David, that is an important argument. By criticising Cummings/Johnson do we simply amplify the damage done? It is something I have struggled with. But here, on balance, is why I believe it was the right thing to do. https://twitter.com/David_Goodhart/status/1265220391112450048

First, my tweet did feed into the furore. But it did not create it and the whole affair would still have been in the headlines, suggesting it is fine to leave home, travel and visit beauty spots if you deem it necessary. Norms of compliance would still have been threatened.

Second, in all my interviews I have stressed that Cummings actions were counter-normative. Most people made sacrifices to obey lockdown. Most people thought of the impact of their actions on the wider community. Cummings does not represent us.

If an act is (a) rare, and (b) contrary to collective values, then highlighting it can serve to reinforce rather than corrode the group norm. Highlighting it is not a problem in itself, it is how you highlight it. I tried (perhaps I didn't always succeed) to be careful here.

Third, as we exit lockdown, public compliance becomes if anything more rather than less important. We need to maintain hygiene, social distance, reveal our contacts if infected, quarantine if contacted. So trust in authority and a sense of communal responsibility remains critical

Fourth, the main problem we have is not the public, it is clear leadership. And central to that leadership is creating a strong sense of community and cohesion. The problem is that our leadership don't seem to understand that.

Even (perhaps especially) in their defence, the PM and his advisor about 'I', about following individual 'instincts' and individual judgements. Nowhere was there any consideration of the impact of acts on others.

So that's why, ultimately, and despite possible dangers, I believe it was right to stress the need for a leadership that understands the importance of the 'we'. But it is arguable, and thanks for keeping me on my toes!