There are now five days left before the consultation on the government’s proposed reforms to legal aid closes on 14 February, St Valentine’s Day.

It is noticeable that in the last few weeks lobbying against the plans, which would see the scope of legal aid radically cut and eligibility reduced in order to save a rather modest £350m, has gathered momentum.

The Law Society and other representative groups have employed the tactic of encouraging lawyers and advice workers to lobby their MPs, telling them about the vital help given to their constituents by lawyers funded through legal aid.

They have presented them with case studies demonstrating the difference that timely expert advice made – both to the individual concerned and in savings to the public purse.

Figures presented by the Citizens Advice Bureau show that for every £1 of legal aid money spent on housing advice, £2.34 is saved; for debt advice the amount saved is £2.98; for employment advice, £7.13; and for welfare benefits advice, the saving is £8.80.

JusticeForAll staged a mass parliamentary lobby at Westminster last month to hammer these points home to MPs.

Young Legal Aid Lawyers and the Haldane Society commissioned an inquiry into the case for legal aid. A selection of legal aid clients presented testimonies to a panel of non-lawyers on the need for legal aid. They will present their report to the government.

The effect of all this lobbying does appear to be gaining some traction. Yvonne Fovargue, the Labour Party MP who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid, secured a debate on legal aid reform in the commons last week.

There it seemed that, while MPs were not that concerned by the constitutional arguments put forward for the proper funding of legal aid, they were concerned by the prospect of their surgeries being flooded by thousands of people, who were unable to get legal advice, and who the MPs had neither the time nor ability to help.

Despite the recognition by some in parliament of the devastating social and financial cost of the Ministry of Justice’s blunt and simplistic proposals, it appears resolved to press ahead with them.

Speaking at an event this week hosted by the Westminster Legal Policy Forum, legal aid minister Jonathan Djanogly said the ‘driving factor’ for the changes was costs reduction.

Although he encouraged delegates to submit their responses to the green paper, if they had not already done so, he did not give the impression that they would make a blind bit of difference.

The justice system is complex, as are people’s legal needs. But the MoJ has no appetite for considered intelligent reform. It is after a quick and easy way to make the savings demanded of it by the Treasury.

A Saint Valentine’s Day massacre therefore seems inevitable.