yes, of course inflation and population growth change things, you goon - a real human being would consider that from the beginning instead of trying to score cheap points. the point is that looking at total spending is moronic: discounting "some areas getting more money and some getting less"? are you joking? here's a quick hint: in countries with positive inflation and population growth, absolute spending will always increase from year to year barring cuts that go beyond their combined effects. wow holy shit that's crazy would you look at that - are those externalities that I see? no, no, we can't have that!
Full credit for name-calling and sarcasm, but I don't see anywhere that you disagree with anything I said. Did I "twist and misrepresent a word" leading me to expect significant reductions in spending with all the talk of austerity? Yes, Cameron said some words about "transparency" and "tough decisions" but I don't see any change in the data while he was in office, at least not in the direction suggested by the headline. Instead of newspaper coverage of the promises of politicians, try the Office for National Statistics to see what's actually happening.
your analysis of the data is flawed, your chosen statistics too few, and you're playing word-games with "austerity" to define it as narrowly as you can to make yourself right. jerk off on someone else.