Hm. Controversial views:

Land rights. I'd readily do away with traditional ownership of land in favour of a high land-value tax, where individuals are effectively renting land from society, and de-emphasise traditional forms of taxation in doing so.

I would very readily have the state compete with the private sector in providing certain services including banking, healthcare, education, public transport, roads, power distribution, internet infrastructure, news. Some more controversial than others perhaps.

In line with the above, I'd have a job guarantee providing "baseline jobs" by which the private sector needs to offer better wages or conditions to attract workers, in lieu of a minimum wage.

MMT's already been mentioned, but here it is again: I'd readily drop balancing the budget as a goal in itself.

Free trade: I'd readily let countries subsidise whatever industries/exports they want to. If a country wants to give itself a comparative advantage in a specific industry paid for by taxpayers, let them. If that's their drive/passion, I see little wrong with it vs a natural endowment.

Monetary policy: I'm not a fan of subsidising savings (real risk-free positive interest rates) as I see it as "giving people money for having money". Nor am I a fan of eroding people's savings (real risk-free negative interest rates). I personally would accentuate automatic stabilizers and take a more active role fiscally such that the central bank typically runs risk-free real rates around zero. That is, today, I would have the government deficit spend more.

Capital controls: Strong supporter w/ limiting speculative flows for small economies. Believe it's just about essential.

Debt: Preferably just "money printed" w/ floor interest rates implemented through the central bank paying interest on reserves, but if that's too controversial to be accepted, 28 day T-Bills (to minimise speculation on central bank policy) would be fine as an intermediate.

Emissions: carbon tax over an ETS, with aggressive sunset dates for the dirtier forms of generation.

And NIT vs UBI: They're the same thing dammit.

I think that's all off the top of my head. I know they're all non-controversial in small enough circles, but there's probably something in there that'd rile enough economist's feathers.