Because there is nothing new about women selling their bodies for sex, is not justification enough for the tolerance of prostitutes on our streets today. The images of the five unfortunate Suffolk women displayed on our TV screens nightly reminds us of the ultimate dangers of life as a ‘working girl’. The great majority of these women had been taking the well-known risks of prostitution to fund further risk-taking behaviour with drugs, invariably using heroin or crack (or both).

This appalling case in Suffolk has stimulated a further debate about the most effective way to handle one of the oldest professions known to the human race. What should society’s attitude be to women (and men) selling their bodies for sex? And where do you draw the line as to what “selling your body” constitutes? Are lap dancers acceptable? What about lingerie models? Indeed, what about any photographic model? My own reaction to the appalling events in Ipswich is to wish that working girls did not exist. The list of things I wished did not exist, however, is not a short one. What about paedophiles, heroin, racism? And not wanting something to exist certainly does not help those trapped in the position that these five women found themselves.

I do not have a daughter so I have no way of knowing how the fathers of the five women in Ipswich feel about each daughter’s apparent daily existence. What I do know is that I hope that no daughter of mine is ever a working girl. I hope that no daughter of mine ever feels the need to raise money in that fashion to feed an opiate drug habit. But what if she was a working girl. How would I want my daughter treated by society in those circumstances? For how she was treated would, on the evidence of the last few weeks in Suffolk, influence her personal health and ultimate security.

A few thousand years ago the picture above adorned the interior of a Roman brothel. How further forward has our policy on prostitution moved in the last two millennia? By calling for the re-introduction of brothels are some commentators going back in time or are they being realistic about human behaviour? Are those who call for more “traditional” policies denying the truth about people’s sexual behaviour? It would on the face of it appear to be an argument of pragmatism versus idealism. Arguments about social policy often are like this.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue. Instinctively, I tend towards pragmatism when it comes to social policy, however, if I do not want any future daughter of mine to be a working girl, then why should I tolerate someone else’s child being one? As it stands today, though, I would rather live in a society that protects its citizens, whatever their chosen form of employment, than condemn them to darkened streets so that they may be more easily preyed upon by murderers and rapists. Just because we cannot see something occurring does not mean that it does not happen. Allowing the present situation to continue makes us all complicit in the murders of working girls today, in the past and in the future.

Tonight I have been invited on to ‘Real Talk’, a live political discussion programme on Bangla TV. The Conservative Friends of Bangladesh were invited by the programme to send a representative to discuss the up-coming General Election in Bangladesh. For those of you who are interested, it is being broadcast from 7.30pm this evening (Sky 792).

Politicians should stop trying to be cool and get on with running the country – Cheryl Cole

Thank you to the New Statesman for giving me the opportunity to post a picture of Girls Aloud. According to the Guardian today, they have given the esteemed journal an interview about their take on politics. Cheryl, in particular, had plenty to say, a lot of which made sense. She even called for the re-introduction of grammar schools…

I work as a GP locum throughout the Thames Valley. Hence, I visit more than one practice. A colleague of mine in one such practice grabbed me today to express his disgust at being asked to distribute copies of a leaflet detailing the Chancellor’s recent Pre-Budget Report. Apparently, every GP to his knowledge had been sent a batch of these leaflets to be handed out in the waiting room. He informed me that this had also been the case for the last few budgets. He deeply resented his practice being used to spread political (dis)information.

So, here we have a clear example of this government taking every opportunity to spread its own interpretation of the state of the British economy. And more importantly, to charge us for the pleasure of receiving this party political literature. The leaflet is noted as being from Her Majesty’s Treasury, however, on closer inspection one sees the following headings:

• Investing in Britain’s potential
• Maintaining a stable economy (no mention of borrowing requirement being higher than expected for this year)
• Delivering high employment (?trend in recent years)
• Building a fairer society (?social mobility trend)

All rather New Labour, I think. The audacity of this approach is remarkable – vulnerable patients being hit with party political literature which they have had no choice but to pay for!

Apparently, according to those in the know, this is the likely answer to who the average Londoner thinks the next elected Mayor will be. The loveable rogue, the man who tells us how things really are. The man who is elected to serve and govern London but still manages to pontificate on international affairs. More accurately, on international affairs of his own choice. The man who vociferously attacks George Bush at any opportunity, but has little to say publicly about the human rights record of the Chinese on a recent visit to Beijing. The man who likened the massacre in Tiananmen Square of 1989 to the ‘Poll Tax’ riots of 1990: the first killed an estimated 3000 people, the second killed none. The first led to a further crackdown on individual freedoms, the second led to reform of local taxation in Britain. Similar? Or could it be that the true ‘leftie’ is following the Chinese billions? Mr Principle, I presume?

The London Mayoralty is a position of real political power. It has a very important role in the government of arguably the greatest city on Earth. It sets the budget for the Greater London Authority and oversees or controls policy areas as diverse as transport, policing, health (tackling inequalities), environment and culture. The Mayor has a remarkable degree of independence. This is a political position that every serious political party should aim to gain. That is why the Conservatives should take their time over the selection of their candidate.

Although I understand Darren Caplan’s frustration at the apparent delay in selection of the Conservative Mayoral candidate, his article does eloquently and passionately highlight the political weaknesses of the incumbent Mayor. The Conservative Party needs a positive candidate, a candidate who can express the hopes as well as concerns of average Londoners. A candidate who can positively address the quality of life issues – environment, crime, public transport – that David Cameron will seek to address on the national stage. The Conservative Party also needs their candidate to reach out to all of London’s communities. Not in the often crude way of the incumbent Mayor, but rather to forge links and foster integration between the city’s established communities.

The London I know is already a fantastic city. It deserves a fantastic Conservative candidate who can lead it confidently and successfully into the next decade. With the right candidate in place, the Conservatives are in a strong position to take over the government of the world’s premier city.