The very posh, uppercrust and unflappable Harold Macmillan was the British Prime Minister in the early 1960s. An austere, impeccably dressed figure, he lived with a secret throughout his tenure of 10 Downing Street, in that he and his wife, the aristocratic Lady Dorothy Cavendish lived separate lives due to her lifelong relationship with another politician.

The press knew all about it but never reported it. Mind you, the press also knew but never exposed that MacMillan’s opposite number, Leader of the Opposition Hugh Gaitskell was having an affair for many years with the wife of James Bond creator, Ian Fleming.

The stories had all the elements which would make today’s red tops drool, but even in those days of very different moral standards which would have regarded the lives of both men public scandals, the press of the day remained docile and restrained.

Fast forward to today and witness the press hounding advisor Dominic Cummings for days over revelations of his now-infamous trip to Durham in breach of the lockdown rules that he helped draw up. In microcosm, the changed behaviour of the press is one very identifiable manifestation of how life has changed in Britain.

Surely, though, nobody is deluded enough to think that it is only the press and media that has changed. Britain is a very different place now in many economic, world status, social and cultural ways, and the Cummings story is symptomatic of that. It touches on something significant.

Matthew Goodwin, an academic in politics, points out that in the Macmillan Britain of 1963, civic culture was “largely deferential to institutions and authority. We were sceptical of them but we trusted them.” Now, he says, the actions of Cummings and the reaction to it shows a violation of the former sense of “fair play.” This shows a deeper cultural change, and he wonders where his country is going in such a polarised way.

There is no doubt that Britain is a very divided country, as the Brexit debate showed. Consider the two following sentences.

On social media, #scummedia is trending, and the media is under fire in many quarters for “whipping up hysteria.”

But a Government scientist accuses political masters of being “truth twisters”, a Church of England Bishop received death threats for openly expressing distrust of those in power, and there is a serious discussion on social media about Cummings being a sociopathic, coercive controller.

Two polar opposite viewpoints, and never the twain shall meet because people these days find it difficult to “disagree agreeably.”

Many people have justifiably made the point that the fixation with Cummings is taking attention away from other stories; not least the encouraging news on Tuesday that there had been no Covid deaths in Ireland, north or south in the previous 24 hours.

But the Cummings story has touched a nerve with the British public, and not just because it has many elements of drama. A public who have suffered tremendous hardship, even heartache, for sticking to the rules imposed by Government now sees a leading Government figure having flouted them, resulting in millions tuning in on a Bank Holiday Monday afternoon to watch his version of events.

It was a performance riddled with holes and nonsense, and the timeline clearly shows it. On March 23, Boris Johnson announced a lockdown with guidelines to be enforced by police. “Stay home” was the slogan, with various warnings that this was not a request but an instruction.

Just four days later, Cummings was seen running from Downing Street to go home to his wife who was taken ill. That evening, he returned to work at Downing Street rather than self-isolating. He then returned home and believing there was a distinct possibility he may have caught the disease, packed up the car with his wife and four-year-old and drove the 260 miles to Durham.

So already, despite him being a risk and against advice, he’d gone back and forth from home to Downing Street, and then left the Covid hotspot of London to go to Durham. All because he apparently claims he couldn’t get any childcare in London. Meanwhile, other families across the country were struggling with all sorts of trying circumstances, but they still followed Boris’s “stay at home” edict.

Sure enough, after a journey halfway across the country without a comfort break, after he set up home away from home (again against express guidelines) the next day, 28 March, Cummings woke up in pain with a serious fever and clearly had Covid symptoms.

While in Durham, on 30 March, a No. 10 source was telling the media that he was self-isolating at home. Why lie?

Another few days later, on 2 April, the couple’s son threw up and had to be taken by ambulance to the local NHS hospital, accompanied by his mother. We don’t know if she told the staff at the hospital about her Covid symptoms which she brought into the NHS front line.

That day, we’re told Mr. Cummings “could barely stand up.” The following day, we presume he managed to struggle to his feet, because he drove to the hospital to bring the boy home. There were no taxis, we’re told, but we’re not told why the family didn’t follow the normal advice to discharged patients to “ask staff to make alternative travel arrangements” if there are problems.

It should also be remembered that Mrs. Cummings since wrote an article for The Spectator saying that her husband had a high fever and muscle spasms in his legs throughout this period, but she doesn’t mention they were in Durham. If it was appropriate, why not?

He did manage a walk in his father’s woods, as you do. And, of course, as the rest of the country was staying at home when they desperately wanted to see their mums, dads, grandparents etc., Mr. Cummings managed to chat to his folks by shouting over to them. And then, on 11 April expert medical advice he was told he could return to work.

This is where the story gets farcical. As he’d been problems with his eyesight, on 12 April he wanted to check if he’d be able to drive back to London, so he took the family on the 30-minute drive to a local beauty spot at Barnard Castle. We now know from an article in The Spectator in 2012 that Mrs. Cummings could drive back then; but why didn’t she drive that day? It was her birthday, by the way, a nice day for a trip, and on the way home the young child needed to go to the toilet so they stopped the car again.

This part of the story is risible; leading to many jokes about Specsavers etc. And indeed, it’s the part in which people scoff at and ridicule Cabinet Ministers coming on to television to defend him.

After the Cummings appearance, the reaction has been interesting. Those who want to believe him do so, or at least even if they know fine well he’s “gaslighting” the public, they back him. And many are saying that they won’t condemn him for putting his family first. Fair enough, but the point that a journalist made is that while everyone else was following the rules, Cummings was following his instinct.

I think that his version is a masterclass in creating a narrative, including a little-known loophole, to fit events after he was caught out. And in classic tactics, he claims that the public is angry because they’ve been fed a media story full of inaccuracies. Yet, please note, all of the above timeline is true as he has admitted.

Look, I have reservations about the media, and I’m uncomfortable about the behaviour of photographers and reporters harassing him outside his home. And, some of the questioning at the presser was poor; Robert Peston’s pantomime dame act means by the time he finishes his question I’ve lost interest.

But don’t lump all the press together. Although it makes them unpopular, the vast majority of journalists are performing their important role of holding power to account with incisive questions.

I just find it remarkable that those in power have succeeded in convincing people that the big bad media are the enemies of the people, while a horrible man like Cummings isn’t held to account.

Stories of his ruthless approach to getting rid of dissenters within his own ranks are commonplace, and he is known to be obnoxious, a far cry from the mild character in the rose garden.

The wider issue, I think, is how a nasty piece of work like Cummings who apparently creates mayhem inside the party and inside number 10 with his abrasive approach, has become such a vital cog in the wheel of Government that Boris and Co. are prepared to put their Government on the line for him in the face of mounting public anger.

The worrying thing is, in today’s Britain, that even if Cummings goes, the corrupt system of the way Britain is governed in 2020 will remain in place.