Nigel Farage at Reform’s conference in Birmingham (Image: Getty)
A Reform government would take back control from the civil servants that have run Britain for decades, a top adviser to Nigel Farage has warned. Danny Kruger said Cabinet Ministers will have the power to hire and fire Whitehall mandarins – to make it clear who’s in charge.
Mr Kruger, who has been charged by Mr Farage with preparing the party for government, said: “Over generations, authority has systematically drained away from elected ministers and pooled in the dark corners of Whitehall”. And the failure of politicians to assert themselves “lies at the very root of Britain’s national stagnation”, he said.
There have been long-standing claims that officials, rather than elected politicians, really run the country. Former Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Gove spoke about “the blob” – initially referring to the teaching establishment but a term later used to mean civil servants who blocked government policies.
And former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said there was some truth in the TV sitcom Yes Prime Minister, which showed a Whitehall mandarin called Sir Humphrey thwarting the plans of Government Ministers.
Writing for website Politics Home, Mr Kruger said: “Political parties arrive in Whitehall expecting the ancient machinery of state to passively translate their democratic mandates into reality. Instead, they encounter a system engineered, above all, for its own self-preservation.”
He added: “This institutional decay lies at the very root of Britain’s national stagnation. Over generations, authority has systematically drained away from elected ministers and pooled in the dark corners of Whitehall, especially in the network of unaccountable quangos that have appeared in the last two decades.”
Danny Kruger at Reform’s conference in Birmingham (Image: Getty)
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.
Setting out the changes Reform will introduce, he said: “We will give ministers the long-overdue power to appoint and dismiss their permanent secretaries and immediate advisory teams, ending the absurdity of a bureaucracy that effectively selects its own overseers.”
But he claimed Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham had allowed civil servants to consolidate even more power.
“The Prime Minister has fallen victim to the Senior Civil Service’s favourite trick: allowing politicians to announce superficial reorganisations while the top mandarins quietly consolidate actual authority.
“Under Burnham’s watch, Cabinet Secretary Dame Antonia Romeo has successfully expanded her institutional grip, now commanding the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Cabinet Office, ‘No 10 North’ and the Civil Service simultaneously. To reflect her supremely powerful position, she was promptly given a new office right next to the Prime Minister’s study.
“But be under no illusions: once Burnham’s star fades, she will move fast against her benefactor to defuse any changes that threaten the primacy of the Civil Service.”
Nigel Farage plans to take back control from the people who really run Britain
Nigel Farage is promising a fundamental change in the way Britain is governed, arguing that too much power has moved away from elected politicians and towards the permanent machinery of the state.
The Reform UK leader has repeatedly presented his political project as an attempt to “take back control”. In the latest phase of the party’s preparations for government, that ambition is increasingly focused not only on elections and headline policies, but on the institutions inside Whitehall that actually turn political decisions into government action.
Reform’s proposals include major changes to the Civil Service, the Cabinet Office, quangos and the organisation of central government. Supporters describe the programme as an attempt to restore democratic accountability. Critics argue that giving ministers much greater control over officials could weaken the traditional independence and impartiality of the Civil Service.
The debate is therefore about something deeper than a single Reform policy. It concerns who should have the final say when elected politicians and permanent officials disagree.
What does “take back control” mean?
Farage has used the language of control for years, particularly in relation to Brexit.
In a June 2026 article, he argued that the Brexit vote exposed a gap between voters and what he called the political establishment. Reform’s position is that successive governments failed to deliver what Leave voters expected and that power remained concentrated among political and institutional elites.
More recently, that argument has been extended to the machinery of government itself.
Danny Kruger, the Reform MP leading the party’s preparation for government, has argued that too many decisions are influenced or constrained by what he describes as the “administrative state”. The Institute for Government reported that Kruger’s programme is based on strengthening political control at the centre of government and changing the way the Civil Service operates.
That is the foundation for Reform’s proposed institutional reforms.
Reform wants a smaller and more politically directed state
One of the clearest documents setting out the party’s thinking is its May 2026 paper, “Fixing the Centre”.
The proposals include abolishing the Cabinet Office and the role of Cabinet Secretary and replacing them with a new Office of the Prime Minister led by a powerful political chief of staff.
Reform also proposes a new Department of the Civil Service, with responsibility for reducing staff numbers, increasing the use of artificial intelligence and changing employment arrangements.
Another major proposal would give ministers greater powers to hire and dismiss civil servants, including the ability to recruit people from outside government.
The document also proposes scrapping quangos and returning their powers to government departments.
Taken together, these proposals would represent a substantial change to the relationship between ministers and the permanent state.
The Civil Service would face a major shake-up
The question of senior civil servants has already generated significant attention.
The Guardian reported in March that Reform was considering replacing the top civil servant in every government department with people considered more likely to implement the party’s priorities. The proposals included appointing outsiders or existing senior officials who were viewed as more suitable for the government’s programme.
The issue matters because Britain’s Civil Service traditionally operates on the principle that officials serve governments of different political parties while remaining politically impartial.
Ministers decide policy. Civil servants advise ministers and implement decisions.
Reform’s argument is that this system can allow officials to exercise too much influence over policy and slow down governments attempting major changes.
Its proposed solution is greater ministerial control.
That could allow an elected government to move more rapidly, but it would also raise questions about how far political appointments should extend into the permanent machinery of government.
Quangos are another target
Reform’s “Fixing the Centre” document also proposes abolishing what it describes as quangos and returning their responsibilities to ministers and government departments.
Quangos, or arm’s-length public bodies, exist for many different purposes. Some regulate industries, some provide specialist expertise and others administer public programmes.
Their defenders argue that separating certain functions from day-to-day ministerial politics can provide continuity and specialist knowledge.
Reform takes a different view.
Its proposal is based on the principle that ministers should ultimately be accountable to Parliament for decisions made using public money.
This reflects a wider Reform argument: if voters cannot directly identify the politician responsible for a decision, accountability becomes weaker.
Farage’s wider 100-day programme
The proposed restructuring of government is only one part of Farage’s broader preparations for office.
At Reform UK’s September conference, Farage announced a programme of 100-day pledges. The party said it would declare a “national emergency” and immediately begin implementing a series of policies if it formed a government.
Among the commitments were stopping small-boat crossings, cutting energy bills, changing the government’s approach to Net Zero and expanding NHS training.
The significance of the 100-day programme is that Reform believes its political objectives require a government capable of acting quickly.
That makes control of the machinery of government especially important.
If ministers want to deliver a large number of reforms within a short period, they need departments capable of drafting legislation, preparing regulations, managing budgets and implementing decisions.
Reform’s institutional proposals are designed around that challenge.
Parliament would also become more important
Farage’s argument is not simply that politicians should have more power over officials.
Reform also argues that Parliament should have greater control over major decisions.
The party’s broader programme has repeatedly emphasised parliamentary sovereignty, particularly in relation to European institutions and human-rights law.
The underlying principle is straightforward: decisions should ultimately be made by elected representatives rather than by institutions that voters cannot directly remove.
However, there is an important distinction between democratic accountability and unrestricted political power.
A government can be democratically elected while still operating within laws, constitutional conventions, judicial review and independent institutions.
The debate surrounding Reform is therefore partly about where the appropriate boundaries should be.
Critics warn about politicisation
Criticism of the Reform approach centres heavily on the Civil Service.
Opponents argue that ministers already have substantial authority over policy and that permanent officials provide institutional memory and technical expertise that governments need.
They also warn that giving ministers extensive hiring and firing powers could encourage political patronage.
The Institute for Government has examined Reform’s proposals and noted that Kruger’s analysis focuses on strengthening the centre of government and increasing political control over the Civil Service. It has also challenged some of the assumptions behind Reform’s description of the administrative state.
That disagreement is unlikely to disappear.
It reflects two different views of government.
One sees an overgrown administrative system that can obstruct democratic mandates.
The other sees permanent institutions as necessary safeguards that allow governments to function effectively regardless of which party wins an election.
The local government question
Farage’s “take back control” message also has an interesting relationship with local government.
Reform has strongly opposed Labour’s recent proposals for reorganising local government in several parts of England.
In September, the party celebrated the government’s decision to withdraw proposed reorganisations in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire after legal challenges from Reform-led councils. Farage argued that reorganising councils could move power further away from communities.
This illustrates an important feature of Reform’s political philosophy.
The party is not simply arguing for more centralisation.
It wants power to be exercised by institutions that it believes have a direct democratic mandate, whether those institutions are national ministers or locally elected councils.
The dividing line is therefore less about central versus local government and more about who has political accountability.
Reform is already building the organisation
The party’s institutional ambitions come as Reform itself is expanding rapidly.
According to Reform’s own figures, the party now has eight MPs, more than 2,400 councillors and control of 14 councils following the 2026 local elections.
It is also using a large recent fundraising boost to expand its political infrastructure.
The Guardian reported that Reform has received £72 million in donations from cryptocurrency billionaires Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne, with Farage intending to use the money to expand the party’s professional organisation, including hundreds of campaign staff.
That matters because transforming a party from an electoral movement into a governing organisation requires a very different infrastructure.
A government needs policy teams, legal expertise, communications departments, parliamentary staff and people capable of managing large public institutions.
Reform is attempting to prepare for that possibility before entering government.
The unanswered question: how far would the transformation go?
The most important question surrounding Farage’s programme is not whether Reform wants change. The party has made that clear.
The question is how much of the existing system it would actually replace.
Some proposals could be implemented through administrative decisions. Others would require legislation and parliamentary approval. Some could encounter legal challenges or resistance from existing institutions.
There would also be a practical question about recruitment.
If ministers are given greater freedom to hire people from outside the Civil Service, the government would need to find individuals with the expertise required to manage enormous departments and complex national programmes.
Changing the machinery of government is considerably easier to announce than to execute.
A battle over who governs Britain
Farage’s latest programme is therefore best understood as a battle over the structure of political power.
His argument is that elections should have more direct consequences. If voters elect a government with a clear programme, that government should have the ability to implement it.
Reform’s critics counter that democratic government also depends on institutions that provide expertise, continuity and checks on political power.
Neither side disputes that ministers are ultimately responsible for government policy. The disagreement is about how much influence permanent officials and independent public bodies should retain in determining how that policy is developed and implemented.
For Farage, the answer is increasingly clear: elected politicians should have greater control.
For his critics, the danger lies in confusing democratic accountability with political control over every part of the state.
If Reform ever enters government, this debate would move from speeches and policy papers into the practical reality of running Britain.
The party has already set out proposals to restructure Whitehall, reduce the Civil Service, abolish some quangos, strengthen the Prime Minister’s office and give ministers greater control over appointments.
The scale of those proposals means that the phrase “take back control” is no longer simply a Brexit-era slogan in Reform’s political vocabulary.
It has become a proposed blueprint for changing who makes decisions inside the British state.
Whether that would make government more responsive or create new problems of accountability, expertise and institutional independence would ultimately depend on how the proposals were legislated, implemented and scrutinised.
For now, however, Farage’s message is unmistakable: if Reform gets the opportunity to govern, changing Britain’s political leadership would be only the beginning. The party also wants to change the machinery through which that leadership exercises power.