The economies death spiral by George Osborne a history graduate who doesn't know history.

As the graph on this BBC article shows the economy was starting to recover in the end of 2009 then this coalition was elected and within six months started their policy off economic slash and burn AKA austerity.

The depression is continuing with the government trying to blame everyone and everything from the jubilee to the weather. Indeed they are blaming everything except their own incompetence.

History has shown us that Austerity has never worked from japans decades long recession to the great depression between the wars austerity fail and it fails massively. During the great depression Britain enacted austerity measures whilst Roosevelt instigated the new deal and invested in the USA as a result the united states climbed out of depression and became the worlds strongest economy whilst Britain remained in depression.  George Osborne as a history graduate should know this.

The only conclusion is that the Chancellor is trying to continue the recession and there can be only one reason for deliberately continuing the recession. In a recession even more money than usual is concentrated in the richest 1% which just so happen to include the chancellors tax avoiding family as well as a significant number of Conservative backers. It is quite clear that the Tories are now destroying the economy for personal gain.

We need a new chancellor this one's broken

It has always been obvious that from the first moment he was in the job that George Osborne was not capable of being able to perform as chancellor. He was to weighed down by discredited principles that have always failed from Japans eternal recession to Britain in the 70's and 80's austerity does nothing except damage the economy and make the rich richer. As his family are one of the largest tax avoiders in this country it is clear that he will never plug the loopholes that allow billions to be siphoned out of the British economy.

Sir Martin Sorrell has suffered a major rebuke from his shareholders

Advertising boss Sir Martin Sorrell has suffered a major rebuke in one of the biggest pay revolts of the current "shareholder spring".
Some 59.5% of proxy investor votes went against WPP's remuneration report, which includes a £6.8 million package for Sir Martin, which he defended as a reward for "performance, not failure".
The vote, revealed at WPP's annual meeting in Dublin, is not binding and will not force WPP to reset its pay policy for last year.
Louise Rouse, director of engagement at investment campaigner FairPensions, who attended the meeting, said: "It is difficult to know whether the WPP board underestimated the level of shareholder anger or simply chose to ignore it."
The meeting in Dublin followed months of shareholder ire over executive pay with the likes of Aviva, Trinity Mirror, Barclays, William Hill, Xstrata and Premier Foods all facing significant votes against their pay reports.
Shareholder advisory groups, including the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Pensions Investment Research Consultants (Pirc), had urged members not to back WPP's "excessive" remuneration report.
Pirc said "concerns lie in excessiveness and the balance between reward and incentive".
Writing in the Financial times last week, Sir Martin issued a robust defence of his pay, warning that if Britain wanted high achievers in the private sector, it needed to pay competitively.
He told the paper: "The compensation debate in the UK now seems to have shifted from undeserving bankers paid for failure and from payment for performance to what is fair pay."
However, chairman Philip Lader, a former White House deputy chief of staff, took a more conciliatory approach and said all pay deals were open to further "deliberations".
Other casualties of the so-called shareholder spring have included Andrew Moss, who quit as chief executive of Aviva, and Sly Bailey, who will leave her post as boss of Trinity Mirror.
Business Secretary Vince Cable is currently drawing up plans to give greater power to shareholders but is understood to be considering watering down proposals for a binding annual vote in favour of a poll every three years.