A classic example is supplied by the Pope's visit. Now that Benedict XVI is actually here, things are going well. He has messages worth hearing. But, in the months preceding the visit, the Vatican did not disclose even to the hierarchy in Britain, let alone to the public, what the Pope's purposes were. His supporters lacked ammunition. The BBC and Channel 4, culturally hostile to religion anyway, happily aired the critics. Peter Tatchell, the energetic crank whose life's work is to reduce all human history to the question of gay sex, was virtually declared infallible.  Over the summer, our Government fell into a similar trap. After the first excitement of the Coalition, and the bracing emergency Budget, things went quiet. Early in August, Baroness Warsi for the Conservatives and Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats jointly announced "a summer of scrutiny" of Labour, but that was the last we heard of it. The space vacated by the Government was filled with stories that matter little, yet do harm – William Hague's hotel bedrooms, the earlier career of David Cameron's media chief, Andy Coulson – and by attacks on the coming cuts.  It is strange that this should be so, because the Coalition is busy, and unbelievably radical. If it really does cut £61 billion out of departments' spending plans, as George Osborne says it will, it will have acted far more boldly than Margaret Thatcher in 1979. And its reforms now in train on welfare, schools, health and police are the sort of thing that caused the Iron Lady to go molten with political anxiety. If you speak to Cabinet ministers in private, they are full of zeal both for cuts and for reform, but they don't like to say so in public.  So the complaint is not that the Coalition is wasting time, but that it is not explaining itself. This is to do with the personality of David Cameron. He is an exceptionally clear public speaker. But, being a rational, civilised and slightly reserved person, rather than a missionary or an actor, he makes the mistake of thinking that, once you've said something in politics, you do not need to say it again (and again, and again).  Throughout Tony Blair's career ran the messiah/thespian anxiety – "Is my message getting across? How good are the box office returns?" For Mr Cameron, these things are not his life-blood, only regrettable necessities. He has a natural and hereditary confidence about running the country, and he prefers to be left alone to get on with it. He is much more at ease with himself than a Blair or a Thatcher. But, to adapt Shakespeare, uneasy ought to lie the head that wears the crown, if it wants to wear it for long.  So the Government's message has thinned down in the public mind to one thing – the need to cut the deficit. That is, indeed, its greatest task. But, to quote a recent speech, "It is not enough to be right if you don't win the argument."  Which brings me to two unpleasing words I have been postponing. They are "Ed" and "Balls". Luckily for the Government, Mr Balls is not an attractive figure. If our present economic ills were the subject of criminal proceedings, the jury might well agree with Michael Heseltine: the top villain is "not Brown: it's Balls". But, a couple of weeks ago, Mr Balls made a speech which included the words quoted above. I shall offend readers by saying that it was a good speech.  The Balls line was that the Coalition has no mandate for cuts, and has not properly debated them. It is trying to frighten us with a "There is no alternative" line, when the plain alternative is to cut the deficit much more slowly and nurse the economy to recovery rather than slice it to ribbons. The financial crisis, he said, was like a war, and wars justify extraordinary remedies. What would we have thought if, in 1945, the government had immediately paid off the national debt rather than inventing social security and the National Health Service? Fairness, said Mr Balls, is at stake. This Government is ideologically obsessed with shrinking the state, whatever the social cost.  Mr Balls is wrong. The deficit is the greatest scandal of economic stewardship since the IMF crisis of 1976. Confidence cannot return unless people know that the debt will come down. But I think that Mr Balls's case is persuasive unless it is countered. The new Labour leader (who will not, it seems, be Mr Balls) will start making it from the week after next.  How can the Government make the counter-case? Some people say that it can't, because of the Coalition: the two parties don't really agree. But I say, take advantage of the Coalition. Explain just how remarkable it is to have them tackling this crisis together, forced to face what really matters. It is good for the Government that it was Nick Clegg, not Mr Cameron, who this week wrote a newspaper article explaining why rigorous welfare reform is a liberal cause. Next week, Mr Clegg will publicly make this case to his own party conference. Two weeks after that, Mr Cameron will address his. And then Mr Osborne will announce his Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government has not only the power of initiative, but almost double the airtime and political spread of its opponents. It is underplaying these advantages.  The same people who worry about Coalition weakness worry about "fairness". They say it is a word which always involves a financial demand: it spells trouble, so leave it alone. But I say that "fairness" – unlike the word "equality", which is fraught with danger both for conservatives and liberals – is a fundamental British concept that cannot be ceded to opponents. It is precisely because our dreadful welfare system has been falsely represented as "fair" for more than half a century that it has resisted reform so successfully. It is not fair that the poor are trapped and the enterprising are penalised. When that is at last understood, the heart (an organ which the Tories are always supposed to lack) will finally go out of socialism.
One of the dangers of the post-spin era is that your opponents can fill the    vacuum, says Charles Moore.