So she\’s got a piece in The Guardian about the ECGD:
Umm, it\’s not a government department. It\’s a government agency. There is a difference and I\’d hope that an MP knew that.
The former is a method of selecting a candidate to run for office. The latter is an area of the world which is what you mean.
\”Its clients tend to work in troubled areas of the world,\”
Yes, because that\’s where you need insurance you see. Insurance is protection against risk, \”troubled\” and \”risk\” tend to go together.
\”While it is the British taxpayer who underwrites these projects in the short term, it is ultimately developing countries that end up footing the bill when projects go wrong. When the project buyer fails to pay up, the ECGD can turn this into \”third world\” debt. Today countries as diverse as Vietnam, Kenya, Indonesia and Egypt owe the ECGD £2bn for previous sales, regardless of whether the sale benefited the people of those countries.
There are virtually no safeguards. The ECGD has no \”duty of care\” towards people in developing countries who are affected by the projects it supports.\”
Yes, because the local government has to sign off on such a guarantee.
What, you think the ECGD just says to me, \”Well, you\’re selling to some bloke in Indonesia, here\’s your insurance and if he buggers off then we\’ll stick the Indonesian Government with the bill?\”
Don\’t be silly, I\’ve got to go and get the signature of the Indonesian Government, agreeing that they\’ll pick up the bill if the bloke buggers off. If I don\’t get that signature then it never does end up being the Indonesian taxpayers who have to cough up.
Tell you what Ms. MP with a year\’s experience. You go do some research on this, you know, something more than your five years with a children\’s charity, and then we\’ll all come back and discuss it in more detail, shall we?
Blimey…..equal opportunities for women in politics is all very well but equal opportunities for uninformed idiots?