This answers most of your objections:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/ove...verview_07.htm
Note the massive debt under Labour governments. That's how they fund their spending schemes, eventually sending the economy into turmoil.
Hawke did some very important reforms, and received massive criticisms for them by his commie buddies and union supporters, eventually losing his leadership. Rudd has nowhere near the spine of Hawke or Keating.
[ QUOTE ]
And what reforms have we had in the modern Howard government? There was the GST, a bit of dabbling in privatisation, and AWAs and WorkChoices
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to get into it, but they did a great deal of microeconomic management. Among the things you missed were keeping the budget in surplus, paying of massive amounts of labour acquired debt, selling Telstra, reforming education, encouraging private health care, home owner grants which drove housing, encouraging the independence of the reserve bank, massive reductions in industrial relations disputes (helping trade) and more. The liberals are highly praised by many economists. Meanwhile Labour repeatedly apologized for the mistakes of the past, saying they have "learned from their mistakes" and are now "economic conservatives". What are they apologizing for, exactly, if they didn't [censored] up?
I have no idea about the back of envelope calculation or how accurate it is.
[ QUOTE ]
Labor ran this election on a platform of spending less than the Coalition
[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY? Pray tell what they were cutting and how that compares to the cost of their education and health care promises and general left wing policies? Are you leveling me or something?