Ted Cussans: A plan of action for a British DOGE | Conservative Home

Ted Cussans is an undergraduate of Politics and International Relations at Bristol University.

On the 4^th of July 2026, America celebrates its 250^th birthday, but it is also the expiry date of the bold and exciting Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Without Congressional approving an act, DOGE cannot become an official government department but can produce recommendations to Trump on which he can sign off executive orders, implementing the suggestions. The aims of this department have been made clear: dismantling government bureaucracy, slashing excess regulations, cutting wasteful expenditure, and restructuring federal agencies.

With the recent departure of Vivek Ramaswamy from the program as he lines up his gubernatorial campaign for Ohio, DOGE is now led by Elon Musk, who has made it his aim to cut $2 trillion of Government Spending. With current spending at $6.75 trillion, this target is tough yet achievable if Musk and his team are ruthless enough.

Margaret Thatcher identified the problem with socialists as being that they eventually “run out of other people’s money”. The evidence supports this and shows that politicians tend to spend budgets with impunity, as the value and risk of public money are not connected directly to the politician.

Having ambition in spending cuts is one of the most politically bold things someone can suggest in modern times. In practice, it become unthinkable to dial back social care, healthcare, or aid. And after 14 years of Labour’s sanctimonious criticisms of austerity measures despite overall budgets rising, we can’t expect any genuine meaningful spending cuts in the next few years.

Having a millionaire minister is already seen as fishy but having a billionaire leading a department whose aim is to slash regulation, and spending would not go down so well with an already disappointed British electorate. The ‘American dream’ means figures like Musk are accepted and glorified. Maybe John Steinbeck had a point in saying that Americans see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”.

The success of Javier Milei’s vast spending cuts, ferocious attitude, and total contempt of the Argentinian state is inspirational. Deleting half the ministries and firing more than 50,000 civil servants has resulted (for the first time in 123 years) in Argentina no longer having a budget deficit. The effects are still taking their time to come into how the population feels, which is to be expected after decades of normalised high tax, higher spending dogma.

In Britain, the Public Accounts Committees lack vision. We should not be so afraid of highlighting the low-hanging fruit that can be taken from these monetarist, sound money examples. With our public spending now at 45 per cent of GDP, and the annual deficit running at 4.8 per cent of GDP, we should make sure to highlight the consequences of sustained high spending, which leads to inflation and inevitably higher borrowing costs.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has a budget of £1.6 billion, 1,970 employees, and works with 42 agencies and public bodies. When you have a blob whose interest it is to remain in office, they will make work for themselves following the mantra of ‘spend it or lose it’. Such rent-seeking behaviour is at the expense of the taxpayer who suffers most. Thomas Sowell perfectly articulates the idea of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits

“The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.”

DCMS, could be immediately closed, with any necessary work which cannot be feasibly done through private sector entities, being pushed into the nearest relevant department. Similarly, the Foreign Office can fire at least half of the workers related to aid initiatives whilst simultaneously reducing tariffs on countries receiving aid as an alternative way of maintaining the UK’s soft power.

The Ministry of Defence has more civil servants than active soldiers in the Royal Navy and RAF combined. With a budget rising by £3 billion each year from 2024 at £53 billion to £59 billion simply to stay in line with our NATO allies, we must assure ourselves that this valuable area of public funds is spent as efficiently as possible. We could look at wiping away inefficiencies and removing vast numbers of civil servants whilst instead utilising relevant defence consultants who are engaged with the most technologically advanced equipment.

A UK DOGE would need a formula or guiding principles to reduce public spending and improve efficiency.

1. Redundancy, for any of the 550,000 civil servants or the 6.1 million public sector workers who are found doing rent-seeking behaviour (increasing their wealth without making any contribution to society).
2. Departments that could have a feasible private sector alternative should be discontinued, with the possibility of some civil servants acknowledged as being experts in their fields moving to the next most relevant department.
3. Deleting two regulations for every one added across all departments.
4. Future negotiations with unions must include introducing efficiencies and new technology to improve productivity. Departments failing this will face penalties, e.g. embracing technology that improves efficiency and costs such as automating underground trains instead of increasing the number of vastly expensive and unreliable tube drivers. A move of this nature will improve efficiency with fewer strikes and consistent night trains.

A further mission of a UK DOGE could include a rated index for each department which ranks them relative to their efficiency and wasteful expenditure out of 100 each month. Creating the incentives for departments to compete in efficiency against one another. The average score of the index could then be used to decide which departments will see the biggest cuts and overall public exposure. This will put the responsibility back on the ministers and civil servants who would have no choice but to act as if the public were their shareholders.

As Milton Friedman wrote “If I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

There are over 600 government departments, arm’s length bodies, or quangos in the UK, with many having no electoral accountability. The TaxPayers Alliance  keeps a keen eye on money squandered on their blog “the war on waste”, which, for example, found the UKRI, a non-departmental government-funded body, has spent £80,000 for the University of Derby to research Dracula to “Contribute to the national conversation on equality, diversity and inclusion in horror”. The real issue is that waste like this occurs all over the place, sometimes in small sums, sometimes more blatantly.

As Kemi Badenoch and her team prepare for the great renewal of the party’s policy plan and vision, the inclusion of a department that aims to cut the fat off the bureaucracy and create a world-class state done properly is an exciting prospect.

Leaders of a UK DOGE should be specialists appointed to the upper chamber who feel less political constraint and have the determination and drive to burst the blob after years of futile attempts.

Of course, such departments and plans must come second to a clear vision for growth, otherwise, we will be no better than the red guys.