political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Prostitution Poll Result: Astonishing...
More than 270 of you voted on the statement "Prostitution should be legalised and properly regulated"...
Agree 88% Disagree 9% Don't Know 3%
A quite astonishing result, bearing in mind that 65% of you are Conservative voters.
Fanny Hill is right. Always ask who's voting and why. Punters need to justify themselves. Non-punters may have opinions, but they're less important. Not so astonishing.
I am baffled as to why you express such surprise. I have been away and did not vote on this but would have voted to legalise (as I would with drugs).
It seems to me yet again that the political class (in which I am including you) are out of kilter with the views of activists and the public in general.
You lot have a habit of characterising any view that does not chime with the cosy political consensus as dangerous or maverick and thus easily dismissed. This is of course until it becomes clear that you are too out of touch and then the view is adopted by all of you and another consensus begins.
I am certain that in 30 years time all currently illegal drugs will be legal and this current period of prohibition will be looked back at with puzzlement and some shame by historians. The problem is that most of you in the PC do not currently agree with this view and if/when any of you put your head(s) above the parapet you are instantly condemned (by the tabloid press and also by other opportunist politicians) as SOFT ON EVIL DRUGS WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF TEH CHILDREN (etc.) without ever seriously engaging with the subject.
Just to briefly engage with the subject matter the poll was addressing:
1) People (men) have always done and will always use prostitutes.
2) If you inisist on making/keeping prostitution illegal then this will invariably keep it underground, unregulated and put the women involved in more danger than they need to be.
I don't really need to go any further than this. Political pragmatism and evidence based policy (anchored in the real world, not that of scaremongering tabloid headlines) would have caused a change in this area many years ago and shame on you for attempting to perpetuate the nonsense of the current position by trying to dismiss the considered views of a well educated and properly engaged audience (your own readership) as "astonishing".
Find some balls and start addressing these issues on the basis of the real world.
A long time ago in a galaxy far away there was an expectation that someone of 'the right' would espouse sound money, small government, putting queers in prison, belief in God, strong defense / foreign policy, absolute sexual conservatism, etc.
In the real world there are social liberals (we were born after 1960)who believe in economically conservative policy (grew up with Maggie). The socially liberal / economically conservative tendency must surely be the vast majority of most 'right wing' people today. If you wan't social authoritarianism you need look no further than Labour.
How can Iain be astonished? Does ho not live in the same world as the rest of us?
Well Tories live in leafy suburbs and are unlikley to be affected by this, apart from accessing the services as usual. It's the Labour voters in the nastier parts of town who'll have to cope.
I agree whole heartedly with marksany - the rank and file being much more libertarian than the leadership.
It's never made sense to me why it shouldn't be legalised. It doesn't matter how much anyone tries, no-one will ever be able to stop prostitution. Better then to legalise and provide a framework that would give more protection to the prostitutes themselves.
An economist would describe prostitution as a free market enterprise with few barriers to entry. Like, uhm, a fruit stall.
There's an interesting draft paper by Levitt and Venkatesh analysing street prostitution
They suggest that although street prostitutes earn around 4x the unskilled hourly wage, this actually represents meagre compensation for the risk they bear. They suggest pimps may enable prostitutes to do better, both by reducing the risk and paying efficiency wages - hence the preference by some street prostitutes for working in this way.
They suggest the supply of prostitutes is relatively elastic, and that there are few substitute goods.
Interestingly, they also suggest that a prostitute is more likely to have sex with a police officer than be formally arrested by one; quis custodiet etc.
Of course in the UK, Welfare has minimised prostitution. In the Victorian era, London had 1 female prostitute for every 12 adult males (Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society, CUP 1980)But there are only a fraction of that number working now.
This may not be a good thing. It's been estimated that the Sydney 2000 Olympics drew in some 10,000 prostitutes, essentially to service the 100,000 strong construction workforce. Our construction force is similar. Insufficient London prostitutes in the run up to 2012 may mean construction over-runs and escalating costs - with tax impacts, i.e. negative externalities. Sufficient prostitutes for the Olympics will also increase London's GDP at a time when the capital is facing an additional 370,000 out of work.
I am astonished that there is prostitution at all in Britain. It may have been a few years since I called England home but my memory of the situation cannot be that out of date. When there are so many enthusiastic amateurs giving it away for free why on earth would you want to pay.
Would it shock you more to think that some of your readers where suggesting that prostitutes could do a lot to improve their conditions by forming a Trade Union?
The sex trade is inevitable, in its present state it suffers from the worst of abuses. If ever there was a need to improve working conditions and bring down bad management organisations... this is probably the place.
I tried to post a rejoinder to my previous post but you did not publish this. Now that you have changed your comments policy hopefully this one will get through!
I have posted my comments relating to this on my blog here:
It would have been higher... I didn't agree with the regulation part of the question so didn't vote..
ReplyDeleteThey're not voters, they're punters.
ReplyDeleteCons are always one jump ahead of the curve
ReplyDeleteYou can't keep a good Conservative down. Phnaar, Phnaar...
ReplyDeleteI fall into the 35%
ReplyDeleteGo me!
Not surprised at all. Unlike NuLab, Conservative voters live in the real world, not in la-la land.
ReplyDeleteWV: grityp (what's going on tonight)
Looks like the rank & file is more libertarian than the leadership.
ReplyDeleteTry another poll on, say, drugs legalisation.
That's just those that can find their way around a blog or two (and can assess news with an open mind).
ReplyDeleteThe meeja will make sure the idea is abhorrent to those whose most adventurous use of the internet is to update their status on Facebook.
Fanny Hill is right. Always ask who's voting and why. Punters need to justify themselves. Non-punters may have opinions, but they're less important. Not so astonishing.
ReplyDeleteThe truth will out.
ReplyDeleteNot really all that shocking when you think that 100% the people voting read blogs. Not exactly the haunt of traditionalists, is it?
ReplyDeleteStill. It's something.
I've no idea why you would be surprised at this Iain. Even if you personally disagree. Business is business. Tories mean business.
ReplyDeleteI am baffled as to why you express such surprise. I have been away and did not vote on this but would have voted to legalise (as I would with drugs).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me yet again that the political class (in which I am including you) are out of kilter with the views of activists and the public in general.
You lot have a habit of characterising any view that does not chime with the cosy political consensus as dangerous or maverick and thus easily dismissed. This is of course until it becomes clear that you are too out of touch and then the view is adopted by all of you and another consensus begins.
I am certain that in 30 years time all currently illegal drugs will be legal and this current period of prohibition will be looked back at with puzzlement and some shame by historians. The problem is that most of you in the PC do not currently agree with this view and if/when any of you put your head(s) above the parapet you are instantly condemned (by the tabloid press and also by other opportunist politicians) as SOFT ON EVIL DRUGS WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF TEH CHILDREN (etc.) without ever seriously engaging with the subject.
Just to briefly engage with the subject matter the poll was addressing:
1) People (men) have always done and will always use prostitutes.
2) If you inisist on making/keeping prostitution illegal then this will invariably keep it underground, unregulated and put the women involved in more danger than they need to be.
I don't really need to go any further than this. Political pragmatism and evidence based policy (anchored in the real world, not that of scaremongering tabloid headlines) would have caused a change in this area many years ago and shame on you for attempting to perpetuate the nonsense of the current position by trying to dismiss the considered views of a well educated and properly engaged audience (your own readership) as "astonishing".
Find some balls and start addressing these issues on the basis of the real world.
Mark, When you scroll down the page you will go red with embarrassment and what you just wrote.
ReplyDeletehttp://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11/perhaps-its-time-to-legalise.html
Not surprising at all as Conservatives, (big C), have always been liberals at heart.
ReplyDelete(please note, not lefty Lib-Dem sort of liberals, good old fashioned laissez faire liberals).
I didn't vote because prostitution is legal in England.It is illegal in Thailand by the way.
ReplyDeleteA long time ago in a galaxy far away there was an expectation that someone of 'the right' would espouse sound money, small government, putting queers in prison, belief in God, strong defense / foreign policy, absolute sexual conservatism, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world there are social liberals (we were born after 1960)who believe in economically conservative policy (grew up with Maggie). The socially liberal / economically conservative tendency must surely be the vast majority of most 'right wing' people today. If you wan't social authoritarianism you need look no further than Labour.
How can Iain be astonished? Does ho not live in the same world as the rest of us?
Well Tories live in leafy suburbs and are unlikley to be affected by this, apart from accessing the services as usual.
ReplyDeleteIt's the Labour voters in the nastier parts of town who'll have to cope.
Word Verification: "Bonopimp"
Seriously?!
Waaaaay off-topic, but I just had to post this Untergang mash-up - yes, another one! - on the BNP membership list.
ReplyDeletehttp://lolgriffin.blogspot.com/
I agree whole heartedly with marksany - the rank and file being much more libertarian than the leadership.
ReplyDeleteIt's never made sense to me why it shouldn't be legalised. It doesn't matter how much anyone tries, no-one will ever be able to stop prostitution. Better then to legalise and provide a framework that would give more protection to the prostitutes themselves.
WV: subspig... hmmmm....
"A quite astonishing result, bearing in mind that 65% of you are Conservative voters."
ReplyDeletecould mean tories are the biggest customers?
An economist would describe prostitution as a free market enterprise with few barriers to entry. Like, uhm, a fruit stall.
ReplyDeleteThere's an interesting draft paper by Levitt and Venkatesh analysing street prostitution
They suggest that although street prostitutes earn around 4x the unskilled hourly wage, this actually represents meagre compensation for the risk they bear. They suggest pimps may enable prostitutes to do better, both by reducing the risk and paying efficiency wages - hence the preference by some street prostitutes for working in this way.
They suggest the supply of prostitutes is relatively elastic, and that there are few substitute goods.
Interestingly, they also suggest that a prostitute is more likely to have sex with a police officer than be formally arrested by one; quis custodiet etc.
Of course in the UK, Welfare has minimised prostitution. In the Victorian era, London had 1 female prostitute for every 12 adult males (Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society, CUP 1980)But there are only a fraction of that number working now.
This may not be a good thing. It's been estimated that the Sydney 2000 Olympics drew in some 10,000 prostitutes, essentially to service the 100,000 strong construction workforce. Our construction force is similar. Insufficient London prostitutes in the run up to 2012 may mean construction over-runs and escalating costs - with tax impacts, i.e. negative externalities. Sufficient prostitutes for the Olympics will also increase London's GDP at a time when the capital is facing an additional 370,000 out of work.
Boris take note.
Surprised? Tories love prostitutes, they just don't like to accept so in public.
ReplyDeleteI am astonished that there is prostitution at all in Britain. It may have been a few years since I called England home but my memory of the situation cannot be that out of date.
ReplyDeleteWhen there are so many enthusiastic amateurs giving it away for free why on earth would you want to pay.
Would it shock you more to think that some of your readers where suggesting that prostitutes could do a lot to improve their conditions by forming a Trade Union?
ReplyDeleteThe sex trade is inevitable, in its present state it suffers from the worst of abuses. If ever there was a need to improve working conditions and bring down bad management organisations... this is probably the place.
"A quite astonishing result"
ReplyDeleteNot really Iain. It's more or less only femnazis with personal problems and god squad nutters who really have any problem with prostitution.
I didn't get to vote 10 times so the results must be inaccurate hehe!
ReplyDeleteIain.
ReplyDeleteI tried to post a rejoinder to my previous post but you did not publish this. Now that you have changed your comments policy hopefully this one will get through!
I have posted my comments relating to this on my blog here:
http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2008/11/prostitution-lets-have-heated-debate.html