Coffee House Debate: Round Two

Matthew d'Ancona and Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home debate what the Tories can--and should--learn from Blair.  Read Matt's opener here.

Tim

Anarcho-syndicalism? Well, that’s what some of the wilder Tory rhetoric about dismantling the state resembles. But moving swiftly on….
 

On crime: hug-a-hoodie was a disaster. In my view, no party can be too tough on crime. It is the mods’ greatest error to believe that being cuddly about crime is a necessary part of the “decontamination” strategy. If anything, hug-a-hoodie put rocket boosters under Labour’s claim that the Tory Party is now in the hands of toffs with no concept of real life.
 

You’re right that the public are getting angry about waste and that the reality of Gordon’s taxes and regulations will start to bite more deeply in the coming months and years. But herein lies the big elephant trap. A hopeless Opposition can say what it wants: “Low taxes! Cut benefits! Bring back the birch!” It’s completely irrelevant. But a Government-in-waiting has to do more than shout noisily about policies. It must explain how it would get from A to B. It must secure permission to pursue its objectives.

 
Lower taxation is not only desirable but essential, which is why Osborne has pledged to cut the share of national income taken by the State during the next Parliament. But the Tories will never get to the point where they can make real such objectives if they do not first persuade the public that they have an overall economic policy that is responsible – or more crudely, that they understand that people care about their mortgage rates at least as much as they care about upfront promises of tax cuts. This isn’t a debate about philosophy. It’s a debate about strategy. We should not delude ourselves that memories of Black Wednesday have faded entirely. Reassurance is at the heart of any transition from Opposition to power: on this much Philip Gould is right.

 
That said, I agree with you that the Cameroons need to be more passionate, to communicate a sense of mission and urgency. Blair’s trick in 1997 was to convey such a sense by his very countenance and behaviour – while doing all he could to reassure Middle Britain’s waverers. Cameron has to present himself as more than a happy pragmatist. What, exactly, is his mission?

 
Over to you.
 
Matt

Tim's response can be read here.