true that he said there was an ONGOING investigation - and it would be unfair to comment until it had reported back ?

Isn't it also true that Congress only called this hearing - knowing that the investigation was ongoing - in order to "convince" their electors that they were doing something ?