It was Swan vs Hockey, round 2 on Sunrise this morning. And to be honest, I was pretty disappointed. Yes it was a good debate and the pair performed well as usual. There was good, heated conversation between them and a lot of genuine answers.

But then when it came to the big question about their responses to a potential double-dip financial crisis, they crawled back under the shelter of their stated policies, afraid to commit to real solutions.

All signs are pointing towards another looming financial crisis (which we’ll get into tomorrow on Sunrise and on the blog). So I wanted some real answers from our two economic leaders on what they would do. They can talk all they like about the past and airy fairy plans for the future but I want hard answers on how they’d handle potential crises over the next 3 years.

The problem is they are both so ridiculously committed to this goal of “getting back into surplus”. If we believed everything they say, you’d think getting into surplus is the be all and end all of fiscal management. But it’s not. It’s purely a vote winner for these guys.

So we have a 6% Government debt. That’s nothing, we could easily manage a 30% debt if need be. But they have everyone convinced that the only way for the country to move forward now is by “getting back into surplus”.

I wanted to know what they’d do should the double dip occur. Hockey eventually said he’d palm it off to the RBA to cut interest rates, Swan pretty much put his fingers in his ears and kept shouting that they’ll be in surplus in 3 years. No matter what.

Well I don’t want to see a Treasurer in power who ignores the facts just to protect their policies. I think we’re all in favour of the truth here. This fixation on surplus could be very dangerous, because it means that both Treasurers want to sacrifice anything and everything to reach it, even if that means burning the economy and costing jobs. We have enough resources to provide for another stimulus, but it sounds like both men are too scared to go down that path purely on the basis of political favour, rather than proper economic management.

To leave rescuing an economy purely up to the Reserve Bank is just plain silly. Economic management is a partnership between the RBA and the Government.

Anyway, enough on that. There were some good things to come out of the morning. We heard all the usual promises: that Joe would be taking pressure off families and the rising cost of living, would be paying off debt and putting downward pressure on interest rates; and Wayne talking up the excellent job they did to get us through the last GFC in good shape, 500 000 jobs created, and the plans for NBN and further tax cuts.

They both gave solid guarantees to not change superannuation at all, and not to increase personal income taxes at all. And they both agreed that we have a housing shortage which needs to be rectified.

Both don’t believe there will be crash in property prices during the next term of Government… comforting but I’m not sure they’re right.

Like with the financial crisis on the horizon, there are sign posts towards a crash in the property market, a bursting of the bubble. But again both men sat back on their policies without even considering the possibility of a crash, let alone approach it with any solutions.

They of course continued the arguing over each party’s plans for utility prices, grocery prices, taxes cuts, tax increases, interest rates and cash rates and the gap between them. They disagree so much on these things, how are we meant to have any idea on what’s going on, who’s telling the truth and whether we can believe that any of these policies will actually work?

It was an interesting morning, like I said a bit disappointing from my point of view as we are facing some very real issues in the near future. But these two guys have cheapened economic management by making it a vote-winner. They’ve brought it into the political game-playing arena where they ignore the warning signs and stick to their wavering policies… and it worries me.