A short while ago in a thread about the French Election (since archived) the discussion turned to spending by Labour through the GFC which I supported.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5098&page=0 .

Graham Young took me to task and said “Very little of what Rudd did had anything to do with our present prosperity, apart from pulling forward a bit of spending, and racking up debts which will crowd the private sector out to some degree and lessen growth in the future.”

My position was that “Rudd was aware things were bleak and knew we were sitting on top of a housing bubble (created in a good measure by the afore mentioned tax cuts) that needed tender loving care to manage or we were headed the way of the States. If we had lost those couple of hundred thousand jobs Treasury said were saved because of the stimulus and the resultant housing foreclosures had popped that bubble we would now be in far more dire straits than we are in now. But we didn’t thanks to the spending.”

I had said “In the end they are two different narratives depending on our perspectives. Neither holds the truth. That is probably for future generations to decide.”

In conversation last week with Philip Adams the rather interesting Bob Katter said of both Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swann; “They were very brave men. To have sacrificed your political life, and your career and your political future for the sake of country. They were very brave and great men.”

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/bob-katter27s-history-of-australia/4010272

He was referring to the way they stepped up to spend in order to keep this country from diving to the depths of others did.

Bob, it would appear, is a bit of a student of political history recently launching a book on the subject. While Queensland parochialism not withstanding I think it is something he truly believes.

While I might have some argument with their method I am thankful that it was done.

I have a feeling history will indeed be kind to them especially given the continuing and probably deepening crisis in global markets.

Rudd was wrong and so is Gillard.There was no need for their useless spending and the debt they put us in.Both will soon be ancient history and good riddens.

C steel....My position was that “Rudd was aware things were bleak and knew we were sitting on top of a housing bubble

Interesting point of view.

Just curious, if, as you say, Rud was so concerned with the pending 'property bubble', why then did he make it easier for first home buyers, by attracting them to with gifts, to buy in what he saw as a ' housing market' that was about to bust.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's hardly what I would call 'looking out for those who trusted you enough, to pledge thier loyal support to you' , wouldn't you say.

Now if that's not reckless, policy on the run, then what would you suggest we call it?

And of cause, many of those loyal supporters, having fallen for his spin, purchased their first home, now have a mortage worth more than their home and are now facing bankruptcy, thanks to Mr Rud, who by the way, still seems pretty well off to me.

It's almost as if he didn't go through the global finacial crisis, unlike the res of us, hey!

As I say, interesting point of view, more proof I would suggest that you lot just can't see any wrong in labor.

Csteele,

That stimulus was required was never in dispute between the two major parties. Where the contention is, is that far more was spent than required in a breath takingly wasteful manner.

The home insulation scheme was also a good idea appallingly managed.

Rudd's and Swan's legacy will be that of financial incompetence and waste.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I find it a little hard to swallow the proposition that Howard would have attacked the crisis with the vigour and expediency that Rudd and Swann did if he had won the election.

Indeed even in August 2010 Howard said "There's some merit in the argument that this has really been a North Atlantic global financial downturn, than a world financial downturn, and we have benefited enormously from that,". He rejected the notion that the efforts of Labour had any impact.

I'm certainly not an economist but there were a number of other governments who took a head in the sand approach and have been badly burnt.

I think we were fortunate to have someone who took this crisis as seriously as they should have. You would need to do a lot of convincing to have me think otherwise.

What was interesting that an independent, close to the action, on the conservative side of politics and a student of great Australian figures like Ted Theodore, should give Rudd and Swann the kudos he did.

Why would he do it?

To me the answer is he doesn't need to toe the party line and can afford to be a straight shooter on this.

Damn I wish we had more independents in our parliament.

Csteele,

That you find it hard to swallow that Howard would implement a stimulus package owes more to your blind acceptance of the Labor line. That they would have spend less is certainly true, but there would have been something to protect jobs, and it would be difficult to be less efficient than Labor's incompetent spending.

What we now have with the carbon tax is an anti stimulatory measure to harm manufacturing in this country.