Actually they are saying exactly the same as me except I am urging at least double the level of cuts LABOUR are planning.
Here is part of an article analysing this by Fraser Nelson today which explains exactly how the figure in question is arrived at:
"""""Budget 2009 proposed total real-terms spending falling by 0.1 percent a year for three years starting April 2011. Those figures Brown read out in PMQs represent a real-terms cut as any half-sentient economist will tell you. The IFS spotted the complete trick the day after the Budget. Factor in the rising cost of debt interest and it implies that public service spending will fall by 2.3 percent a year. This makes a cumulative 6.7 percent over those three years. This is what Labour proposes to do if it wins the next election.
The Tories have (until today) given no figures - but they won't spend more than Labour so their cuts will be at least as harsh. But David Cameron has indicated that he'd increase health, meaning that the burden will fall more sharply on other department. In effect, this means cuts of 3.2 percent a year, for those three years - so a cumulative 10 percent. Crucially, this is a Labour cut, determined by the cuts spelled out in Budget 2009. Brown thinks he will win this debate, as the Tories will be honest about cuts - demonstrated by Lansley this morning - whereas he will be dishonest.""""
Here is a link to the full article, it is an interesting one:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3687378/the-truth-behind-that-10-percent-cut.thtml