by Joanna Marchong, investigations campaign manager
When America sneezes, Britain catches a cold. Or so the saying goes. But this time, instead of catching the sniffles, politicos have begun feverishly discussing an old issue but one that, thanks to Elon Musk, has been made anew: government waste. It turns out Elon Musk’s latest contribution to British politics isn’t a car or a rocket but a reminder that our government burns money faster than one of his SpaceX launches. While this is welcome, will the renewed interest in waste be enough to spur real action from our civil servants or ministers? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
For the last year and a half, I have worked on behalf of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, exposing waste in the public sector. I have seen the stories that get traction and those that don’t. For instance, the £2 million spent by bankrupt councils offering adults free cycling lessons or the £6 billion spent on kooky research projects. I have seen the headlines that make people rage, the spending that shocks even the most hardened advocates of government spending and the niche cases that, while egregious, fail to get much more than a passing glance.
However, the real lesson from this experience isn’t just that the government wastes money; anyone paying attention already knows that. The real lesson that needs to be learnt is why this waste persists and what actually needs to happen if we are ever to see real change.
Looking across the Atlantic, cutting waste and overturning bureaucratic lethargy didn’t come easily or overnight. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton famously declared that "the era of big government is over," but the actual results fell short of the rhetoric. The fundamental problem was that there was no public or administrative appetite for a crackdown on big government. During the Clinton administration, there was bureaucratic inertia, unwillingness from officials to make tough decisions, and, most importantly, no public consensus, meaning that despite grand promises, wasteful spending remained entrenched.
Fast forward to Donald Trump, and we can see a markedly different approach. His administration is willing to remove officials who do not align with his agenda, adopting a ‘conform or resign’ stance. While this decision, along with many others of its kind, sparked controversy, it also represented a significant change in the mindset of the American public. The public discourse has evolved, revealing a growing desire for leaders who embrace a brash approach towards galvanising efficiency rather than costly government expansion. Unfortunately for the UK, this mindset shift has not fully crossed the pond. And for those in Britain interested in such a shift, they cannot simply follow the headlines of the American press. Instead, they must fully understand what the U.S. has done correctly to get the public onside.
In Britain, the debate over waste has been ongoing for decades. Labour spent years attacking Conservative governments for mismanaging public money, and organisations like the TaxPayers’ Alliance have been exposing waste for over a decade. Yet, despite this, waste and inefficiency across the public sector remain.
Consider Labour’s previous scrutiny of government procurement cards (GPCs) as an example. At one point, they demonstrated a genuine commitment to calling out poor spending. However, now in government, that enthusiasm seems to have waned. Perhaps they are too preoccupied with larger tax and spending battles, but every government must be capable of balancing all aspects of financial responsibility. After all, they had 14 years in opposition to prepare.
The fundamental problem is a mindset one. When we expose waste, we often hear the same tired rebuttals: “This is a drop in the ocean,” “There are bigger issues to focus on,” or “Why care about a few thousand pounds when billions are wasted elsewhere?” But this entirely misses the point. Pennies make pounds. Small-scale waste reflects a broader culture of financial recklessness. If those managing public sector budgets cannot exercise discipline over a few thousand pounds, why should we trust them with billions?
The obsession with only caring about the ‘big ticket’ items afflicts both the general public and government, leading to a political environment where nothing ever really changes. The electorate becomes desensitised to large numbers, and the political class learns that they can get away with reckless spending so long as they keep the worst excesses out of the headlines or, if that is too late, wait until it all blows over.
Meanwhile, public services continue to decline, not because of a lack of funding but because of a systemic failure to treat money with respect. The public sector’s approach to money is simple: if in doubt, spend it. If there’s no doubt, spend even more. Taxpayers expect their elected officials to be able to manage big budgets, a difficult task, sure, but that’s what they have been employed to do. Brits are paying more taxes for less effective services, a direct result of public sector waste.
Some argue that it takes a scandal or an extreme example of waste to galvanise public opinion. While there is some truth to this, it is ultimately a short-term fix. Outrage may get people talking, but it does not lead to long-term cultural change. For that to happen, we need to shift the entire conversation around public sector budgeting.
Waste is not just a scandalous footnote to major policy debates; it is central to the very functioning of government. It is the difference between a nation that delivers value for money and one that allows spending to spiral out of control under the guise of good intentions or a virtue-signalling checklist.
This is why it is dangerous to focus only on the zeitgeist issues. Yes, figures like Elon Musk might make waste a talking point for Brits, but unless there is a deeper psychological shift, the cycle will repeat itself. The ‘spend mentality’ of public servants is deeply ingrained, and it will not be fixed by fleeting moments of viral outrage or fads of people looking for the newest quirky headline. There needs to be continuous pressure.
The challenge, then, is not just to expose waste but to change the way people think about it. For example, a lot of the research projects that the TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted over the last 20 years are still running and will continue to receive funding for years to come. To that end, any research grant that has already been approved and received funding but is later exposed as nonsensical should have its funding paused for further investigation. Ministers need to be able to follow through and cut projects that aren’t working or worthwhile. It is natural to sometimes make a wrong call, as long as you can stop or reverse it as well.
If Keir Starmer wants to avoid the Clinton trap of big talk, little action, and a long list of ‘lessons learned’ memos gathering dust, he must take a hard line on public sector waste. That means making the tough decisions, dealing with the inevitable backlash, and ultimately reaping the rewards when a more efficient, effective government emerges. If he fails to do so, he risks falling into the same cycle of inaction that has plagued his predecessors.
Westminster needs a Trump-style shake-up. This doesn’t mean gold elevators in Downing Street; it means having a backbone when it comes to cutting waste. Without it, we will be having this same conversation in another decade.