Report comment

I have two problems with all this. First, that what has been presented here falls far short of objective (I stress objective) fact. Until there has been proper study on a wide scale (not just interviews with judges with an interest in the outcome), with decent analysis of the results, I hate to say this, but I would hardly expect that in this forum anyone is going to agree that the cuts that have been made are a good thing. Ever heard of a conflict of interest?

The second problem is exactly the same viewed from the other side: a government that has dug in its heels about cutting costs is not about to agree to increase spending again just because those affected do not like it. Political decisions are also not made based on fact. They cannot be. After all, until cuts have been made, who knows what the effect will be. One can estimate (guess), but not know.

In a government strapped for cash the first assessment is always about money: will the cuts save money? If yes, is the price worth paying? How much can a government cut (anywhere, not just legal aid) without creating such a backlash that the cuts become counterproductive (a political assessment)? Is a strike by lawyers going to hurt enough to outweigh the prospective benefits to the economy? Not likely (another one).

If you think about it, what to cut and by how much is very political (as it should be - someone has to set the priorities across society, not just looking with blinkers at one small part, in this case legal aid), and much as we may hate them, taking this sort of unpalatable decision is precisely what politicians are there to do. So we are allowed (in a democracy) to moan and groan, but do not think for a moment that this is a sufficiently sensitive issue politically that doing so is going to change a thing. Or that a new government would act any differently in current circumstances. After all, a useful cut in spending has been made and could be blamed on a predecessor. Where would be the political advantage in increasing spending which the country cannot afford?

I hate to say this, but lawyers do not have the political clout of the NHS, the army, the police, etc. etc. The political decision to cut has been made, and lawyers are not about to get that changed. It is not as if they are a particularly popular group in society, so no one is listening to them very much. Poor people (those who benefit from legal aid, after all) have just about the weakest voice in society (ranking somewhere just ahead of groups like the mentally ill, prisoners and children) so what they have to say about their plight is not heard much either.

Finally, there was a time when legal aid hardly existed at all. Over decades that changed dramatically. In recent times the pendulum has swung the other way (perhaps too far - that is something for legitimate debate). If the cuts that have been made in government spending succeed in helping to revive the economy (which is beginning to look possible) it then becomes legitimate to ask the government to start increasing spending again at some point in the future (not for a while yet, unfortunately). It might be more productive to get ready now to fight like hell to share in that.