Tristan,

Given that government expenditure is 40% higher than in 2007 whilst delivering very little extra, the "smaller" government under labor is actually already very bloated in comparison to that of the Howard government.

If Labor actually demonstrated that it could deliver more for the taxpayer than simply more public servants, the electorate might be prepared to listen.

"Where would Australia have been had the Conservatives been in government with the onset of the Global Financial Crisis? (GFC) Most likely a Conservative government would have implemented deflationary policies which would have sent the economy into freefall, with an ever-escalating toll of human misery."

Incorrect. The Coalition always supported stimulatory policies, just not of the same nature or scale of the government's policies. Turnbull for instance proposed bringing tax cuts forward.

Given that Labor wasted billions on school hall rip-offs and pink batts, it would seem the Coalition's less ambitious approach was in fact the better one.

There are other errors in this article, but perhaps the biggest is the main thrust: that we should increase expenditure in all of these areas and raise taxes in order to fund bigger government.

The article does not take into account the fact that higher taxes are bad for econonomies, nor the fact that the private sector is generally more efficient than the private.

In short, this spending wish-list is a recipe for low economic growth, rising unemployment and higher inflation. It basically strangles the golden goose in order to try to make it lay more golden eggs.

Hey, here's a solution.
Why not get the government to produce everything and employ everyone!
Yippee!

Oh...

Menzies supported a mixed economy; Yet the Conservatives today can't tell the difference between a democratic mixed economy and a Soviet-style command economy.... (for that matter neither can some people in the ALP)

The conservatives would have sent Australia into a free fall, get Off, Green labor has never offered tax cuts or real savings and never will as they rule to determine who should get the sPoils which from the mess they only create,stagnation anyone.

I agree with the principle that I'd rather pay more tax for a more broadly subisidized society in public infrastructure, medical services and scientific development;

Of course, we definitely wouldn't need to if we actually stopped allowing stupid novelty events to occur in the city (WYD, cycling marathons, APEC etc which each cost hundreds of millions in tax dollars and costs much more hundreds of millions in lost revenue for city businesses), cut funding for rubbish like School Chaplains and laptops for every child, Conroy's filter, Desalination plants etc.
Oh, and I almost forgot- Politician's travel and living perks, and pensions.
We'd draw in a massive windfall.