One of the problems with an election campaign is whenever talk turns to fragility in the economy the solution presented is always one of stability. The government has sought to present itself as stable (after all, it has nearly been a year since it has changed its leader and treasurer), while the ALP sought to present itself as the stable party, given its role during the global financial crisis.

And yet both sides were not all that eager to talk about what they would actually do were mere stability not enough to prevent an economic downturn.

The lack of eagerness to talk about what they would do is a consequence of the relentless criticism by the Liberal party and sections of the media of the stimulus measures put in place by during the financial crisis, and also the Labor party’s complete inability to use the crisis to challenge the myth that a budget surplus is prime evidence of good economic management.

Australian election 2016: We'll never compromise on offshore detention, says Di Natale – politics live Read more

Last Friday, when he rushed with barely disguised joy to speak on ABC’s 7:30 about the impact of the Brexit vote, Malcolm Turnbull dismissed once again the measures undertaken by the Rudd government during the global financial crisis.

He told Leigh Sales, that “I think what shepherded Australia through the GFC successfully was the Chinese stimulus and the large amount of cash that John Howard left in the bank”.

It requires an odd sense of logic to suggest that the stimulus measures here didn’t work, but that the Chinese ones did. It also is a tad odd to suggest the “large amount of cash” helped get us through the global financial crisis.

Having a surplus does not actually do anything to spur economic growth, it is what you spend the money on that does it. Arguing the surplus got us through the GFC but the stimulus didn’t is a bit like arguing that what brings a smile to your children’s faces on Christmas morning is not the presents you have bought them but the money that was in the bank you had saved in order to buy the presents.

Had the stimulus measures been poorly targeted, no amount of surplus would have helped. And the reality is the stimulus measures worked pretty much as they were expected to:

In the September and December quarters of 2008, the cash payouts to pensioners and low-income families saw government consumption contribute strongly to GDP growth at a time when household spending was falling. Throughout 2009, the $12.7bn given to all families (the cash splash) saw household consumption contribute very strongly to growth.

And while private investment fell in 2009, the public investment through stimulus measures, such as the building the education revolution did the heavy lifting. And once private investment began to improve again – through both the mining sector and also housing (via the increase in the first-home buyer grant for new properties), government investment tapered off.

Add in the performance of exports, and the ability of the RBA to cut rates by 4.25 percentage points in seven months, and you had Australia’s economy continuing to grow while the rest of the world was on the on the floor wondering if anyone got the number of the truck that had just hit it.

The liberal left is trapped in a death spiral: progressives need to throw the reset switch | Jeff Sparrow Read more

But after seven years of telling everyone the stimulus measures were a waste that has left Australia “with a huge structural deficit and of course a mountain of debt”, it means should the Brexit be the nudge that breaks the fragile world economy, there appears little chance that a similar stimulus measure would be pursued.

And certainly no side wants to suggest they would engage in stimulus for fear of being seen as reckless spenders.

It’s all a bit silly and most likely quite disingenuous.

If things go bad, there is no way the RBA can cut rates by enough to really get any decent stimulus, and while we may hope for the dollar to fall (as it also did during the GFC) the problem is most other nations have weaker currencies now than they did seven years ago, so it is likely it won’t fall by enough.

And that will – as ever – leave us with fiscal stimulus.

Stable government sounds great in a sound bite but when the economy is going south, it will be targeted government spending that both sides will pursue regardless of who is in power.

And we’d all be hoping it works as well as it did in 2009.