alt Hacker NewsI read most of this agreeing with everything the author was saying, sometimes in a "I already thought that" but often in a "huh, that's a really cool insight." I quite like the style too.
As a Brit though, I was completely blindsided by the inclusion of Dom Cummings. I'd forgotten he existed. Seeing his and Boris' attitude to PPE provision discussed in a positive light without any mention of the associated scandal[1] made me a bit uncomfortable. Without getting too political, they claimed to have solved a problem, but whether or not it was a justifiable, sensible or legitimate solution is probably going to be debated for decades.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_regarding_COVID-...
In an American context, this part also struck me:
>> We did that. But only the Prime Minister could actually cut through all the bureaucracy and say, Ignore these EU rules on Blah. Ignore treasury guidance on Blah. Ignore this. Ignore that. “I am personally saying do this and I will accept full legal responsibility for everything.”
> By taking over responsibility, Johnson loosened the accountability of the civil servants and allowed them to actually solve the problem instead of being stuck following the rigid formal process.
Of course this also can have pretty severe negative consequences. In the U.S., thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, the president has immunity from criminal prosecution under certain (yet to be fully determined) circumstances. If the president then "takes over the responsibility" for obviously illegal actions, and is immune from prosecution for those actions, you now have a civil service unburdened by any responsibility to follow the law. And there are some 3 million odd workers in the U.S. federal government.
That the conservatives on the Supreme Court did not consider this danger, especially in light of who occupies the office, is still astounding to me.