When a headteacher pops up on the nation’s flagship radio news programme to say that cuts have left her scrubbing school toilets and serving lunch to pupils, ministers ought to be in listening mode. That is especially the case since the complaint is echoed by 7,000 headteachers in England who say they are facing a funding crisis. One would imagine a forum being convened in Whitehall to address such a serious charge. Not at all. Instead the education secretary has his fingers in his ears and his diary full. There is a depressingly familiar ring to this ministerial response. This week the prime minister denied the possibility that cuts to the police contributed to a rise in crime, despite Home Office research to the contrary. Similarly, ministers decry any suggestion that austerity played a part in the biggest fall in British adults’ life expectancy, when it seems obvious to many experts that it does.

There is a reasonable argument to be had about the size of the state, the level of taxation that a society thinks is fair, and how large a deficit the Treasury ought to run. It’s just that the United Kingdom is not having such a conversation. Instead this nation’s politics is dominated by factional fights in Westminster about this country’s departure from the European Union, an issue that seems far removed from people’s lives, however essential it is. As Britain’s former chief negotiator on Europe, Ivan Rogers, pointed out, this is just the beginning. The next phase of the process will be about defining a new relationship with the EU, and promises to be much more difficult and wide-ranging than our attempts to leave the European bloc.

This is will be bad news for Britain, which needs to have a serious debate about the consequences of the government’s economic strategy, and will face even harder times thanks to Brexit. The New Economic Foundation calculated that the effects of austerity since 2010 have made the economy £100bn smaller than it otherwise would have been: a £300-a-month hit for every household in the country. It has taken public satisfaction with the NHS to fall to its lowest level for 11 years for the government to wake up the crisis in the health service and promise more cash. This is not a sensible strategy to improve the quality of public services when the population is ageing and demands are rising in an ever more complex society. The current spending plans will, whatever form Brexit takes, not be sufficient to repair the fraying fabric of the British state.

Next week, in the middle of a series of crucial Brexit votes, Philip Hammond will make his spring statement on the state of the economy. He ought to resist the temptation solely to weaponise the occasion in service of his sensible views on the terms of Britain’s departure from the EU. The chancellor should instead take the opportunity to fashion a post-austerity message for the Tories.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that just to maintain current day-to-day spending per capita would require an extra £5bn a year by 2023. The sleight of hand over student loans will mean Mr Hammond cannot meet his own targets. It would be silly to raise taxes to accommodate an accounting change. But there is clearly an appetite for more public spending, and more votes in this than tax cuts. Mr Hammond should end austerity in a meaningful way. He might argue that he would spend the money better than his Labour shadow, John McDonnell. The public could then see their politicians talking about the issues that affect their everyday lives. Given the last few crazy months this would be a welcome return to political sanity.