I was much more idealistic when I was younger. Here's what turned me into a realist

Perhaps the slump in support for both major parties in younger voters is in part because they are disenchanted with the daily slanging match.

A constant parade of "they're out of touch", "mine's better than yours" eventually sounds like hollow prattle which belongs in a schoolyard.

Far better an understanding of the values that guide the major parties. At least then the parties might sell their policies within an understood philosophical basis.

Voters may well understand that Labor is driven by union solidarity, collectivist thinking.

The Liberals are much more in favour of each of us having the maximum freedom to form our own view.

To an outsider not familiar to the Liberals' commitment to individual freedom, all the different viewpoints might appear as disunity.

Now would be a good time for the Liberals to spell out what it means to be a Liberal.

The overriding value of liberalism is to maximise your freedom within whatever limits society requires. It's within that framework of freedom that policies are, or should be developed.

Like many people, when I was younger, I was more to the left. The world seemed, and still does, unfair.

Why should the luck of who or in which country you're born, or a myriad of other factors out of your control, have such a dramatic impact on your opportunities in life?

Sooner or later, you have to end the pipe dreams and figure out what can actually be done to make things better.

Younger generations are idealistic enough to want to do that. For me, there were two realisations.

First, for people to be better off, they needed jobs.

That meant a primary concern of helping people was ensuring a strong economy in which small business in particular could thrive.

It would create jobs and thus income. Importantly, it would give people who wanted to have a crack at setting up their own business a chance. Who doesn't want a chance?

Why shouldn't any person, whatever their background aspire to be their own boss, build their own dream?

It would also mean both the workers and businesses would be paying tax. Without that, governments wouldn't have money to provide hospitals, more schools, welfare.

Second, the freedom thing.

For me a philosophy that puts individual freedom as its priority will win out over collective lockins.

Labor is much more committed to collective decision-making.

The Labor way is to tax you and give you back some of it to spend in a way they think is best.

Liberals would prefer to tax you less and leave you to decide what you do with your money.

Neither party's policies always fit perfectly within their philosophical framework but at least they have a better starting point than thin air.

So that was and is it for me.

Governments should ensure a healthy economy so people can get jobs and so there is money available to do good things.

And governments should, as far as is possible, leave individuals to make their own choices.

The short form is: money to help the needy and do good things, coupled with maximising individual freedom. What's not to like?

If you did a vox pop amongst younger disenchanted voters they may not be able to articulate the philosophical differences between the two major parties.

They may well simply focus on one policy over another. For example, net zero by 2050. Arguing over policies bit by bit leaves a messy incoherent battlefield.

Going back to basics, back to first principles, is often a good idea that forces a fresh look at policies.

Childcare is a good example where neither party has covered itself in glory.

Childcare was once a much smaller industry. Then it became an industrial vacuum cleaner to suck money out of government.

If you work at night or have irregular shifts, good luck getting childcare.

Think nurses, cleaners, factory workers, servo attendants, train drivers, hospitality workers. On the other hand doctors, lawyers, public servants and business people can manage the childcare system fairly well.

It just doesn't serve those most in need. In fact it's not great for anyone but the providers. And they have some fair complaints as well.

At many childcare centres, you need to book your set days in advance.

It's a fair request from them because they have to manage their available spaces.

But millions of workers don't know when their shifts are going to be in the next few weeks.

So they have to take a chance and ask their employer to give them the days on which they have childcare booked.

If they don't match, the worker has to pay for the childcare in any event and then hunt around to get some other support for the days when the childcare isn't booked but they are rostered to work.

Does that sound like a system designed to help casuals and shift workers? These are arguably the people most in need. Grandparents have to step in.

Like in any industry, there are people who go belly up.

But it's not without good reason that people who know or knew little about childcare were buying into the industry.

It's something like a clip-the-ticket sort of business.

You get the government set of rules for childcare centres and follow them.

There's a ready market of people rolling through the door with the government paying part of their bill.

You just follow the rules and take their money. You don't need to invent a "Onesie"and risk your money building a market . You don't need to bake better pies or have a better design on your clothing line. Hell no. Just take their money.

Governments of both persuasions have been allowed by a lazy media to get away with the claim that they're making something cheaper for voters by giving them back some of their taxes.

Childcare is a classic example. As cash is dished out you may think you're getting a break ... until surprise, surprise the price goes up. Money just rolls around the system. It doesn't effectively get any cheaper, let alone more accessible for those who arguably need it most.

I've always been a fan of tax deductibility of childcare. Maybe with a cap so the seriously stupid rich can't milk the system. You could have a tax rebate up to a certain level.

Stupidity disguised as or coupled with class wars or envy prohibited this.

Frankly, too many people think of class in terms of Upstairs Downstairs or Downton Abbey. It's ridiculous.

Why shouldn't a nurse on night shift be able to pay a neighbour or friend to look after the kids and get a tax deduction for it.

Or if the parents prefer their child to be looked after by family then pay granny or an aunt to do it.

What's wrong with a mum and dad who prefer that? Nothing in my view. So why don't we let mums and dads pay who they choose for childcare and help them, whatever their choice?

In the UK, an au pair system works well for normal families. Holidaymakers from Europe live in, pick the kids up, cook or prep a few meals. It works for both sides.

The industry runs to suit itself. How many meetings in Canberra and elsewhere get scheduled so that bureaucrats and other office workers can pick up their kids from childcare.

READ MORE:

It's stressful for everyone, except the operator of the business.

It has flow-on effects. You want people to get off welfare and get work, you better have accessible childcare.

Otherwise, you're whistling Dixie. Right now, we have a system that works well for investors but not for the neediest part of the workforce. Who thinks that's smart?

The simple question is why should the government tell you how you should look after your kids? They shouldn't.

We should start decoupling childcare payments from government-accredited childcare and let mums and dads choose. Let a good dose of Liberal freedom into childcare.