You cannot reform the public service. Bureaucracies exist to grow, feeding off taxpayers while pretending to serve them. A department’s true mission isn’t public good—it’s securing more funding, expanding its reach, and justifying its own existence. A department head who fails to squeeze more money from their minister is considered incompetent. Government, in practice, exists to sustain and enrich the bureaucratic class.
The only real reform is elimination. Shut down departments, fire every last employee, and ensure the government never meddles in that area again. Anything less is just another cycle of waste, entitlement, and self-preservation at the public’s expense.
We have allowed, over many years and many governments, our non-productive (bureaucratic) sector to accrue to itself more and more anti-productivity features. DEI, WFH, automatic promotion, non-contributory index-linked defined benefit remuneration, separation from democratic control via outright insubordination to ministers. Tolerating this is a luxury we can no longer afford. But how can we address a problem so institutionalised and deep-seated?
The kind of person who joins the public service—ah, what a peculiar creature. You know them when you see them. That distant stare of someone who’s already given up, not in a grand, dramatic fashion, but in the quiet, pathetic way of a person who once had dreams and promptly traded them for a pension plan. Maybe it was fear. Maybe it was laziness. Maybe it was the intoxicating thrill of meetings about meetings. Whatever it was, they made their choice. The poor sods.
A government department does not exist to serve the public. No, no, no. That is a charming little illusion, much like the idea that a “temporary” tax ever goes away. The true function of a department is self-preservation at all costs. It must grow, it must demand more funding, and it must justify its existence, even when its existence cannot, by any sane metric, be justified. A department head who doesn’t extract more taxpayer money? A failure. And so, the machine keeps running, oiled by endless paperwork and powered by the sheer inertia of bureaucrats who know that as long as they keep doing something, no matter how meaningless, their paychecks will keep arriving.
The only real reform? Fire them all. Shut down the departments, erase the job titles, and burn the forms in a glorious bonfire of liberation. The moment a single one of them sneaks back in under a new name—“Office of Essential Services Coordination” or some such nonsense—the cycle begins again. Government is not a protector. It is not a provider. It is a tumor that must be cut out before it convinces you it’s part of a vital organ.
And perhaps, in the end, we don’t need more government protection at all. Perhaps what we need—desperately, urgently—is protection from government itself.
You’ve often criticized the inefficiencies of government. If you had absolute power for a year, what radical reforms would you implement first, and is there an institution in the UK that you think works exceptionally well and that could be an inspiration for the implementations, or do they all need a complete overhaul?
The greatest cost of government isn’t taxes or fees—it’s lost opportunity. Excessive regulation discourages ambition, causing potential business owners to give up. Instead of creating jobs and providing valuable services, they take existing jobs, pushing others out of the workforce. More than two jobs are lost in the process.
Government cannot be reformed. Every department seeks to expand its reach, growing within restrictions and waiting for political shifts to regain control. The only solution is to eliminate entire departments—dismissing all employees and permanently keeping government out of those areas.
So, here’s the question:
Which five government departments would you recommend dissolving entirely—removing them from existence, dismissing all employees, and permanently keeping government out of that domain?
Boris was as bad as may when negotiating Britain's exit from the eu. Why did Boris get scared and not extricate Britain from the corrupt and fetid fingers of the eu faster?
Would removing the requirement for a degree for civil service jobs reduce the uniformity of opinion and encourage the "misfits" that you were hoping for or did you have something else in mind?
The kind of person who joins the public service is, let’s be honest, a particular breed. Degree or no degree, there’s always something a little… off. Maybe it’s a profound lack of confidence, maybe it’s an allergy to real work, or maybe they just can’t face the idea of life without a guaranteed paycheck and morning teas celebrating literally nothing. Whatever the case, these are people who have waved the white flag—on ambition, on risk, on contributing anything useful to society. The poor sods.
Government departments don’t exist to serve the public; they exist to serve themselves. The entire game is about securing more funding, expanding their reach, and ensuring their very necessary "work" is never finished. A department head who doesn’t manage to shake down the minister for more cash? Considered a failure. The result? A never-ending bureaucratic swamp where nothing is ever streamlined, but somehow, more staff are always needed.
The only real reform is total annihilation. Shut it down, fire them all, and padlock the doors before some former employee starts lobbying to "restructure" it back into existence. Most government services aren’t just useless—they’re an active menace. Maybe what we truly need isn’t more government protection, but protection from the government.
Today "right wing" is a shorthand term to say undemocratic/horrible/wrong. What policies or decisions are we miasing out on because that half of ideas/thoughts is now untouchable by government?
What are the risks of relying too much on data to determine policy? Especially if at the expense of more fuzzy, difficulty to measure things like values, morality, culture, sense of belonging. Measuring these things on questionnaires or polls can be problematic. I wonder if over-reliance on data could reinforce a worldview of humans as like numbers on a spreadsheet, lacking free will, able to be controlled as if mere pieces on a chessboard to be moved around by the powers that be, for the 'greater good' as defined by those in power, and as measured by different numbers coming out of the spreadsheet. Unintended consequences may follow if people start to see themselves and others by the underlying assumptions of human nature contained in this approach. Can data take into account all these fuzzy concepts and if not, how do you take account of them?
I followed Dom's lectures, talks and blog, then substack for many years. One particular talk I recall, "The Hollow Men" at the IPPR in 2014 where he articulated the problems with the civil service structure and what reform might look like. In a more recent interview with Steve Hsu he explained how Boris initially agreed, then reneged on allowing Dom to carry out that reform.
Given the experiences of Liz Truss and the unreformed state of our civil service, along with the numerous Acts of parliament and international trieties which they hide behind, What does Dom think a new PM / Party would have to do - and how could they sell it -, to be able to carry out the types of revolutionary action we are seeing in the US right now?
Did you have any kind of working relationship with Permanent Secretary level civil servants, and, if not, why? Did you get any view that they respected you, and, as before, if not, why?
Why not join Reform?
Is it ever going to be possible to reform the civil service blob - if it is what is the next big step?
Open the books and let the taxpayers know what your government feels is important.. by their spending, ye shall know them.
Words and spending are likely widely divergent. Are the voters aware?
You cannot reform the public service. Bureaucracies exist to grow, feeding off taxpayers while pretending to serve them. A department’s true mission isn’t public good—it’s securing more funding, expanding its reach, and justifying its own existence. A department head who fails to squeeze more money from their minister is considered incompetent. Government, in practice, exists to sustain and enrich the bureaucratic class.
The only real reform is elimination. Shut down departments, fire every last employee, and ensure the government never meddles in that area again. Anything less is just another cycle of waste, entitlement, and self-preservation at the public’s expense.
We have allowed, over many years and many governments, our non-productive (bureaucratic) sector to accrue to itself more and more anti-productivity features. DEI, WFH, automatic promotion, non-contributory index-linked defined benefit remuneration, separation from democratic control via outright insubordination to ministers. Tolerating this is a luxury we can no longer afford. But how can we address a problem so institutionalised and deep-seated?
The kind of person who joins the public service—ah, what a peculiar creature. You know them when you see them. That distant stare of someone who’s already given up, not in a grand, dramatic fashion, but in the quiet, pathetic way of a person who once had dreams and promptly traded them for a pension plan. Maybe it was fear. Maybe it was laziness. Maybe it was the intoxicating thrill of meetings about meetings. Whatever it was, they made their choice. The poor sods.
A government department does not exist to serve the public. No, no, no. That is a charming little illusion, much like the idea that a “temporary” tax ever goes away. The true function of a department is self-preservation at all costs. It must grow, it must demand more funding, and it must justify its existence, even when its existence cannot, by any sane metric, be justified. A department head who doesn’t extract more taxpayer money? A failure. And so, the machine keeps running, oiled by endless paperwork and powered by the sheer inertia of bureaucrats who know that as long as they keep doing something, no matter how meaningless, their paychecks will keep arriving.
The only real reform? Fire them all. Shut down the departments, erase the job titles, and burn the forms in a glorious bonfire of liberation. The moment a single one of them sneaks back in under a new name—“Office of Essential Services Coordination” or some such nonsense—the cycle begins again. Government is not a protector. It is not a provider. It is a tumor that must be cut out before it convinces you it’s part of a vital organ.
And perhaps, in the end, we don’t need more government protection at all. Perhaps what we need—desperately, urgently—is protection from government itself.
You’ve often criticized the inefficiencies of government. If you had absolute power for a year, what radical reforms would you implement first, and is there an institution in the UK that you think works exceptionally well and that could be an inspiration for the implementations, or do they all need a complete overhaul?
The greatest cost of government isn’t taxes or fees—it’s lost opportunity. Excessive regulation discourages ambition, causing potential business owners to give up. Instead of creating jobs and providing valuable services, they take existing jobs, pushing others out of the workforce. More than two jobs are lost in the process.
Government cannot be reformed. Every department seeks to expand its reach, growing within restrictions and waiting for political shifts to regain control. The only solution is to eliminate entire departments—dismissing all employees and permanently keeping government out of those areas.
So, here’s the question:
Which five government departments would you recommend dissolving entirely—removing them from existence, dismissing all employees, and permanently keeping government out of that domain?
Boris was as bad as may when negotiating Britain's exit from the eu. Why did Boris get scared and not extricate Britain from the corrupt and fetid fingers of the eu faster?
Cummings has been a big critic of the war in Ukraine. I would be interested in his view on what is the strategic solution to dealing with Russia.
Would removing the requirement for a degree for civil service jobs reduce the uniformity of opinion and encourage the "misfits" that you were hoping for or did you have something else in mind?
The kind of person who joins the public service is, let’s be honest, a particular breed. Degree or no degree, there’s always something a little… off. Maybe it’s a profound lack of confidence, maybe it’s an allergy to real work, or maybe they just can’t face the idea of life without a guaranteed paycheck and morning teas celebrating literally nothing. Whatever the case, these are people who have waved the white flag—on ambition, on risk, on contributing anything useful to society. The poor sods.
Government departments don’t exist to serve the public; they exist to serve themselves. The entire game is about securing more funding, expanding their reach, and ensuring their very necessary "work" is never finished. A department head who doesn’t manage to shake down the minister for more cash? Considered a failure. The result? A never-ending bureaucratic swamp where nothing is ever streamlined, but somehow, more staff are always needed.
The only real reform is total annihilation. Shut it down, fire them all, and padlock the doors before some former employee starts lobbying to "restructure" it back into existence. Most government services aren’t just useless—they’re an active menace. Maybe what we truly need isn’t more government protection, but protection from the government.
Today "right wing" is a shorthand term to say undemocratic/horrible/wrong. What policies or decisions are we miasing out on because that half of ideas/thoughts is now untouchable by government?
What are the risks of relying too much on data to determine policy? Especially if at the expense of more fuzzy, difficulty to measure things like values, morality, culture, sense of belonging. Measuring these things on questionnaires or polls can be problematic. I wonder if over-reliance on data could reinforce a worldview of humans as like numbers on a spreadsheet, lacking free will, able to be controlled as if mere pieces on a chessboard to be moved around by the powers that be, for the 'greater good' as defined by those in power, and as measured by different numbers coming out of the spreadsheet. Unintended consequences may follow if people start to see themselves and others by the underlying assumptions of human nature contained in this approach. Can data take into account all these fuzzy concepts and if not, how do you take account of them?
I followed Dom's lectures, talks and blog, then substack for many years. One particular talk I recall, "The Hollow Men" at the IPPR in 2014 where he articulated the problems with the civil service structure and what reform might look like. In a more recent interview with Steve Hsu he explained how Boris initially agreed, then reneged on allowing Dom to carry out that reform.
Given the experiences of Liz Truss and the unreformed state of our civil service, along with the numerous Acts of parliament and international trieties which they hide behind, What does Dom think a new PM / Party would have to do - and how could they sell it -, to be able to carry out the types of revolutionary action we are seeing in the US right now?
Did you have any kind of working relationship with Permanent Secretary level civil servants, and, if not, why? Did you get any view that they respected you, and, as before, if not, why?
Should the civil service have been included in your “Take back control” campaign with the EU from the beginning?
This interview didn’t get released right?
If you could make one change in UK government structure, instantly, no messing.. what would it be?
Was Dominic planning to do something similar as Javier Milei in Argentina & Donald Trump in the US?
How & who does he think would be the ideal candidate to get the job done in the UK?
How can the British public make their voice be heard to protect its culture & values, by removing :
The Hard Left from Whitehall & it’s Government Script Writers?
The Muslim Brotherhood
Qatar & Chinese funding?
Or is it too late?
Should NHS fraud be reported on monthly?