Can the Unions actually count?

Innumeracy is a problem, a blight on our society. It's distressing, and more should be done to stop it. However, I'm sceptical that placing sufferers at the head of Trades Unions is a solution.

In fact. I'm fed up with the general tenor of the discussion of the budget: here is a fascinating table from the HoC library (page 8), showing government spending between now and 2015-16, current (i.e. non capital) and total:

Current and Total expenditure (£m, real at today's prices)
2010-11:     637.3     696.8
2011-12:     639.0     686.8
2012-13:     637.4     682.1
2013-14:     634.5     675.1
2014-15:     630.6     671.4
2015-16:     630.6     671.5
%change:     -1%        -4%

Overall, the change in public expenditure 2010/11 - 2015/16 is 4% down in real terms, actually a substantial rise in nominal expenditure. The budget report (page 45) points out pretty clearly that nominal expenditure rises by about £60bn over the period, or around 10%.

Here are the Unions on that today:

• "A savage and opportunistic attack on public services ... [that] goes far further than even the dark days of Thatcher"
• "What they take apart now could take generations to rebuild. Decent public services are the glue that holds a civilised society together and we diminish them at our peril. Cut services, put jobs in peril and increase inequality, that's the way to make Britain a darker, brutish, more frightening place."
• And predictably, Bob Crow has called for a campaign of "civil disobedience"

I don't think this is justified over a 4% reduction in real expenditure, and in fact I think pretending it does makes you a moron. Although, I don't deny the debate is important and there is a sound discussion over what the right economic policy is: for example, a good retort would be that comparative spend is what matters, and broadly I would agree they are right: a quick check on this reveals that expenditure is forecast to stabilise at 39-40% of GDP (budget report above, page 16), or to put it more plainly, higher than the levels for the entire period 1997/98 - 2003/4.

So I would like to ask politely, could everyone just get a grip on the numbers before they debate them; and if you don't know or cannot understand the numbers, could you just shut up. For I think commenting on economic policy when you can't count does make you worthy of the anathema.