I'm buoyed.

This, the most sensible article from the author since... I can't really remember.

Sadly though, the time for action on all his recommendations to the Liberals, I feel is long past.

Next, a seeming eternity Governed by Labor. Let's hope by voting in strategic senators, we the voter will feel in control to some redeeming degree.

Four years of Labor-lite should be enough for voters to go for real Labor, which gives more stuff to them for “nothing”; and it has been Turnbull and Morrison who meddled with people's super, and made it tougher for pensioners. Turnbull’s reign saw the introduction of Labor policies. The new PM is a fence sitter/do nothing sort of bloke. Whenever a reporter asks him what he intends to do about something or other, he says, “It's not my job”. Nobody knows what Morrison's job really is; that includes Morrison.

The Liberals will do nothing about cutting immigration, spending, being bullied by the abominable United Nations or the chronic debt. So, I have to agree with my fellow fair-dinkum conservative, Professor James Allan and say that, although a Labor government will be nothing short of hideous, the Liberals must pay for their sins and have a couple of terms put out to grass to get their act together and remember what they are supposed to stand for. There might be something left them after Labor acts the way it always does.

We have to have Labor reduce us to the pits before we can get back to the real Australia. Things are still not bad enough for the average voter, who needs to be taught a bloody good lesson, along with the Liberal party.

Three things. On family reunion?

It should be reserved for families located in regional or rural Australia.

On spending cuts? Direct funding f some services, health and education? A means-tested endowment would avoid paying armies of bureaucrats billions to churn money.

Means testing would oblige those able to afford it? Able to not just pay for their own service/insurance, but oblige service providers to finally compete for taxpayer funding.

Our charity ought to be reserved for the needy, rather than the leaning greedy! It ought to be enough that they live here and are afforded the opportunities to succeed!

And let's not forget the better off are all too often able to so arrange their financial affairs as to pay just 15 cents in the dollar as their share of the tax.

Published comparisons would ensure they did and the economic survival of the most efficient and excellent!

On emissions?

Simply put, there is no affordable alternative for dispatchable, baseload peak load power than the nuclear option, If we actually want to not just reduce our emissions, but create a template all other nations will have little other choice than emulate. And in so doing untangle the vice-like grip Of OPEC and Putin on ours and their economic short and curlies.

As an afterthought, real tax reform would look like a flat tax o say, just 15% minus any deductions or exclusions. Which would then obviate any need for reconciliations or current tax avoidance strategies.

Given that is so? allow current and made redundant tax compliance costs, (av. 7%) to be returned to the bottom line.

Meaning an effective rate of 8% as well as an actual quite massive increase in revenue! For both actual increased actual receipts, as well as reduced compliance and reconciliation outlays.
Alan B.

Some good sense, which I hoped a non-Turnbull government might embrace. A Labor-lite approach was never going to produce a Coalition win, if you are inclined that way, you will vote for the real thing, even though its policies are so damaging. And, as has happened, if you pursue an L-l approach and deride your support base (thank you, Mr (s)Pyne(less)), you will lose your core supporters, those who used to turn out and campaign for you. I hoped that Morrison might see some of this, alas no. Cameron and the hapless May went down the Labor-lite route, with the incredible prospect of a Corbyn far-left-nutter government. Are there no adults in Lib/Nat ranks?

Labor appeals to folk who think money can be plucked from thin air or as endlessly racked debt somebody else pays. And as always appeals to the great unwashed and those rusted on to unions, with more of the same.

Cutting the ground from under Labor with needs-based funding as in the Gonski model, minus special considerations cut the ground from under Labor, as did a fully funded NDIS. And without question Labor needs some ground cut from under it!

And think, there was bipartisan support until the Morrison coalition/Tweedledum and Tweedle-dumber stated cutting special deals and getting all puffed up on religious freedom.

There is no persecution of any religious minorities here save those sham religious like Scientology, claimed solely to avoid tax and or codified wages?

The Morrison led coalition needs to ensure it Lumbers Labor with trying to match its social promises and tax relief!

It might seem counterintuitive?

But a flat tax like that I've proposed would also reduce the current tax on even the largest corporations, all while looking both fair and equitable for all and encouraging much more business and self-funded retiree migration.

If Labor wins the next election then proceeds to dismantle negative gearing and capital gains relief, it might be no bad thing, given the imposition of the budget bottom line of this form of welfare for rich leaners?

And just doesn't need to be ever reintroduced given the budgetary harm this pork barreling creates as a permanent drag that becomes increasingly impossible to claw back, in an age of entitlement!
Alan B.

Seems like a logical, well thought out strategy.
Good job David.