Coffee House Debate: Round 3

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's response here and the second round.

Tim
 
The trouble with "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" is that it embodies the worst of Blair: the Vickie Pollard aspect of New Labour, which says "Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no", and ends up saying nothing. Nobody sensible would deny that there is a "conveyor belt to crime" or that rehabilitation is desirable. The trouble is that this is not a new thought at all.
 
Since Roy Jenkins and Reggie Maudling, the orthodox position of the liberal criminal justice industry - egged on by the Treasury! - has been to reduce prison capacity through various forms of release and (related to this) to treat criminal behaviour essentially as a sickness that can be cured or at least driven into remission. Michael Howard struggled valiantly against this orthodoxy when he was Home Secretary and crime fell. I would like to see his former Special Adviser, David Cameron, do the same.
 
Labour's intellectual work? We can argue all day about the potential for tax cuts to destabilise the economy: even Norman Tebbit admits that mortgage tax relief went too far. But that's not the point. The fact is that the public still look at the Tories - unfairly - and see a party longing to cut taxes to line the pockets of its rich pals. The first step to getting back into office is to reassure, reassure, reassure. The "stability first" mantra is not the title of an economist's PhD thesis but a message to the electorate about priorities: no more, no less. Do you really think George Osborne wants to be the Tory Chancellor who didn't cut taxes?
 
On international security: you and I have always agreed on this and conservativehome.blogs.com has been a lion-hearted defender of what is right. I hope Cameron and his team take note.
 
Over to you for the last word!
 
Best wishes
Matt

Tim's response can be read here