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.