It has become impossible for any politician to mention the new “C” word – cuts – without also mentioning IT projects.

David Cameron, George Osborne, Vince Cable, and even the occasional Labour minister by subtle implication, have all highlighted the apparent potential for big savings in public sector spending by scrapping some of the major government IT projects currently underway. The most likely candidates that are often mentioned are ID cards and the NHS National Programme for IT.

Frankly, I’m a bit fed up with this knee-jerk posturing seemingly based on no other logic than “IT is expensive, therefore it must be cut”.

If these programmes are to be cut, do it because they are no longer politically viable, not because it’s a big IT project.

Politically, the easiest to go would be ID cards. There is enough bad feeling about the whole concept to see that one bite the dust without too much controversy. But much of the existing planned cost is already committed for biometric passports. And a future government – ideally the next one if the UK is to make a much-needed move to further online delivery of public services – will at some point have to face up to the thorny problem of securing our electronic identities.

The more we use e-government services, the greater the need for identity management and verification, something where ID cards could potentially offer a solution (although not necessarily the optimum solution). Nonetheless, money will still have to be spent on electronic ID management.

As for the NHS IT programme, put aside all the delays and technical difficulties for a moment, and it is blatantly obvious that the health service needs and must have the efficiencies that will come from greater computerisation and automation, and in particular from electronic medical records, in whatever form they may eventually be delivered.

Review the project by all means, but scrapping it merely puts off the inevitable. It is a critical programme and eventually that money will still have to be spent, even if the technical solution changes.

The problem is that as far as most politicians are concerned, IT is simply another item on a spreadsheet with a big number alongside it. It worries me greatly that any potential government can so glibly dismiss the potential repercussions of scrapping major IT projects that will ultimately deliver great benefit – and cost savings.

Technology is only going to be become more important to a future government having to deal with demands for greater openness and transparency, and for an internet generation used to making its own choices, not following central dictats.

Let’s have the debate about the best way to deliver that technology, of course. But let’s be worried about any party manifesto that simply wants to cut every big IT project without proper consideration of what that means.