We still don't understand David Cameron, our serene but radical Prime Minister But despite the calm, Mr Cameron is a radical. That explains why he tolerated Steve Hilton, even as the man was driving officials and indeed ministers crazy. He was content that Mr Hilton should menace the complacent oysters of bureaucratic routine with the grit of disruption. In Mr Cameron's view, that was necessary because the British state is failing a lot of the British people. Taxes are too high, as is borrowing, and for what? Does anyone believe that the institutions of government are helping the British people to develop their full potential? That is why Mr Cameron spent the past two years forcing through the most radical programme of domestic reform since Attlee. Health, education and welfare; all of them were challenges which Mrs Thatcher sidestepped; all will now experience dramatic changes, the product of a profound intellectual and moral commitment. So why is it still possible to misrepresent Mr Cameron as a facile PR man? Because he has the defects of his qualities. A man who is at ease in his own skin is ideally suited to harmonious domesticity, but in the music of politics, too much harmony can seem bland. Politicians sometimes need a spike of passionate intensity, lest they appear to be lacking in conviction. Mr Cameron needs fewer sarabandes and more fugues. It is not that he is incapable of expressing conviction. A few weeks ago, he made a superb speech on the urgent need to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. On that occasion, he spoke from his heart and his soul. Compare and contrast with the Big Society. That phrase is his attempt to summarise what is wrong with Britain and how to put it right. Mrs Thatcher had said that there was no such thing as society. She did not mean it; she was merely reacting against a 1980s tendency among defence lawyers to claim that even if their client had bashed an old lady over the head, it was all society's fault. But her unfortunate choice of language was a gift to the Lefties. Mr Cameron sought to put that right: "There is such a thing as society, but it is not the same as the state." Wherever the state was stifling individual and local initiative - as well as wasting resources - Mr Cameron wanted to roll it back. The phrase "Big Society" is shorthand for Cameronian radicalism. As such, it has flopped. Hardly anyone knows what it means; most people are left bewildered, and vaguely threatened by the Orwellian overtones of the word "Big." The whole business sounds like an attempt at PR flummery. The Prime Minister has still not found the heartfelt rhetoric to express his radicalism. Yet he does need to deploy some PR techniques. At present, there is a dangerous political vacuum. It is not just the Big Society which is misunderstood. In the entire country there are fewer than 10,000 people who understand either the health reforms or the welfare ones, let alone both. The Blairites did grasp one point: the importance of the narrative. If a government does not present its version of events, its opponents will fill the gap. It is not necessary to deliver a précis of the health and welfare proposals to every household in the land. There is an easier solution: clear and brief statements of principle, which ministers can then repeat endlessly. "These changes are good for Britain because..."; "This is going to bring out the best in the NHS because..."" That is crucial, for there will be difficulties. Not all the welfare cuts will fall on the undeserving poor. Some people who do need help will have less of it. I will also make a confident prediction. Between now and 2015, someone will die in a hospital. Even if it were a 98-year-old great-grandmother who had finally succumbed to her fourth stroke, that would not prevent Labour from claiming that she had fallen victim to the Tories" assaults on the NHS. Think back to rail privatisation. Fatal accidents had been occurring on the railways since the MP William Huskisson was run over by Stephenson's Rocket in 1830. There is no evidence that privatisation undermined safety. But even John Prescott managed to incite regular panics, which damaged the Tories. There is only one solution. In a phrase from the rugger field, which is meant to sound more than vaguely threatening, get your retaliation in first. Ensure that it is your narrative which prevails. Beyond all that, Mr Cameron must just pray for calm and good luck, while hoping that his colleagues will make fewer mistakes. He still has enormous assets, not least his own personality. He is much the biggest figure in British politics. We should also remember that if Margaret Thatcher had been nine points adrift in the polls at this stage in a Parliament, she would have been alarmed. Why was she not further behind? To her, mid-term unpopularity was the inevitable consequence of a confrontational approach to the issues of the day. Only nine points: what was she doing wrong?