The worst thing that the Nats did was to change their name from the Country Party, because they thought it was going to get them city votes. Never happened, never will. Because they are so subservient to the Liberals, they have lost the confidence of the country voters. They should be independent of either Libs or Labor and sit on the cross benches. The free traders among the others would then have to take some notice of them. Unless farmers are given some massive support by whomsoever is in power, there will not be any left in another ten years to vote, one way or the other.

I agree with VK3AUU that it was a bad mistake to change the name of the Party. 'Country' Party was descriptive and self-explanatory. 'National' means nothing and everything.

Peter van Onselen nearly hit the nail on the head when he wrote: "The Nationals are, perhaps ironically given their name, not a national organisation." He was referring to the structure of the Party which is all over the shop.

Peter was closer to the mark when he said, "Philosophically the Nationals used to be the party of the agrarian socialist, a collection of farmers opposed to trade unions and progressive social views but also uncomfortable about the free trade agenda that harmed the competitiveness of Australia's agricultural industry when competing in the global market."

Yet even here he misses the central issue. It was not so much opposition to trade unions and progressive social views which characterised the old Country Party. It was plain self-interest: getting as much as you could for farmers and graziers from government.

But globalisation changed the name of the game and the Nationals were confused about what that response should be. The choice was never between "doing battle with the growing free trade tendencies of Liberals" or "trying to overcome the stranglehold the trade union movement has over the Labor Party".

It was about how to remain relevant to their power base by serving the interests of country people and that was primarily a matter of how to play the new economic game. They took their eye off the ball.

The nats are irrelevant as the landed gentry are now all corporate entities or city investors. People in the country areas are ordinary folk who have been forgotten by pollies on all counts, except for the greens.
Scary hey

The Nats as a party lost the plot when they stopped representing their heartland the farmers and chose political expediency . You turn your back on your supporters at your own peril . Many years ago I went to see our factory manager to see what direction our farming enterprise was headed after 30 minutes of positive spin which I didn't understand I simplified the question by asking if we would have more money or less . His answer was less and that other people didn't show their ignorance by asking . I lived through deregulation
knowing globalisation is flawed . The truth will go on for ever but
all that is built on sand will fall . Our future at the moment is in free fall because of all the leftwing claptrap put in place of truth. I read a small booklet on the droughtmaster and it was INTERIGITY INTERIGITY
as the future of the breed is in the hands of the breeders.
The future of the nats is in their own hands and they chose political expediency ahead of intregity and built on the sand.

Excuse my language, but as an old cockie going on 88, might say that wheat farmers are now regarded by both Labor and Liberal as just the proverbial at the bottom of the economic barrel.

Such was proven when Rudd put Burke, not much more than a boy in charge of an industry that was regarded as so important in the Depression Days when it took a Labor governmment to quarantee cockies at least the cost of production.

How shocked us old ccckies were when Burke gave priority in WA to Barry Court's crowd who like crows will never look after the whole grain industry properly, but fully in praise of the 1920's method when every single farmer had to act as his own competitor with cut-throat buyers like Bunge and Dreyfus.

Thus to get rid of the cut-throat competition the world has not only had grain growing subdidised in the the US, but in the whole of Europe including the UK.

Now with us heading again towards the end of the glory days of the Roaring Twenties, from which our over confident days since the 1980's have been patterned, something much safer than the Rudd-Burke agenda for our farming future must be given much thought.

It is so interesting that qualified historian oldies like myself are virtually forbidden to use the terms nowadays such as our shaky government policies being based on quarry economics and pitstock politics, as if our ag- industries can be pretty well forgotten.

Have Fun, BB, Buntine.

Its curious. I am from a farm but live from the mining industry. I support free trade, but the farm subsidies of the US and EU certainly make it hard for farmers to compete internationally and seeking political ways of protecting the livelihoods of country people is very appropriate.

But there is one reason the survival of the Nats does not interest me. In 1996 they betrayed the decent people of Australia who happen to enjoy shooting, for the approval of a lynch mob. They can FOAD for all I care.