This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

National Party Election Results

Joined
10 July 2004
Posts
2,913
Reactions
3
In todays media:

"It seems federal Nationals leader Mark Vaile has failed to stem the decline of his party in yesterday's federal election. The Nationals could wind up with just 10 seats in the Parliament, the lowest number they have held. They still hold out hope of winning Flynn in central Queensland, even though Labor is leading.

But the junior Coalition partners have lost Page in New South Wales and in a big shock, the Queensland seat of Dawson has also fallen to Labor for the first time in more than three decades.

Mr Vaile says it is disappointing."


Given the poor leadership shown by the Nationals to the plight of many gripped by the years of drought in Qld & NSW, I wonder if that was a factor in their being reduced to minor party status..?


AJ
 

If the nationals were an independent party I would stll have voted for them. It was Howard, Costello and Abott that I voted against. The nationals were "collateral" damage.
 
Having listened to the likes of Bob Katter speak... The Nationals Party are a joke and beholden to a few select interests...

thats the reason they still supported AWB and the single desk and refused to let it go, even tho its in the interest of rural Australia...

The fact is, under the national/liberal rule for the last 10 years, country australia has gone backward, and more and more land and water rights are being bought up by corporate australia.

I didn't hear the national party standing up and fighting against this. The same goes for the sale of Telstra...

see this article from the Australian last week...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22786823-5014253,00.html
 
Another interesting read, Rafa.

Interestingly, not many here or in the media seem to be even considering the existence of the "National Party" in the post-election washup, or even whether any of it's elected members have any role to play in the new opposition. It's all about the Liberal Party. Makes you wonder how relevant the Nats will be after 3(4) or 6(8) years of opposition doesn't it?

I wonder whether their "Coalition" has become like a bad "arranged marriage" - the arrangement is not looking good for either party in the longer term... so should the Nats cut and run? Would they have the guts to do that? Or are they a spent force, destined some time in the future for the same scrapheap the Democrats (who? I hear you say...) found themselves discarded to on Election eve. Would the Libs themselves cut them free or should they try to save them from political oblivion?


AJ
 
A serious question. Have the Nationals actually achieved anything significant over the past 20 years?

Labor when in government had policies and implemented them.

Liberal when in government had policies and implemented them.

Greens have managed to get quite a few things implemented without actually being in government, making them arguably the most effective politicians in Australia (though not overly democratic in their approach).

Democrats got some of their ideas at least partially implemented when holding the balance of power in the senate.

Even independents have managed a few wins.

But the Nationals? I seiously don't recall them having a single major policy implemented in recent times, unless of course the Liberals also had the same policy. They seem pretty much irrelevant to me other than as a means of making up the numbers for the Liberals.
 
The bush, esp in Queesland, has swayed between Labor and the Nationals...

The marriage between the Nationals and Liberals to me never made sense... I am not sure what the main principles of the National party were, but certainly in the coalition govt besides the Regional Partnership Program, which pretty much gave the National Party a sum of money to spend (and subsequently proven to be nothing more that a slush fund to get the party re-elected), i couldn't see much other benifits...

Sold Telstra, increased the divide between the rural and and urban community due to complete run down of rural infrastructure, esp in the communications area...

And then we had Mark Vaile bringing out a policy to give grants for country students to go to the city universites to study when 21st communication technology could have delivered the city to the country!!!!

I got the impression that the the way Coalition policies were geared, was to simply drive all the country folk away from the land! They even started giving grants to get them to leave the land

The coalition have also done nothing on climate change, waters, services, etc besides empty rhethoric... These issues directly effect rural folk...

Yet, they all voted Nationals!!! very confusing... And the Nationals simply do what the liberals tell them too... One would have to ask what benifit there is at all for the coalition between the two parties to continue



I remeber seeing this on ABC Insiders around September... Interview with Bob Katter and Tony Windsor. Not knowing much about rural Australia, besides knowing they are the 'true' Australians, who live and breathe Egalitarianism. They are the people who work hard, to deliver our food, and have been ripped off by the supermarket chains.... They, compared to most others, deserve a fair go. This interview was a real eye opener.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2007/09/30/2047159.htm
(link to full transcript also on the website)

Some excerpts


.
.
.




 
as posted by Aussie2Aussie


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...45-601,00.html
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...