IvanM

Keating put in the reforms that meant Howard was able to enjoy a boom.

Budawang

And yet we still hear the same old mantra that the Coalition are the best economic managers - almost as if it's their divine birthright. Well many (most?) Australians don't believe that any more.

slapphead_otool

Like many things in life, the truth is a complex and seldom seen beast.

Howard left the country with a surplus of $19.7 billion in underlying cash terms, and the fiscal balance was a surplus of $21 billion.

Labor turned that around to a budget deficit of $43.7 billion deficit by September 2012. (The third largest deficit in Australian history.). The net debt was a staggering $147.3 billion.

So although it is true that Howard was big spending, he wasn’t spending more than he was earning. Like a good little housewife (sorry to be sexist) he was putting a bit aside each week, whilst spending on the family so that they had a good lifestyle.

True he introduced the “baby bonus” – he could afford to. Why should families struggle when the government was making money?

He also introduced the Education Endowment Fund ($5 billion, for new university buildings a facilities) literacy and numeracy initiatives for schools, and measures to support vocational education and training and higher education.
He introduced a $10 billion National Plan for Water Security and measures for drought assistance.

These were not the actions of an irresponsible man, he had money in the bank to pay for it!!!!

The Rudd/Gillard government, on the other hand, have continued to spend irresponsibly, when they didn’t have the money to spend, driving the country deeper and deeper into debt whilst promising a surplus that they cannot and have not delivered.


For those who really want to delve into the IMF report, it is here:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1305.pdf

slapphead_otool

And if we really take a good look at the IMF report:

The issue in question is really only contained in table 12. And table 12 doesn’t match table 13…. In fact table 13 says “periods of strong profligacy = 0” which is at odds with table 12!

So why does table 12 say the Howard government was profligate?

I am sure the highly qualified economists here will provide a discourse on the weighting issues associated with a recursive Bohm 98 test….

the troubadour

Not forgetting the piggery........

Gibbo

They have proved to be over the years. Have live thro' the end of the Menzies'/Holt government, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating. Every labor government left debt. John Howard's government paid off the debt, made things easier for families, left a Future fund and a surplus. Is that bad economic management? The lot we have now are running true to form. Wasted money on handouts and ill conceived schemes. I just hope they don't bankrupt the country before they get booted out! Please don't state the old,"But they had the good years!" because a Labor government would still have squandered the money.

roaringmouse

...and Rudd couldn't even make it to one term as PM.

Zen10

And let's not forget it was under Howard that house prices were taken from being affordable to severely unaffordable, leaving the next generation with the choice of crippling debt or life-long renting.

Zen10

Rudd was assassinated by his own party though. He was naive in not seeing that coming, IMO, but if they had left him where he was Labor would have won the last election without having to buy off those to conservative weasels Windsor and Oakshott.

roaringmouse

...because of opinion polls at the time. He's not even a one termer PM, couldn't get to 3 years in the job. The only way Gillard could become PM after an election, and then using it as an excuse to break a promise she made that under no government she leads would there be a carbon tax.

It's rather unfortunate that the election this year will be a case of who do you want to lose the least, rather than win...I don't like the idea of either Abbott or Gillard being PM after the election.

Zen10

I agree about the polls, but that just shows why polls shouldn't lead government because he was obviously better at the job than Gillard. Also agree about the horrible choice we have at the next election. I'd rather see Turnbull in than Abbott.

IvanM

He wimped out of the mining tax and lost the respect of party and public. From then on he was dead as Rudd was not a factional unionist. Like Turnbull, Rudd is not a Canberra player. Both Rudd and Turnbull paid the price.