Having enjoyed the brief sense of euphoria over Adam Bandt’s defeat in the seat of Melbourne – he managed to blame everyone apart from himself – I returned to thinking about the Coalition’s ignominious defeat and the role that economic policy mistakes played. Of course, plenty of other mistakes were made but I will leave others to deal with them.

It’s convenient to start the story at the decision by the Coalition to block the modest tax cuts announced by Jimbo in the March budget. What the hell were they thinking? Sure, the cuts were small, but they did involve reductions to the lowest marginal rate. Sure, they were not due to come in for some time.

But under what possible circumstances does it make sense for the Coalition to argue for higher taxes? There are none that spring to my mind.

The ‘goss’ is that the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, wanted to reserve the entire revenue gain from opposing the tax cuts – around $17 billion over four years – for spending on defence. But just think about the politics of that. More spending on defence and tax cuts should have been the driving consideration for the Coalition.

The reality is that the flaws in the Coalition’s economic policy offerings went back further. And without a coherent and (classical) liberal framework, they were never going to work. The key ingredients are small government, low taxation, self-reliance and light-handed regulation while ensuring the security of the country.

Instead, the Coalition went Labor-lite. A game of selective ‘me too’ was played in which the Coalition simply proposed to copy many of Albo’s offerings of free stuff, such as the faux promise to make most GP visits free of charge. The argument for voting Coalition quickly evaporated.

One of the first dopey announcements by Dutts was to create a fringe benefit tax exemption for business lunches. Was this for real? Was this to be regarded as an important element of economic reform?

It was clear what was happening. The hospitality industry had gotten into Dutton’s ear and wanted this leg-up because times were tough. The point was made that large firms with in-house dining rooms could claim the full expense of dining (and wining) guests, so this change was only fair enough.

But how was such an announcement expected to encourage voters to tick the Coalition box? It’s the sort of measure that a government might do in office, but it was never a vote magnet. The small business owners that stood to benefit were probably always going to vote for the Coalition.

To be sure, there was stuff going on behind the scenes. The Coalition had decided to oppose some of the government’s expensive off-budget spending, including the National Reconstruction Fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund and Rewiring the Nation. There would be billions of dollars in savings there even though some of the money had already been spent.

But then there was the Coalition proposal to set up some sort of off-budget regional fund to secure dollars for regional boondoggles favoured by the Nats. This weakened the force of the Coalition’s opposition to the government’s spending. In any case, it was hardly retail politics, with most voters blissfully unaware of these developments.

The decision to halve the petrol excise for a year – it would amount to around 25 cents per litre – was regarded by the Coalition as a sure-fire way to attract voters, particularly in outer suburban seats. Multiple trips to service stations by Dutts underscored this point.  But with the price of petrol jumping around in any case, it’s not clear that the cut-through to voters really occurred. It was also costly in budget terms.

Then there was Dutton’s late decision to commit to a one-off tax offset – the Low- and Middle-Income Tax Offset – which would cost $10 billion, a great deal of money. But these offsets are distorting and only apply for the year in question. Again, it wasn’t even clear that most voters were aware of this proposal. Having opposed Jimbo’s tax cuts, the Coalition was putting forward another version of a tax cut, probably an inferior one.  Go figure.

A crescendo occurred when the Coalition’s budget costings were released a few days before the actual election date. By this stage, millions of voters had already lobbed up at their pre-poll stations and filled in their forms. It was a complete stuff-up, with the Coalition expected to record higher deficits in the first two years of the forward estimates period. The net difference of government debt between the Coalition and Labor was trivial.

The Coalition’s budget costings exercise had turned into a classic ‘tail wagging dog’ stuff, with the original aim being for the Coalition to look better than the government with lower recorded deficits and debts. But rather than undertake a root-and-branch analysis of government spending, the Coalition simply accepted most of the government’s wasteful outgoings and tweaked some of them at the margin. It was a depressing approach.

There was also the last-minute announcement of allowing for tax deductibility of mortgage payments for first home buyers.  It was to be limited to five years. Here’s the thing: to move in this direction is a substantial shift with homeowners currently unable to deduct the cost of servicing their mortgages from their taxable income. The change would clearly favour those on higher incomes because of the higher rates of marginal income tax.

Now there could be a case for this shift, although it is noteworthy that President Trump Mark I decided to restrict this benefit in the US. Other countries that have introduced the arrangement have found it to be costly and difficult to terminate according to pre-announced schedules. Lobbing this proposal into the mix at the last minute meant that it was essentially caught up in what had become a deluge of competing proposals to assist first home buyers and to improve housing affordability. I’m not sure what the point was.

While it had certainly been courageous for the Coalition to back nuclear power and to outline some of the details, there was precious little discussion during the campaign of the current problems facing the electricity grid and rising electricity bills. In the end, the egregious but effective tactic of Labor pinning a bill of $600 billion on the Coalition’s nuclear policy – devised by a lobby group pushing renewable energy – precluded any rational discussion about energy policy alternatives.

In a word, the Coalition’s economic policy offerings were a complete shemozzle, a highway to certain electoral defeat. If the aim was to demonstrate superior economic and budget management skills, it was a total disaster, making even Jimbo look like the superior economic manager at times. The polls told the story on this issue.

The only solution is to go back to basics, to determine what the Coalition really stands for and to devise policy based on clearly stated values. Playing follow the leader is a game that will never enable the Coalition to resume the government benches. If it’s a choice between Labor and Labor-lite, voters are likely to prefer the real deal. There’s a great deal of work that needs to be done.