Malcolm Gardner June 2025

Reform UK’s newly launched “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) is pitched as a radical instrument to root out waste, overhaul council finances, and deploy tech-led solutions to chronic inefficiencies. Inspired by the controversial U.S. DOGE initiative under Elon Musk, the UK version aims to deliver rapid savings through forensic audits, AI analytics, and private-sector auditing techniques. But as Reform seeks to scale this model nationally—starting with Kent and now extending to West Northamptonshire and potentially Lancashire—the initiative faces mounting scrutiny over legal, operational, and strategic risks.

Ambitions and Opportunities

The DOGE unit was launched in June 2025 with the stated goal of delivering a new standard in local government efficiency. Its headline ambitions include:

• Identifying “wasteful spending” through forensic audits.
• Driving efficiencies using data analytics, machine learning, and private-sector auditing.
• Creating a replicable model for a future national government run by Reform UK.
• Offering services “free of charge” to local authorities now under Reform UK control.

Already, the DOGE team claims to have uncovered £2.8 million in irregular spending at Kent County Council. If successful, Reform UK hopes the unit will offer a politically powerful proof of concept—positioning the party as a disruptor capable of breaking through bureaucratic inertia.

Ignoring Existing Innovation and Leadership

However, one of the most telling criticisms of the DOGE project is that it appears to ignore—or is unaware of—the significant innovation already underway within local government. Many councils have already embraced the very tools and approaches DOGE claims to introduce, often in more sophisticated, accountable, and service-focused ways.

Across the UK, councils have pioneered lean service redesign, AI-supported decision-making, digital automation, and intelligent data use to improve outcomes under financial pressure. Leading organisations such as Visionary Network, iBest.ai, the Government’s AI Council, GovTech Catalyst, and the London Office of Technology and Innovation (LOTI) are already working in partnership with councils to implement evidence-based solutions that enhance service delivery while managing risk.

These initiatives don’t just chase headlines—they embed change within governance frameworks, co-design with service users, and focus on long-term resilience rather than short-term media wins. By bypassing these ecosystems, Reform’s DOGE unit risks duplicating effort, undermining collaborative innovation, and wasting political capital on a reinvention of wheels already spinning.

Legal, Ethical and Governance Risks

The DOGE model is also vulnerable to significant legal and ethical challenges:

• Common law confidentiality: Councils are bound by long-standing legal duties to protect sensitive financial, contractual and personnel information. Sharing such data with external political agents—especially unpaid volunteers—raises substantial risks.
• Data protection compliance: The UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 require rigorous controls on data sharing, including documented purposes, data minimisation, and formal agreements. It is unclear that DOGE has met these standards.
• Central government restrictions: Departments like HMRC and DWP already resist sharing personal data even with other public authorities. It is inconceivable that they would extend such access to politically affiliated audit units. Whitehall also continues to express concern about local government data governance, particularly regarding private sector involvement.

Procurement and the Problem of “Free” Consultancy

It is not unusual for local authorities to procure external consultants to help deliver efficiency savings, manage transformation programmes, or enhance productivity. However, such engagements are tightly governed by public procurement law—specifically the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and councils’ own constitutionally approved financial standing orders.

These rules require that:

• All consultancy services must be transparently procured, with contracts advertised and awarded competitively unless a clear exemption applies.
• Declarations of interest must be made, and any commercial or political affiliations must be disclosed.
• Councils must assess value for money and ensure that claimed savings are evidence-based, attributable, and independently verifiable.

There are specific concerns around “free” services provided by DOGE team members—some of whom, like Arron Banks, are politically active and commercially connected. Free consultancy may appear to bypass procurement obligations, but if the individuals involved have business interests (or links to suppliers who may benefit from future contracts), this could be interpreted as touting for work via the back door—a potential breach of procurement integrity.

Moreover, there is no recognised framework for assessing the credibility or permanence of savings claimed under informal or politically aligned audit models. Unlike formal Value for Money assessments or Red-Amber-Green rated transformation projects, DOGE’s claimed savings are not subject to independent scrutiny or financial audit standards.

This raises material concerns for Section 151 officers (chief finance officers), who have a statutory responsibility to ensure lawful and prudent financial management.

Strategic Frictions with Local Government Reorganisation

The timing and method of DOGE’s deployment also raise critical tensions with the ongoing local government reorganisation (LGR) agenda. While LGR is focused on streamlining governance, aligning data, and safeguarding service continuity, DOGE’s aggressive forensic model risks:

• Destabilising reorganising councils, already burdened with complex service integration, workforce continuity, and legal alignment.
• Diverting focus and resources away from transitional planning and toward politically charged audit exercises.
• Creating parallel command structures, especially where DOGE auditors operate outside council management or statutory accountability.

In Swale, for example, none of Reform UK’s councillors attended the Local Government Reorganisation meeting—despite claiming to prioritise efficiency. The subsequent cancellation of governance and audit committees across affected authorities suggests that the initiative may be creating more administrative confusion than it resolves.

Competence and Credibility Gaps

Beyond legality, concerns persist over DOGE’s capacity and experience. The original head, Nathaniel Fried, resigned after just two days, warning the party against repeating Musk’s “tremendous mistakes.” The current leadership comprises financiers and political donors rather than professionals with a background in public service delivery, local governance, or statutory compliance.

This is already reflected in operational dysfunction: 33 meetings across DOGE-targeted councils have been delayed or cancelled. In Kent, 40% of planned meetings have not taken place. Oversight is being weakened, not strengthened.

Furthermore, politicising efficiency drives—by embedding them in partisan audit units—risks eroding trust. As seen in the U.S., inflated savings claims, lack of oversight, and conflicts of interest damaged the credibility of the original DOGE programme, and ultimately cost the federal government more than it saved.

Conclusion: A Costly Distraction or Reform Catalyst?

Reform UK’s DOGE initiative may appeal as a bold, attention-grabbing intervention, but it risks missing the point. Councils are not failing for lack of spreadsheets or slogans—they are under pressure due to structural funding constraints, complex legal obligations, and the challenge of delivering equitable services under public scrutiny.

Rather than bulldozing in, Reform could engage with the impressive work already underway across the sector. The real pathway to government efficiency lies not in spectacle but in supporting the councils already leading on AI, automation and smart governance—many of whom are doing more with less, and doing it legally, collaboratively and sustainably.

And if external consultancy is to play a role, it must do so within the rules—procured transparently, evaluated objectively, and assessed by outcomes, not headlines.

Without a clear legal mandate, credible expertise, or appreciation of what’s already working, DOGE may end up being less of a leap forward and more of a retrograde distraction.