Nigel Farage has vowed to be the UK’s Elon Musk (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has vowed to be Britain’s Elon Musk if he is successful in the local elections next month. The Reform UK leader has taken aim at “fat and lazy” local councils who are splurging money from the taxpayer on frivolous projects.
The Clacton MP spoke to The Sun while out on the campaign trail, and revealed that a Reform audit of council spending showed millions of pounds are being wasted on projects such as free driving lessons for asylum seekers, trips to the south of France for civil servants and ergonomic chairs. Farage added that he will slash this wasteful spending in every council his party wins in the May 1 elections.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Inspired by Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the US, he said: “Local councils have big budgets and they waste loads of it. They spend it on diversity agendas, climate change, consultants, contracts with firms that are meant to mend pot holes and don’t do the job.
“And they pay themselves vast amounts of money. The bosses all earn way more than the Prime Minister, loads of them are on £100,000 a year, and basically no one comes to work on Mondays or Fridays.
“The whole thing has to change. We need a British DOGE for every county and every local authority in this country.”
The audit showed that, as well as being in debt, local councils are failing to complete basic jobs such as fix potholes. There are up to 90,000 unfilled potholes in some areas of the UK despite increasing council tax bills.
Reform UK submitted 3,000 Freedom of Information Requests (FoIs) to councils across the country to find out what they spend their cash on.
Farage claimed that Cornwall Council pays £147,000 a day servicing its debt. Meanwhile, Shropshire Council spent £1,000 a day on a pothole consultant.
Durham County Council spent a whopping £40,000 to send four town hall executives to a property conference in the South of France, while Devon County Council spent more than £1.7 million on electric cars for staff. At Derbyshire County Council, £150m was spent on a waste recyling plant that did not work.
Nigel Farage said he will slash council spending (Image: Getty)
Councils across the nation also splurged hundreds of millions of pounds on Net Zero schemes. Wiltshire County Council spent £929,000 installing biomass boilers to “decarbonise” 3 council offices.
Farage said he was “gobsmacked” at the results of the resarch. He added that, under Reform, council staff “will be sacked” and blamed the Covid-19 pandemic for a drop in productivity.
When asked if he had been in touch with Elon Musk, Farage said: “No – but you can see what he has done.”
Reform UK is aiming to win at least 200 council seats in the local elections next month. It is also hoping to gain big regional mayor positions on May 1.
Farage has taken inspiration from Elon Musk’s DOGE (Image: Getty)
Farage Promises to Be Britain’s Elon Musk as He Takes Brutal Swipe at ‘Fat and Lazy’ Councils
Nigel Farage has stepped up his campaign to overhaul Britain’s public sector, promising a more aggressive approach to government efficiency as he draws comparisons between his political ambitions and Elon Musk’s controversial efforts to reduce bureaucracy.
The Reform UK leader has repeatedly argued that local government has become too expensive, too complicated and too distant from the people it is supposed to serve. His criticism of what he describes as “fat and lazy” councils reflects a wider political message: taxpayers should not have to keep paying more for services that fail to meet their expectations.
Farage’s comparison with Musk signals an ambition to make cutting waste, challenging established administrative structures and demanding measurable results central features of Reform’s political programme.
But the proposal also raises difficult questions. Can the methods associated with a billionaire entrepreneur be transferred successfully into public administration? How much money could councils realistically save without damaging essential services? And who should decide which public-sector jobs and programmes are necessary?
The answers will matter to millions of people who depend on local authorities for social care, housing support, rubbish collection, road maintenance, planning and other everyday services.
Why Farage is targeting local councils
Local government has become an increasingly important battleground in British politics. Councils are responsible for a wide range of services, yet many have faced intense financial pressure from rising costs, growing demand and limited room to increase revenue.
For residents, the consequences can be visible in everyday life. Waste collection arrangements may change, libraries may reduce their opening hours, road repairs may be delayed and access to some community services may become more difficult.
At the same time, councils must meet statutory responsibilities, including important duties involving vulnerable children and adults, social care and housing.
Farage’s argument is that public authorities should examine their spending more aggressively and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy before demanding additional money from taxpayers.
Reform UK has sought to present itself as a party willing to challenge administrative structures that other political organisations are reluctant to confront. Local councils provide a natural target for that message because their decisions affect household finances and the appearance and operation of communities.
However, the language used to criticise councils can obscure substantial differences between authorities.
Some may have opportunities to improve procurement, reduce duplication or modernise outdated systems. Others may already have reduced administrative spending while struggling to meet increasing demand for essential services.
A serious programme of reform would need to distinguish between avoidable waste and expenditure required to fulfil legal obligations.
The Elon Musk comparison
Elon Musk became a prominent international reference point for government-efficiency campaigns after the creation of the US Department of Government Efficiency, commonly known as DOGE, during Donald Trump’s second presidential administration.
The initiative promoted spending reductions, workforce changes and efforts to eliminate programmes or contracts considered unnecessary. Its approach generated substantial controversy over the speed of the changes, the treatment of public employees and the evidence supporting particular savings claims.
For Farage, the broader appeal of the Musk model lies in its confrontational approach to bureaucracy.
Rather than relying exclusively on gradual administrative reviews, the approach associated with Musk emphasised rapid intervention, challenging established procedures and demanding that departments justify their costs.
Supporters argue that governments often tolerate duplication, inefficient procurement and complicated reporting requirements for too long. A more forceful approach, they believe, can expose problems that conventional reviews fail to resolve.
Critics counter that public administration differs fundamentally from running a private company. Government departments and councils must comply with legislation, protect personal information, maintain essential services and provide accountability to elected representatives and the public.
An approach that appears efficient on a spreadsheet may produce additional costs if it disrupts services, removes experienced staff or creates expensive problems that must later be corrected.
The lesson for Britain is not necessarily that the Musk model should be copied wholesale. It is that public bodies should be able to explain what they spend, what outcomes they achieve and how they identify poor value for money.
Could councils really save taxpayers money?
The potential for savings depends heavily on the circumstances of each authority.
Councils purchase everything from office equipment and software to construction services, care provision and waste management. Differences in purchasing arrangements, contract management and technology can create opportunities to improve value for money.
Authorities may also share back-office functions, combine certain procurement activities or replace outdated computer systems that require expensive maintenance.
Better planning can reduce the likelihood of emergency spending, while clearer performance targets can help managers identify services that are not delivering the intended results.
These measures may produce genuine efficiencies without requiring major reductions in frontline provision.
However, savings are not always immediate. Replacing a computer system can require significant upfront investment, and reorganising services may involve redundancy payments, contract termination costs or temporary disruption.
A council that reduces its administrative headcount may also have to purchase external services at higher prices if the remaining workforce cannot meet demand.
The headline figure attached to a cost-cutting programme therefore tells only part of the story.
To assess whether Reform’s proposed approach would work, voters would need to know the baseline spending, the specific savings identified, the costs of implementation and the effect on service quality.
Without that information, promises to eliminate waste can sound compelling while remaining difficult to evaluate.
The problem with calling councils ‘fat and lazy’
Farage’s combative language is likely to appeal to taxpayers who believe public institutions have become unresponsive or inefficient.
People who have experienced poor customer service, delayed decisions or repeated requests for information may welcome a political leader who promises to challenge established practices.
But broad descriptions of councils as “fat and lazy” risk treating very different organisations as though they all suffer from the same problems.
Local authorities operate in different economic and demographic circumstances. A council serving an ageing population may face high social-care costs, while another may have greater pressure on housing, transport or services for children.
Some authorities also inherit financial difficulties that cannot be resolved quickly through administrative changes alone.
The important question is whether a particular council is spending money effectively and fulfilling its responsibilities. That requires evidence about costs, outcomes and performance rather than assumptions based on the size of its workforce.
Public-sector employees also perform a wide range of roles that residents may not see directly. Administrative staff can be responsible for arranging care, processing housing applications, managing safeguarding cases and ensuring that payments reach eligible recipients.
Reducing duplication may improve efficiency, but removing staff without understanding their responsibilities can delay services and increase pressure on the remaining workforce.
A credible reform programme must therefore identify specific failures and explain how they will be corrected.
Why local government is under financial pressure
Councils across England have faced years of financial strain, although the severity varies considerably between authorities.
Demand for adult social care and children’s services has placed significant pressure on budgets. Inflation has increased the cost of contracts, construction and employment, while housing pressures and homelessness can create additional demands.
Local authorities also have different abilities to raise money through council tax and other sources of revenue. Areas with greater levels of deprivation may face substantial service needs while having fewer resources available to meet them.
This creates a difficult financial environment.
Councils must balance their budgets while meeting statutory responsibilities, and they cannot always respond to rising costs by reducing spending in whichever areas they choose.
If a council must provide legally required care to vulnerable residents, simply declaring the service inefficient does not remove the underlying obligation.
Similarly, reducing expenditure on preventative services may appear to save money in the short term but can increase costs later if problems become more serious.
A child who does not receive appropriate support, for example, may eventually require more intensive intervention. Delayed housing assistance can also contribute to more expensive problems involving temporary accommodation.
Efficiency therefore requires consideration of long-term consequences as well as immediate savings.
What Reform could change
If Reform UK wants to translate its criticism into a practical programme, it would need to explain how its approach would operate at council level.
One possibility would be comprehensive spending reviews designed to identify duplicated functions, poorly managed contracts and services that do not deliver sufficient value.
Authorities could be required to publish clearer information about major contracts, administrative costs and the outcomes achieved by individual programmes.
Reform could also seek to simplify procedures, reduce unnecessary reporting requirements and make greater use of digital services where these improve access and reduce costs.
Procurement is another potential area for reform. Councils can sometimes achieve better value by coordinating purchases, negotiating more effectively with suppliers or improving oversight of contracts.
However, each measure would need safeguards.
Reducing procurement costs should not mean accepting inferior products or unreliable contractors. Digital services should not exclude residents who lack internet access or struggle to use online systems. Performance targets should not encourage staff to prioritise easily measured results over the actual needs of vulnerable people.
The programme would also need to explain who would oversee the reviews, how disputed decisions could be challenged and what would happen if promised savings failed to materialise.
A credible plan requires more than identifying waste. It requires a transparent method for proving that the waste exists and demonstrating that the proposed remedy works.
Would fewer council employees mean better services?
Workforce reductions are among the most politically sensitive aspects of government-efficiency campaigns.
Administrative structures can become unnecessarily complicated, and some organisations may have layers of management that could be simplified. But the number of employees alone does not reveal whether a council is operating effectively.
A small team may struggle to process applications quickly, while a larger organisation may deliver services efficiently because it has sufficient specialist expertise.
The appropriate question is what each role contributes and whether the work could be performed more effectively through a different arrangement.
If redundancies remove unnecessary duplication, the council may save money. If they remove experienced staff responsible for complex casework, delays and errors may increase.
Those consequences can affect residents directly. A delayed housing decision can leave a family uncertain about its living arrangements, while difficulties processing social-care assessments can create additional pressure for vulnerable people and their relatives.
Any workforce review should therefore examine service outcomes alongside salary costs.
It should also account for the possibility that savings in one department could produce higher costs elsewhere. If fewer council employees result in more complaints, legal disputes or emergency interventions, the overall financial benefit may be smaller than expected.
The goal should be to deliver necessary services more effectively, not simply to make the organisation smaller.
The political battle with Labour and the Conservatives
Farage’s criticism gives Reform an opportunity to challenge both Labour and the Conservatives over their records in local government.
The Conservatives can point to their own arguments about public-sector efficiency and the need for financial discipline. Labour can emphasise its commitments to public services and the difficulties councils face when demand rises faster than available resources.
Reform’s task is to demonstrate what distinguishes its approach from the policies already pursued by established parties.
It would need to identify specific changes that it believes would produce better results and explain why previous administrations have failed to implement them.
The challenge is particularly significant because council finances are influenced by decisions made at different levels of government. National funding arrangements, statutory requirements and local political choices all affect the services authorities can provide.
A party cannot reasonably attribute every financial problem to local managers without examining those wider conditions.
Equally, councils should not be exempt from scrutiny simply because they operate under financial constraints. Residents are entitled to ask whether their money is being used responsibly and whether services are meeting reasonable standards.
The debate should focus on evidence about performance, funding and accountability rather than assuming that any single party has all the answers.
The risks of importing a private-sector mindset
Private businesses and public authorities face different incentives.
A commercial company can withdraw from an unprofitable market, change its product range or close an operation if its owners decide the costs outweigh the benefits. A council, by contrast, must continue providing certain services even when demand increases or costs become difficult to manage.
Public bodies must also consider fairness and access. A service that is expensive to provide may still be essential for a relatively small group of residents.
This does not mean councils should be protected from efficiency improvements. It means that performance must be measured against public responsibilities as well as financial targets.
The Musk-style approach associated with DOGE has attracted debate precisely because rapid reductions can create uncertainty about whether claimed savings are sustainable and what consequences follow for service users.
If Britain adopts similar methods, independent scrutiny would be essential.
Savings should be calculated transparently, and authorities should report whether service quality has improved, remained stable or deteriorated. Decisions should also comply with employment law, procurement requirements and duties to protect vulnerable people.
A smaller public sector is not automatically a more effective one. The real test is whether taxpayers receive better value while essential responsibilities continue to be met.
What taxpayers should demand
Residents have a legitimate interest in knowing how their councils spend public money.
They should be able to examine budgets, understand major spending commitments and see whether authorities are meeting their published targets.
When a council proposes a large expenditure or a major service change, it should explain the rationale, expected benefits and available alternatives.
When politicians promise substantial savings, they should provide comparable detail.
How much money is expected to be saved? Over what period? What will the reform cost to implement? Which services could be affected? And how will the results be independently checked?
These questions would help distinguish a serious efficiency programme from a political slogan.
They would also make it easier to compare the claims of Reform with those of Labour and the Conservatives.
Public confidence is more likely to improve when residents can see clear evidence of better performance than when they are asked to accept broad assurances about waste.
A test of Farage’s governing ambitions
Farage’s promise to adopt a more forceful approach to government efficiency reflects Reform UK’s attempt to present itself as a party capable of changing how public institutions operate.
The comparison with Elon Musk offers a recognisable symbol of disruption, rapid decision-making and resistance to bureaucracy. But the practical test will be whether the proposed methods can produce lasting savings without undermining essential services.
Councils do need to demonstrate that they are using public money effectively. Poor procurement, unnecessary duplication and complicated administrative procedures deserve scrutiny wherever they occur.
Yet local authorities also face substantial responsibilities and financial pressures that cannot be eliminated through slogans or blanket reductions.
If Reform wants to persuade voters that it can manage public services, it will need to show how its proposals would work in practice, what evidence supports its expected savings and how vulnerable residents would be protected.
The same standard should apply to every party promising to make government more efficient.
Ultimately, taxpayers have a reasonable expectation that their money will be spent carefully and that public services will deliver results. The debate should therefore be about measurable improvements rather than the size of a political leader’s ambitions.
Farage’s attack on Britain’s councils may attract attention, but its lasting significance will depend on whether the promise of tougher oversight can be turned into a credible, transparent and workable programme of reform.