Calling out those who would like to find a more appropriate day for the celebration with "Trumpian" abuse like "peddling woke agendas" and "seeking to "cancel Australia Day by stealth" is unbecoming and ignores the role he and his could play to seek national unity about a generally accepted celebration date.

There is a significant group of Australians who have pointed out that the January 26 was chosen to recognise Arthur Phillip's arrival in 1788 with a shipload of convicts in what is now Sydney Cove.

To a sizable number of our community that was not the establishment of a country/nation of which we could or should be proud; for one thing, these first arrivals had no interest in democracy, nor any respect for the rights of Indigenous nations, and permitted a holocaust of violence against Indigenous people.

Unquestionably January 26 has some bad vibes attached to it.

March 3 might be a much more acceptable and appropriate date.

On that date, two acts both called the Australia Act 1986, came into effect simultaneously. One, an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. These Acts established for the first time clear authority for Australia to govern itself through its Federal Parliament.

The main objection to January 1 as Australia Day is that it is already a public holiday. OK, let's call it Australia Day, as Queen Victoria would have approved.

January 26 has all sorts of significance. It's the end of the silly season, the end of the summer holiday, when the children start going back to school, whatever. Keep it as a holiday, call it what you like, stay at the beach if you like, but let's get on with being the Australia that our founding fathers conceived.

One letter writer recently asked "what happened to a safe well maintained Canberra?"

The answer was in another letter. The tram happened. Greens/Labor financial delinquency with its serious opportunity costs: public safety, education, health and so on.

Your editorial "Trump's win fuels fears for democracy" (January 17) implies that autocratic leaders who "rise by democratic means and then weaken the democracy that took them to power" is a risk primarily from the political "right".

But autocracy is equally, if not more, likely to arise from the political "left".

Should a majority of American voters elect Donald Trump as president in November, that will be a democratic decision, and must be respected as such. Not all democratic decisions are necessarily wise ones, but who is to say where wisdom lies?

Keith Hill (Letters, January 16) asks: "why would you have someone like Peter Dutton running Australia, after his dumb announcements?" I agree.

The same can be said about hubristic PM Albanese as it was equally dumb to proceed with the Voice referendum knowing fully well that statistically it had little to no chance of succeeding, particularly without bipartisan support.

It has unnecessarily cost the taxpayers millions, all to no avail.

He is now stubbornly refusing to rule out the nonsensical stage three tax cuts by putting politics before policy, potentially costing the country $313 billion over a decade, despite resistance from some ALP members, the backbench and the unions who are calling for them to be either substantially scaled back or abolished altogether.

Under the circumstances does that make the PM also unfit to "lead Australia anywhere" for his equally dumb actions?