Senator Ron Boswell, has been around a long time, but his take on the way to win government is wholly wrong. Like Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop, Helen Coonan, Peter Costello, and the rest of the lawyers in the Coalition Team, Ron Boswell does not realize the damage done to Australian Society, in the last sixty years by lawyer dominated governments. He does not realize that Kevin Rudd won because he was able to persuade the sixty five percent of Australians who still call themselves Christian that he could be trusted, and the combination of that and the usual Labor vote, is and will remain unbeatable.

Boswell is a long term political operative. He did not become a Senator till 1983, so the blame for allowing the return of Star Chambers, manned by State Appointed Priests, sitting without juries cannot be sheeted home to him. The Liberals failed to fix the Federal Court of Australia or the High Court after Paul Keating made them illegal by the Trade Practices Act 1974 amendments in 1995. These “Courts” exclude ordinary electors from participation in the political process. ( s 45 Trade Practices Act 1974) If Ron Boswell understood that we must have “courts” with real people in them, before they are legal, his party might start to win back confidence. He might begin by accepting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a valid law. It enacted Christian principles as Statute Law.

The Australia Act 1986 is essentially Liberal Party legislation, that abolishes the rule of law. It is essentially anti Christian, and the gods it creates are the nine Parliaments. Not only our lawyers, but our pastoral leaders have been asleep at the wheel. Kevin Rudd knows that if he goes to Church, and continues to do so, the Labor Party will continue to enjoy the support of enough of the sixty five percent. It is a Christian system, and if Ron Boswell wants government back, he must learn how to please Christians. To learn how the Christian system works, he should learn the truth at: www.community-law.info

The Nats lost support because they are gutless, preferring short-term populist policies to remain in power to long-term statesmanship focussed on what is good for the country. To take an example, the Nats folded before Howard on the furphy of gun control and the buy-back, which have since been shown by authoritative reports by researchers from the universities of NSW and Melbourne to have been a complete waste on money.

Sources:
McPhedran, S., & Baker, J. (2008). The Impact of Australia’s 1996 Firearms Legislation: A Research Review with Emphasis on Data Selection, Methodological Issues, and Statistical Outcomes. Justice Policy Journal, 5(1).

ABC Illawarra Breakfast, 23/09/2008 06.51am
Interview with Wang-Sheng Lee, researcher, University of Melbourne, to talk about The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths report. Lee has found that the buy-back did not result in any change to gun deaths. Lee says that the research uses the number of firearm homicides from 1915-2004.[Research done by Dr Wang-Sheng Lee and Dr Sandy Suardi at the University of Melbourne, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research].

The Nats leader at the time already knew that the guns used at Port Arthur were banned (and there were laws against murder) and Australia already had a well-proved licencing system in place but he did not even discuss the matter and weakly acquiesced because (as he later said) John Howard had made up his mind in advance and did not listen to reason. This was reminiscent of so many other policies where gutless front benchers, including the Nats, squibbed.

I don't mind governments spending a billion dollars but like all taxpayers I'd like to see some concrete evidence of value for money, which is not evident in this case. A $billion wasted and counting....

There are many examples of where the Nats have rolled over to remain in power and this is just an example, rather than a talking point in itself, serving to prove that any political party which has no spine and is populist (like the Democrats) will in time bite the dust.

Peter the believer, Cornflower,
Calender check this is nearly 2009. Axe grinding is moot
If this is an example of grass root support reasoning of the CP oops NP then their demise is assured.
60% of Australian who are ALLEGEDLY Christian doesn’t equate to a Christian inspired government per se i.e. The FF a ‘Christian oriented party’ and has marginal support.
Tony Abbott‘s Christian stance was rebuffed by the public on RU486 issue. Howard a church goer was comprehensively rolled. One this is clear Christianity isn’t the prime motivator for Australians any more. The public want a steady as we go PM not an ideologue (religious or otherwise) reformer.

The Democrats politically shot themselves in the collective testes/ovaries (they aimed higher than their feet). Internal division is political suicide and they forgot why the public put them there “to keep the bastards honest” (Llib/Nat and Labor). That role has now fallen to the ‘Greens’. I fear they too misunderstand their voter intended role.

Pro gun parties have died due to lack of support.

Mr Boswell.
The CP needed to do more to make itself relevant than a just a name change. The NP has been losing support for decades it’s all but extinct in SA, NT and now Qld once its jewel in the crown. It is nonsense to assume that the NP can go on indefinitely without its own effective local banner carriers. With rare exceptions (Barnaby Joyce) the NP has little recognition outside the ‘bush’. As for its policies….well.

With the increasing urbanization of Australia it isn’t surprising that a rural focused party is shrinking in support in favour of the urban centrist Libs/Labor. The NP is clearly seen as a single interest party. The perks of coalition have robbed the NP is reason to exist except as a spear carrier of the Libs. I see both amalgamation and/or a split as inevitable.

The voters are merely doing what all good conservatives do. Ignoring an irrelevant noisy minority.

Examinator: "Calender check this is nearly 2009. Axe grinding is moot'

This is what you put forward as argument? Unlike you most people consider a candidate's and a party's record and are less impressed by the latest fifteen second grab of rhetoric. It is a fact that the Nats follow the lead of the Liberals into populist policies and there is not a statesman among them. They are reactive, not proactive.

The Democrats - over what was there internal division? Wouldn't have been attempted brinkmanship over populist policies by any chance? That and so many 'names' espousing narrow interests. The late founder of the Democrats, Don Chipp would certainly have disagreed with your impression that the Democrats kept to his promise of 'keeping the bastards honest' or that they aimed higher than their (clay) feet (remember the GST?).

As for your belief that the Greens will keep anyone honest, that really is funny. Have you ever watched the Greens in action against anyone who disagrees with them? Of course the Greens are populist too and that is seen from the recent ACT election where the Greens promised anything that could score them a vote - while not giving any practical alternatives or implementations of course.

What comprehensive policies do the Greens actually have? It is one thing to snipe away but delivering on policy is a vastly different thing. The Greens are a grab-bag of loose cannons from the left and any efforts at policy implementation would quickly demonstrate that fact.

Yours (country versus city) is a simplistic assessment of where support for the Nats can come from. They could still be a force in Australian politics but it will take true statesmanlike leadership and a view of a desirable future for Australia to do it. At present too many Nats are making it up as they go in the scrabble to keep a footing in their own electorate. Pity they don't stop talking long enough to listen.

My oh my, what a lively discussion we are having. How many of my fellow forum contributors, are aware of Newton’s Law: Nature abhors a vacuum. When the Democrats were the only ones to propose the abolition of Prayers in the Parliament of the Commonwealth they sealed their fate. They hold not one seat since. The Greens are heading the same way. A Federal Court of Australia Judge who mocked Almighty God died unexpectedly. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is a Christian Document, and S 116 was supposed to keep Australia as a Christian Nation.

The Liberals describe themselves as the Broad Church of the Liberal Party, ( Manly Daily Newspaper 2004) and the Labor , Nationals, and Communist Parties, all aspire to be a Church, and govern by Divine Right. The Chinese accorded their Emperor a Mandate from Heaven, until Mao became Emperor, as Leader of the Communist Party Church in that country. Mugabe, that Roman Catholic Disgrace from Zimbabwe, holds power because he heads a defacto Church.

For 60 years, starting with Sir Robert Menzies, the Priests of the Law, Solicitors and Barristers, have been promoting the Religion that Law is a continuation of God by other means. The Jewish leader who repudiated that fallacy, and was crucified for His trouble, gave us the mechanics to keep the faith, but the Law is God sect, has set aside his teachings, and substituted the “Doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy”, in its stead. Pierre Schlag, a very thoughtful Professor of Law at Colorado University, wrote an essay or two, on this subject. You can find him here: http://stripe.colorado.edu/~schlag/publications.html

By Mentioning the Queen or Her Majesty forty times in the Constitution and Almighty God once, the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) is incorporated into the Australian Constitution. All Parliamentarians swear allegiance to the Queen, but many members of Parliament don’t understand their role. They owe allegiance like the Queen does to Almighty God. Her Statutory Obligations are set out here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=159

There are many good Christians on both sides of politics. Its time they stood for what they believe in

Cornflower,
I think you missed my point. Your original post was about guns to me that is an axe grinding.
The Democrats was a case of too many egos in the one bucket and personal power perceptions.

Kernot wanted to be a player in Government. From her defection to the Labor party the writing was on the wall. The internal fighting was palpable the quick procession of leaders Stott-Despoja (excuse the spelling), then the Meg Lees who was not happy with the ‘keeping honest’ role wanted bigger things hence her support for the GST…but she lacked the ability/ personality. Then came Bartlett with his pariah public behaviour and he lacked the charisma of the ladies. The party was widely seen as divided, directionless (like I said division in politics is death).

I said that the public wants a ‘3rd’ party holding balance in the senate it curbs the excesses of absolute power. Look at what Howard did when for the first time in 30 years he upset the perceived benefits of being an Ausie worker. He’s gone and the Greens are now the major balance party. I said that their elevation was in the mind of the public. The green believe they are on the ascendency to power in their own right. They too will fade it isn’t what the public want. I did NOT say they were a good choice for that purpose.

The NP has been demonstatebly on the decline for years see their decreasing representation.

It isn’t simply City v Country as you put it is the urbanization of the country town are now adopting urban mentalities and wishes the rural sector is decreasing in votes. Mining, meat processing etc bring union mentality workforces. Many semi urban seats held by NP are going to independents Liberals and even Labor.

All these point are verifiable.

Odd that Ron stands up for a party that he no longer belongs to. He is a member of the merged LNP which is a consitutional division of the Federal Liberal Party and only affiliated with the Nats. Indeed, he had a choice to be a Nat or an LNPer and voted to be part of the merge. Relevance deficit perhaps?

LNP - the expression that dare not speak its name amongst the Nats?

examinator,

Axe grinding?! You may not think that the demonstrated record of a party is of any consequence but many voters do. As I said, but your anti-gun bias may not have permitted you to see, it was one example of many where the Nats rolled over despite their knowledge at the time that taxpayers' money was going to be wasted on a political stunt. Some political stunt - a billion dollars worth that could have been used for hospitals!

You are wrong to think it is old history, the scant resources of police weapons branches and local police stations in all States are still being wasted on the white elephant gun registries. Canada has proved along with other countries that such systems waste resources and do not detect criminals who (surprise, surprise) do not apply for gun licences or register their guns.

In the large inner-city zone of which my suburb is part, the police have only one patrol car and no back-up from dusk to dawn. The patrol is one trained officer and a rookie. They can ill-afford to waste resources continually monitoring and paying impromptu visits to the house of responsible, law-abiding sixty year old from the local clay pigeon club.

The populist gun laws introduced a bureaucratic mish-mash of redundant regulations and thirty (30) new taxes for lawful gun owners. The criminals won because the cops and the weapons branch were shunted off to look over the shoulders of licenced gun owners.

So just to repeat the obvious, believe the rhetoric at election time if that is your way, but the rest of us will look to the demonstrated record of politicians and parties, especially where they pursue populist policies in response to the brainless sensationalism of the daily tabloids and current affairs shows.

Of course the Nats have a role in both city and country if they can be statesmanlike - think long term, be frank and fearless. Take the Independent Bob Katter for example, he has the courage to stand up his convictions without any sneaky spin or bulldust.

The way for the nationals to maintain and/or increase their vote is to represent their constituents. It's not rocket science. In WA they have gained hundreds of millions of dollars for rural and bush areas by playing off the two major parties...and good on them for doing that.

Barnaby Joyce has the unenviable task of doing this on a national stage. It's a hard ask, but he and his colleagues need to stand up for their electorate and fight for what they need, irrespective of the party that will provide it. To blindly follow the Liberals, as Abbott would like , will not deliver any long-term gains, but to support good policies for the bush from any party, will keep the Nationals relevant and ensure their lengevity as a party.

It's not about religion...it's about representation.

Phil, you miss the point. Barnaby is no longer in the National Party. He is in the LNP and was a staunch advocate for the LNP. He advocates and does merge but talks separatism.

Gobsmacked,

Barnaby Joyce may well be in the LNP in Queensland, but he represents the National Party in the Senate as the LNP only exists in Queensland. This puts him in a position of championing the Nationals, not the Liberals when in parliament.

He has a better track record than many for standing up for his constituents, and I hope he continues to do this. The only reason they LNP occurred in Queensland (in my opinion) was the result of the liberals losing relevance in the urban areas. The nationals still had a strong constituency in the rural and country areas.

Curious view Phil, Barnaby is in the LNP everywhere because he only belongs to one party. He doesn't avoid that when he flies overthe border. He might sit and vote with the Nats but he can no longer be a Queensland National anymore than the CLP's Nigel Scullion is. You really need to read the LNP Constitution. They have a choice of party rooms but can't escape the basic fact that they belong to the Liberal Party now. The LNP is a Division of the Federal Liberal Party.

I am curous about your view about how strong the constituency is for the Nats in the regions. Must be seeing different results to me. The LNP formed because neither party was doing well at State level. I don't go for the 'we were less bad than you' argument. Neither state party had a flattering record and both former partes had much to be ashamed of.

Since Barnaby and Ron are Queensland Senators and the Queensland Nats no longer exist, just who are they representing now? The NSW Nats (who survive in the Senate courtesy of a joint ticket), the Vic Nats (Do they have any Senators since McGauran jumped ship?), the SA Nats (none federally, but one state Nat sits with Labor), the CLP who sit with both parties federally. Currently Scullion sits with the Nats in the Senate but when there was a lower house rep (Tollner) he sat with the Libs. There are no WA federal Nats, there are no Tassy Nats, there are no Queensland Federal Nats (like the CLP they sit in the party room but now belong to a differet party).

The long term prognosis is absolutely clear and its about time that people start listening to luminaries like Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair, John Anderson - whose National credentials are beyond challenge - that merging is the best way and that means working within a team.

I enjoy a good debate :) Wishing you and yours and all the posters at The National Forum a very Merry Christmas and here's hoping for a better New Year.

I am writing as a former member of the former QLD Nationals where I say that the decline of this vote is wholly of their own making. Every indepth polling they did came back with people saying that the Nationals deserted them in favour of getting in with the Liberals no matter who devastating it has been for the bush.

The Nationals/Country Party leader who actually stood up and did the right thing was Joh. Unlike today where this mob does not care for anybody outside the big cities it once represented. This is why the voters have turned their votes away, gradually keeping themselves represented only be strong Independent candidates.

Those such as Boswell are people who are way past their usefulness and the fact that Boswell was not turfed out from his position when they had the chance, shows that the members are also still spineless twits.