The Prime Minister should get a grip, and remind us that he's on our side David Cameron has important political assets. He is calm, balanced and at ease in his own skin. This helps him to deal with the difficult issues of the day. But he also has considerable political weaknesses. He is calm, balanced and at ease in his own skin, which makes it hard to respond to the anxiety and anger that are so widespread among the electorate. It is a paradox; his strengths of personality are making it difficult for him to project the one-nation, unifying Conservatism which is at the core of his values. While they were reforming their party's structures and policies and wanted to express irritation with the people who were obstructing them, Mr Cameron and his acolytes would talk about those who "don't get it." A lot of voters still do not get Mr Cameron. Struggling to understand him, they fall back on class, cliques and that perennial British obsession, schools. Whatever the cause of Neil Heywood's death in China, I will make a firm prediction. It had nothing to do with Harrow School. Yet the past few days" coverage has made him the most famous Old Harrovian since Churchill. Imagine the fuss if he had been to Eton. As one of its recent headmasters put it, "Eton is a four-letter word." It certainly makes it harder for the PM to persuade the voters that he is on their side. So do the recent political mistakes. Although some of them were just bad luck, there are lessons to be learnt. The first is the need for grip, Field Marshal Montgomery's favourite word. The PM needs to ensure that his political early-warning system is a strong as possible. There is an irony. George Osborne was supposed to be the gripper-in-chief, yet his Budget has caused most of the recent problems. There were reasons for this. A Chancellor who is framing a Budget is usually a virtual autocrat. All the reins are in his hands. But Mr Osborne had to endure constant negotiations with the Liberals, who promptly leaked everything. A lot of time was wasted in the arguments over the 50p/45p rate. As a result, the normal political preparations were disrupted. But that is an explanation, not an excuse. The Chancellor will have to do better next time, if he is to restore his once formidable political reputation. There are also lessons from Tony Blair's premiership. Back in 2006, Mr Cameron made a patronising comment about Mr Blair. Poor Tony: he's like a man who owns a wonderful car. Yet for nine years, he never worked out how to drive it properly. Now, at last, he has learnt, but it's too late. He has run out of road. David Cameron now realises how difficult it is to drive the car of government. He shares the frustration which all recent PMs have experienced. They have enormous powers. They are at the apex of a huge governmental machine, with almost infinite sums of money at their disposal. Yet it can be so hard to get anything done. When the Blairites talked about "delivery," Tories would sneer, and rightly so. Far too often, Mr Blair was only interested in the delivery of good headlines. But the misuse of the concept does not diminish its importance. Three radical reforms of the first magnitude have now reached the statute book. Health, education, welfare: the focus of attention will now switch, from the controversies of their legislative passage to the difficulties of implementation. Those reforms now have to deliver. In order to ensure that this happens, ministers will have to maintain a level of grip which would have impressed even Monty. We can be certain that there will be problems. If the Government does not seem to be in command and enforcing delivery, there will be serious electoral consequences. That brings us back to the anger and anxiety. Throughout the nation, there is a widespread feeling that we are living in a country where nothing works, except in the wrong way. Stories such as the 25 firemen gawping at a seagull and worrying about wet feet do inestimable damage. People who know that their firm is struggling and who are worried about their own jobs - these days, there are a lot of people like that - will not see the funny side. A lot of them will conclude that the country is going to the dogs: that the United Kingdom has been re-named the United Kennels. If that feeling continues to grow, reinforced by failures of delivery in the reform programme, the Tories could be at far more risk than the bare percentages in the current opinion polls would suggest. The Tories have a further underlying problem and David Cameron is to blame; he was responsible for a strategic misjudgment. He and his advisers have created the impression that there is a chasm separating old-fashioned Tories from Cameronian modernisers: that the party has to make a choice between the social liberalism of the Cameron circle and traditional Tory themes such as law and order, Euroscepticism and immigration. This is nonsense. It is perfectly possible to accept Cameroon liberalism and distrust Europe: it must be, because David Cameron does. Anyone who has been in an Asian-owned shop when a couple of hoodies shuffle in will know that it is not just whites who are demanding rigorous law-enforcement. It is also easy to believe that the racial minorities already in this country should be made to feel welcome - and that much tighter immigration controls would encourage better race relations. There is one area where social liberalism could cause problems. How have the modernisers fared in their attempts to persuade Muslims to be more tolerant of homosexuality? That illustrates the absurdity of believing that every minority group has the same agenda. One can understand Mr Cameron's wish to demonstrate that the modern Tory party is open and tolerant. But there is much less reason to bang on about this than Francis Maude and others seem to think. Not long after Mr Cameron became leader, Michael Heseltine said that there was no need to talk about changing the party; David Cameron was the change. Hezza was right (he usually is, except on Europe). Mr Cameron's entire political body-language radiates social liberalism. That can create difficulties. Social liberalism is an optimistic creed, which flourishes best in good times. These are hard times. On matters of race and sex, most of the people who are anxious about their own circumstances and who fear that the country is going to the dogs are far more tolerant than they would have been 20 years ago. But they do believe that there are more urgent priorities. Those who seem obsessed with minorities arouse suspicion, on two counts. First, their own circumstances are obviously so affluent that they can rise above ordinary people's problems. Second, what about the majority? It is time for Mr Cameron to make a subtle but substantial change in his political rhetoric. Every time he prepares a major speech, he should ask himself how it will play with the people who always felt that Maggie was on their side, but who have had doubts about every subsequent leader. He should develop a body language which reassures those who are having it tough that he is the man to help them. He should regard any speech as a failure if it does not rebut the charge that the country is going to the dogs.