Angus Taylor's budget reply confirmed what had already been well leaked. 

The Coalition will take a big tax policy to the next election, promising to index income tax thresholds to inflation, while also going hard on immigration, welfare, housing, small business and defence.

As far as policy details go, much of it is perfectly defensible, if the Opposition can make its numbers add up. Ending bracket creep is radical, but a long overdue reform. 

Governments of both persuasions have been addicted to the stealth revenue grab that comes when wages rise with inflation and workers are pushed into higher tax burdens without any parliament ever voting for a tax rise. 

Taylor is right to call that out. It would force future governments to be more efficient with their spending, rather than lazily relying on bracket creep to pay for excesses.

The Coalition says the change will return around $250 to average workers in its first year, rising over time as thresholds are indexed rather than allowed to quietly drag taxpayers into higher tax brackets. 

Taylor says 85 per cent of income earners will get an extra $1,000 each year, and up to $1,600 for the 15 per cent of workers in the top two tax thresholds.

But the policy will cost $22.5 billion over four years from 2028-29.

His other big policy, linking migration to housing supply, also makes sense in principle. Australia can't keep pretending that record population growth has no impact on rents, house prices, infrastructure, schools, hospitals and roads. 

Migration has economic benefits, we know that, but only if the country has the capacity to absorb it. 

When housing construction falls well short, voters are entitled to ask why the migration intake keeps running ahead of the nation's ability to accommodate extra people.

Where he will make the huge cuts to immigration quotas is not clear. Working Holiday visas are contentious, with agriculture in regional areas relying on seasonal workers.

Taylor on Thursday night said Student visas would be the obvious place to crack down, but the international student market is among the country's biggest revenue generators.

The welfare part of his proposal is hard edged, and Labor will attack it accordingly, especially around the NDIS you'd have to imagine. 

But Taylor is trying to make a broader point about citizenship, reciprocity and the obligations owed by the state. 

That argument will resonate with some voters, even if the detail will need careful handling. It's clearly pitched at winning votes back from One Nation.

The problem with the Budget reply isn't that Taylor has no policies. It's that he is a poor salesman.

It's not enough to have a tax plan, a migration plan and a housing plan. An opposition leader has to make voters believe the plans are worth voting for - that's where salesmanship comes into the equation.

It's Taylor's weakness. He sounds like a bumbling boffin explaining a spreadsheet when he needs to sound like a political leader with a hint of charisma and believability. 

The ideas are there, to some extent at least, but the emotional connection simply is not. He talks about aspiration, home ownership and fairness, but too often it lands as mechanical.

And Taylor can't seem to help the gaffes.

Even minor stumbles reinforce the problem. The ABC was predictably gleeful about the Opposition leader accidentally saying his tax reform would save workers $2.50 in its first year rather than $250. 

On one level, it was a trivial slip. But politics can be unforgiving when a mistake confirms an existing weakness. 

Taylor is already seen as technocratic, awkward and unable to sell a message cleanly. The gaffe, and the ABC's teasing of it, underlined the point.

But, finally, the Coalition has put some policy meat on the bones of its struggles in Opposition.

That's progress at least.