Labor and LNP GDP comparisons

Since John Howard became Prime Minister in 1996, the Liberal Party and the majority of the Australian media have perpetuated the myth that the Liberals are better economic managers than the Labor Party. This as been the bedrock of every Liberal election campaign since.

As Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley allowed Howard to rubbish the far-reaching economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments while simultaneously taking the credit for their outcomes. Howard squandered the windfall from a mining boom of unprecedented enormity on election bribes and tax cuts designed to redistribute wealth to the top. Meanwhile he ran down government services, whittled away workers rights and bargaining power and froze employer contributions to superannuation costing over $1 trillion in lost retirement savings.

The Howard government became the most profligate government in Australian history, yet their greatest success was selling the fantastic idea that they are better economic managers.

Even a cursory glance at economic performance under Labor and Coalition governments since 1972 revels over $40 billion more in growth, more than half a million extra jobs and a consistently higher ranking economy in comparison to the rest of the world, under Labor. Based on results rather than rhetoric, the Labor Party are not just better economic managers than the Liberals, they are vastly superior to them.