Whilst I don't know the true reasons for the dumping of Kevin, with the stimulus package, I wouldn't doubt that he also wanted to bring the tax back to the 1960' leval ie 66.6%, as it had been successful in those years. I don't doubt that there were a number who wanted to run their type of campaign, so kicked him out and continued the down hill run of economic destruction that we still have and continue to have with the track record of Peter Costello, Wayne Swan and all those treasurers since 1970. However I believe that our future relies on the rebuilding our manufacturing industries and revitalising our workforce, and we cannot do that if they are going to be kept destroyed by the mining exports as has been happening for the last 40 years, and been promised by Anna that it will get worse when Gina Rhinehardt gets going.

Well said. You have identified the key real issues our economy faces.
Allowing the bankers to inflate housing by reckless credit and just skim profits is a tax that the real economy cannot sustain. Allowing foreign owned mining companies to get bargain basement prices on our national assets and then export the short term profits is just stupid. Failing to train the younger generation then insisting there is a "skills crisis" that demands high immigration was the icing on the cake for youth. Not only are they under-resourced, they also face competition from foreign workers and housing out of reach. Not only has this meant going backwards in standards of living, reduced fertility due to instability and poverty, higher suicides, etc, but it has also created an unsustainable Ponzi finances:We will follow the US into economic Armageddon if we don't restructure soon.
The very last thing that economists and the media wants are competent economists: this would break the "Left/Right", "Classical/Keynesian", "black/white" story we have all been sold. It would also make the conservatives look like insane hypocrites and embarrass politicians from both sides.
Sadly real economic progress will come from Asia, maybe even China. Over there the demographics are not so screwed up. In the west the ageing population are too busy trying to screw the younger generations and throw their weight around a little longer. Not only will this crowd delay action on GW, they will also insist that their bubble investments are not deflated...which means the younger generations keep losing

According to John Turner's theory, paying a million dollars to buy a demountable buildings worth $100,000 makes us as a society richer.

Keynes also believed that earthquakes generate wealth because of all 'jobs' they create. So why don't we all just burn our houses dow? According to Keynesian logic, this is the way to greater wealth for all.

Don't laugh. This is the intellectual standard at which policy is decided at the highest levels.

Peter, that might be how some of the muppets interpret Keynes, but it is oversimplifying things a bit.
You could argue that private industry is hopelessly inefficient as it gives equal weight to the profits from panel beaters as it does car manufacturers. So by your argument more crashes = more GDP = booming economy. McDonald's profits are also of dubious national interest even though their marketing budget could fund our national health service.
So while it is very true that not all government spending is good spending, it is also true that not all private spending is good spending.
I have some sympathy with the government's arguments that by saving jobs the waste was worth it...better to waste on local jobs than export profits or losing $3-4B in foreign exchange like Howard did! This does not excuse the amateur efforts in managing expenditure, just that there are times to borrow and spend, and times to save. Waste is always bad, but they had the right idea to keep employment going.
Government spending should be minimised and targeted at the things that only collective action can solve: (schools, health, transport, comms). The free market (something we barely have) should take care of the rest. However when unproductive (banking), or undesirable (drugs) companies are making huge profits then some sort of regulation is required. One thing the GFC has taught us is "trickle down" theories and unconstrained financial profits do great harm.

Peter Hume,
You need to read or re-read, and understand, the last section of chapter 10 of the General Theory.
Keynes stated, and I quote, "Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the principles of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better." You have completely misunderstood what Keynes was saying or used the piece completely out of context.

And he stated, "Thus we are so sensible, have schooled ourselves to so close a semblance of prudent financiers, taking careful thought before we add to the 'financial' burdens of posterity by building them houses to live in, that we have no such easy escape from the sufferings of unemployment. We have to accept them as an inevitable result of applying to the conduct of the State the maxims which are best calculated to 'enrich' an individual by enabling him to pile up claims to enjoyment which he does not intend to exercise at any definite time".

In the same section his comments on the value of gold mining are also worth reading.

Peter Hume,

Keynesian theory on the connection between disasterous ruin and the profit and jobs created from rebuilding is alive and well and being conducted quite openly at present. America's "opportunity" to rebuild Iraq, is a prime example - the only difference being that they first had to knock it down.