They Spent £532,000 Moving A Government Dot

By Scarlett Red

The UK government just spent half a million pounds of taxpayer money making a dot bigger and changing its colour to turquoise.

The spending went to global advertising agency M&C Saatchi for what officials called a "brand refresh" of the gov.uk website. The result? A larger dot, a blue background instead of black, and some minor crown adjustments.

While government officials defended the cosmetic changes, a different story emerges when you look at who really needs digital accessibility improvements.

The Real Cost of Moving Dots

A parent with MS discovered what £532,000 in government priorities actually means. They can't handwrite anymore due to their condition, creating an impossible barrier when trying to renew their daughter's Disability Living Allowance.

The DWP refuses to make reasonable adjustments. No computer-based forms. No digital alternatives. Just a demand for handwritten paperwork that some disabled people physically cannot complete.

Four years later, their daughter still waits for her DLA renewal.

Four years of missed payments because the government spent money on logo aesthetics instead of basic digital accessibility.

The irony cuts deep. The same department that claims accessibility was "at the heart of" their logo work maintains a system that forces disabled people to choose between dignity and benefits.

The M&C Saatchi Pattern

M&C Saatchi keeps winning government contracts without competitive tendering. The same agency handled the NatWest share sell-off campaign after the 2008 bailout. The same firm that faced an accounting scandal requiring an £11.6 million "adjustment" and triggered a Financial Conduct Authority investigation.

The scandal caused M&C Saatchi's share price to collapse by three-quarters. Board members resigned, including co-founder Maurice Saatchi and Michael Dobbs.

Yet government contracts keep flowing to the same agency.

Direct awards bypass competitive bidding when specific legal conditions apply. The Procurement Act 2023 requires transparency notices before direct awards, allowing public scrutiny of the justification.

Where was the transparency notice for the gov.uk logo contract?

The pattern reveals a procurement system that prioritises familiar relationships over value for money. Premium agencies collect substantial fees for work that delivers minimal visible change while critical accessibility needs go unaddressed.

What Half a Million Could Actually Buy

The DWP only recently began trialing fully online PIP applications in selected postcode areas. Most disabled people still face the handwriting barrier that creates months-long waits for charity assistance.

£532,000 could have funded a complete digital transformation of disability benefit applications. Online forms with simple username and password access, eliminating the complex Government Gateway ID system that creates additional barriers.

The money could have established a dedicated government accessibility department. A team focused solely on removing digital barriers that prevent disabled people from accessing services they're entitled to.

Instead, taxpayers funded a larger dot and background colour change.

The accessibility improvements that disabled people desperately need remain underfunded while cosmetic changes receive premium agency treatment.

The Deliberate Barrier Question

When you examine the pattern, a troubling question emerges: Are these barriers accidental or deliberate?

Most government services moved online years ago. Universal Credit offers digital applications with straightforward login systems. The technology exists and works.

Yet disability benefit applications remain trapped in a handwriting-dependent system that excludes people based on their physical abilities.

The government demonstrates it can build accessible digital services when it chooses to. The selective application of this capability raises questions about intent.

Every hoop disabled people must jump through reduces the number who successfully claim benefits. Every barrier saves the government money by excluding eligible applicants.

When accessibility barriers persist while logo aesthetics receive half-million-pound budgets, the priorities become clear.

Beyond Government Waste

This story transcends typical government waste complaints about expensive lunches or travel expenses. Those issues irritate taxpayers but don't fundamentally harm vulnerable people.

The £532,000 dot represents something more damaging: a system that prioritises image over substance while systematically excluding disabled people from services they're legally entitled to receive.

The spending reveals a government more concerned with appearing accessible than actually being accessible.

A shiny exterior hiding a crumbling system unfit for purpose.

The Back End Solution

Real digital accessibility requires spending money on infrastructure, not aesthetics. Backend systems that work for everyone, not frontend polish that impresses no one.

The solution starts with immediate online implementation of all disability benefit applications. Simple login systems that don't require memorising complex government IDs. Digital forms that work with screen readers and assistive technologies.

Procurement reform comes next. Tighter legislation on conflicts of interest, especially when politicians have direct or indirect financial interests in chosen companies. Mandatory transparency notices for all direct awards above £50,000.

Public money demands public accountability. Taxpayers deserve to know why contracts go to specific agencies and what value they receive for their investment.

Most importantly, government digital spending should serve the people who need it most. Disabled people shouldn't wait four years for benefit renewals because of handwriting barriers while agencies collect half-million-pound fees for moving dots.

The priorities need to flip. Spend the money on the back end where it actually helps people access services.

Save the logo refreshes for when everyone can actually use the services those logos represent.

The government logo before and after the Saatchi "Brand refresh". It has gone from black background with plain white writing with a crown, to a blue background with plain, whate writing and a now bigger turquoise dot moved higher up so it's more centralised.