The printed version of the Eastern Daily Press has a small story about the County Council Greens demanding that Norfolk County Council's Pension Scheme should no longer hold any investments in BP following the oil spill in the Mexican Gulf.
This is typical Green Party grandstanding with no concept of the economics involved.
Aside from the fact that The Green Party has very much taken the US line of "attack BNP" rather than accept that whilst BP have ultimate responsibility, the Rig was owned and run by Transocean, a US firm, it is worrying that the Green Party in the first instance choose to attack a UK based firm rather than look in to the facts in more detail. But as we know from the Iraq War, the Green's chose to attack the Lib Dems for supporting a motion in parliament which offered the support of parliament to UK troops, even if the Lib Dems did not support the war. So we shouldn't be surprised to see the Green Party putting Britain last.
But what about the economics of the Green Party's policy on BP. Is it really good sense for the Norfolk County Council Pension Fund to sell off their shares in BP when the value of those shares has tumbled ? As a "blue chip" stock that has in the past paid out very good dividends, we should assume that BP forms a large part of the pension fund's investments. If they sold now they would make a huge loss with no hope of making up this loss. So who will then pay for the hole in the Council's pension fund ? No doubt when taxes rise to find this black hole, the Green's will attack this tax rise too ?
It just goes to show that the Greens know little about economics but a lot about rabble rousing.