George Osborne's budget speech was, as usual, a masterclass in combining the rhetoric of change with reality of continuity. Britain has, according to Osborne, left 'the age of irresponsibility' behind. There is very little basis for this claim. Instead, the Budget, Osborne's first without Lib Dem shackles, perpetuates his reckless stewardship of the British economy.
Ultimately, that is all it takes - changing the political perception of what is merely cost, and what has real value in people's lives. Paying to gain access to the resources of real wealth-creation is a cost in human terms; the work that people choose to do because it brings undeniable benefit to their lives has value, even if no money changes hands.
It may be a rebalance of the economic powers, but the planet is far from being the place of equality. Oxfam claims that "in 2010, it took 388 billionaires to equal the wealth of the bottom half of the world's population and by 2014, the figure had fallen to just 80 billionaires." If the trend continues, warns the humanitarian group, in two years the richest 1% will have more than the remaining 99%.
Just after the results of the Brazilian presidential elections were made public a few days ago, giving current President Dilma Rouseff of the leftist Workers Party a small margin of victory over her opponent Aécio Neves, the British weekly magazine The Economist did what it always does, and came up with one of their worst ever statements.
The spectacular GDP growth recorded by some West African countries in the past 5 years is all of a sudden undermined by the spread of the Ebola virus. The epidemic has put under the spotlight the poor conditions of health systems in the region, but also the fragility of economic models measured only by Gross Domestic Product.
In 2013, the government deficit, according to the latest available Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures, was £92.9billion, which was 5.8% of GDP. All our major political parties are fixated on getting this deficit down by cutting expenditure and raising taxes. But should they be quite so determined to do so? Is austerity really the best way to cut the deficit?
Since the election, output for every hour worked has not gone up - it's gone down, whilst output per worker has followed the same trajectory. We're actually less productive than we were in 2010. This appalling record is far worse than the last years of the 1970s, long deemed the moment when 'British disease' reached its peak.
Now I know what a steamroller can do. The last year has been the most dramatic and the most traumatic ever for the co-operative sector. For years, you wait for the mainstream business press to pick up on the potential of the co-operative model in today's more open and fluid world of enterprise, and then...wham.
The problem is, despite the austerity narrative, public spending continues to rise and our debts continue to grow. There are currently a number of other issues thrown into the political mix such as; Scottish independence, immigration and Europe. Whilst these are of course important issues, they perhaps distract from the key fiscal debate.
Voters from the 28 member nations of the European Union delivered an election earthquake on May 25. Results show major gains in the European Parliament for anti-integration, Euroskeptic parties which span the ideological spectrum from the extreme-right National Front which won the ballot in France, to the far-left Syriza Party which came first in Greece.