The Tories must choose between the cuts and the deficit

The government aims to largely eliminate the deficit by the end of the parliamentary term. Most (although not all) Labour members and politicians think this is too fast. But for all those who voted for this course of action, the acid test of any spending decision must be whether it contributes to that goal. So far, it’s not going to plan. Unemployment is climbing, and growth forecasts for next year have been cut repeatedly – and while quantitative easing might ease the pressure in the short term, rising inflation and the eurozone crisis may yet render it ineffective. But there is no question of reversing any of the cuts – even the expensive ones.

By expensive, I mean cuts which will cost the public purse more. Cuts which show beyond doubt that reducing the size of the deficit is strictly secondary to reducing the size of the state. Take legal aid. The current system, imperfect as it is, delivers substantive economic benefit in both civil and criminal justice cases. Without the pounds spent on legal aid, the issues of clients are simply passed onto other public services to deal with, at greater expense. For example, Citizens Advice found that for every pound spent on benefits advice, the state saves up to £8.80, and £7.13 for employment advice.

Further, clients whose issues (large and small) can be resolved are better placed to ‘get on’ – looking after their families, working and generally being a part of community life. The value they generate by doing so is harder to measure, but should be accounted for.

The agencies that make up Justice for All have gone to great lengths to try to demonstrate and evidence this, while highlighting areas where the government could be getting better value for money. These agencies are experts in what they do, and their insight is what the government needs to make legal aid more cost-effective. But for all the notice that the Ministry of Justice seem to be taking, they might as well not have bothered.

It hasn’t gone unnoticed. Last year, Citizens Advice expressed concern that “government makes limited use of the information they hold”. The Law Society observed more recently that the government’s plans “have so little data or evidence underpinning them that there can be no confidence they will be achieved”. They have the data, they’ve discussed the evidence – and without an answer for why it hasn’t influenced the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, we can only assume that it was removed for ideological reasons.

This unwillingness to let evidence, expert insight and changing circumstances influence the substance of legislation seems to permeate much that the government does. Not just on legal aid, but on the NHS, on the utilities, on education. Understandable perhaps – it is dashed inconvenient when evidence contrasts with what one wants to do when you’re in the middle of doing it. Labour, of course, should remember this well. When Professor David Nutt published an evidenced, nuanced report that challenged Labour’s ‘clear message’ on drugs, he was sacked.

Unwillingness to reconcile uncomfortable or conflicting evidence with what is politically doable is a fairly longstanding affliction in politics. Sometimes it’s ideology, sometimes fear of losing votes on a divisive issue, sometimes laziness – but it’s always unacceptable.

The challenges facing the government are huge and complex – any government would make mistakes while tackling it. The deficit needs to shrink, and government spending (very much including legal aid) needs to deliver better value for money to the public purse. I doubt that many would argue with that. But mistakes made via deliberate, ideologically or politically-motivated ignorance are a luxury enjoyed by few at the expense of many.