The Nationals dilemma

Yesterday, the Nationals announced that they would not be renewing the coalition with the Liberal Party following the 2025 federal election. This is unlikely to be a permanent break, but rather the parties taking some time apart to re-assess their positions after a devastating election defeat.

The nature of these political parties is quite peculiar. Sometimes, the Coalition can best be analysed as a single entity – in contrast to Labor, who run in every seat across the country, no Coalition party runs everywhere. In other ways, they are two parties. That is more relevant to how they operate in Parliament (which, with no immediate federal election, is the most relevant to the current moment). And in other ways the Coalition consists of four parties, with singular parties existing in Queensland and the Northern Territory, with their members sitting with one of the two parties in Canberra. I analysed this peculiarity in detail in 2022.

As the parties now re-assess their position following the recent election, this peculiar relationship seems relevant, because both parties find themselves out of government, and quite a long way out of government. But only one of the two parties bears almost all of the burden of getting back into government.

Sometimes you will see people try to analyse the relative performance of the Liberal and National parties by looking at how well their “vote held up”, or how many seats each party has won.

But the problem with this sort of comparative analysis is that the parties rarely if ever contest seats against each other. Putting aside the Nationals parties in South Australia and Western Australia, which were effectively not a part of the Coalition, the parties only ran against each other in the seat of Bendigo.

The Nationals performed impressively in Bendigo, but that’s just one seat. Everywhere else on the east coast, voters just had one of the two parties to choose from. Indeed in Queensland, they appeared on the ballot as a single party, even though now those successful LNP candidates now have parted ways as either Liberals or Nationals.

While the Coalition as a whole has a vote that goes up or down in electoral competition with other political forces (be they Labor, the Greens, teals, One Nation or anyone else), and gains or loses seats, the relative strength of these two parties is entirely down to the shape of their coalition agreement, which in almost all cases biases the status quo: Liberal seats stay Liberal, and Nationals seats stay National.

The only exceptions are the rare cases where an open seat is challenged by the other party, which has seen seats like Farrer and Nicholls change hands. A defection in the NSW state seat of Port Macquarie also saw that seat move from Nationals to Liberal. The seat was then vacated earlier this year, leading to a fierce by-election contest won by the Liberal.

It seems to be even more difficult for a Queensland seat to move between the two parties after the Liberal National Party merger of 2008. Ian Macfarlane was a Liberal MP representing the seat of Groom, which mostly covers the city of Toowoomba in Queensland. In 2015, he was dropped from the ministry following the election of Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal leader and subsequently prime minister. Later that year, he announced his intention to sit as a National from then on. He had support from local LNP members, but the LNP state executive blocked the move. He ended up retiring at the 2016 election, and Groom remains a Liberal seat.

So the electoral success of the two separate parties is entirely dependent on how they perform in contests against other opponents: Labor, the Greens and independents.

What is particularly peculiar about the most recent iteration of the Coalition is that the Nationals has become a party that exists almost entirely in safe seats.

There are 91 seats where the Coalition was the runner-up on the two-candidate-preferred vote (likely to drop to 90 when the count finishes in Blaxland). The Nationals only made the 2CP in four of those seats – Calare, Bendigo and Richmond, as well as the presumed-National in Lingiari (although Jacinta Price’s defection makes me question that classification). The Nationals were the primary Coalition party in Hunter, where they came third to One Nation, but every other non-classic seat won by a non-Coalition party was one where the Liberals ran.

The former-and-presumably-future Coalition needs to win 33 seats to win the next election. The 33 most marginal seats where the Liberals or Nationals came second in 2025 include just two seats primarily contested by the Nationals: Bendigo and Calare.

While the Nationals could theoretically contest more of these seats, they wouldn’t be a contender in many. Just ten of those seats lie outside of a metropolitan area. This is another reminder that the path for the Coalition to regain power comes from through the cities, a task the Nationals cannot help with.

So almost every seat contested by the Nationals is already held by the Nationals, even after the Coalition suffered such heavy losses in 2025. The Nationals also hold safer seats now: the average Liberal margin is 5.5%, and the average Nationals margin is 11.9%. Of the 18 Liberal or Nationals seats held on margins of 6% or less, just one (Cowper) is a Nationals seat.

As a consequence of the Liberal Party’s domination of marginal seats, the Nationals are now largely immune to electoral fortunes, good or bad. The Nationals now hold exactly the same number of House seats as they did at the peak of the Coalition in 2013. Over that same time, the Liberal Party has lost 47 seats. The Nationals made up 1/6 of their numbers in 2013, but now have over one third.

This wasn’t always the case. Back in 2007, the Labor government won a number of former Nationals seats including Page, Dawson, Capricornia and the newly-created notional Nationals seat of Flynn. They had also won Richmond off the Nationals in 2004. So The Coalition’s defeat in 2007 hit both the Liberals and Nationals about equally, as a proportion of their strength. And they largely recovered proportionally in 2010 and 2013. But since 2013, the strength of the Liberal Party in cities has collapsed while in regional areas Liberal and Nationals MPs have become relatively safer.

The Nationals also had lost a number of rural seats to independents in the 2007-2013 period, but seats like New England and Lyne are now safe Nationals seats while the independent challenge is strongest in the cities or in regional Liberal seats.

Does this reflect the Nationals just being better at their jobs? I think the evidence is weak. In states where both the Liberals and Nationals had seats where they were in the 2CP (NSW, VIC, QLD and NT), swings in rural classic seats were a bit bigger in the Liberal seats (2.8% to Labor) compared to Nationals seats (1.1% to Labor). The Nationals on paper actually had a swing towards them in provincial seats, but if you exclude their big swing in Bendigo the two parties had almost identical 2.1% swings against them everywhere else.

Such an analysis is basically impossible, because we are not comparing like with like. The Nationals just run in places where Labor is less of a presence.

Now we have the Liberal and National parties separating. For now the space where this coalition breakdown will play out is in the parliamentary arena. It will give them a chance to consider their policy direction, and how it might differ, and eventually how they can make those possibly different directions work together.

The Liberal Party’s path back to government is almost entirely urban. This will be challenging enough with a party room consisting of very few urban MPs, but made even harder with the addition of the Nationals.

The Nationals are in a funny position now. They are in one sense now even more influential in terms of setting the direction of the parties of the once-and-future coalition, particularly considering the numbers of rural Liberals and the divided state of that party room. But that is unlikely to put them on track to returning to government. The Nationals’ influence over a government is entirely dependent on the Liberals finding more seats in the cities.

For now, the coalition’s breakdown is going to play out in the parliament. If it can’t be resolved before the next election, we may see the parties contest more seats against each other. That would also be fascinating, but it may not go the way the Nationals hope. There are numerous seats on the north coast of New South Wales which remain legacy Nationals seats, but now contain large populations of retirees from the capital cities who may be used to voting Liberal. The Liberal Party has already broken through in the state seat of Port Macquarie, and there have been Liberal breakthroughs on local councils in Tweed and Mid-Coast.

I saw a comment earlier today that said the Nationals would be well served by having a relationship with the Liberals more like the relationship the Greens have with Labor. They may not really enjoy such a relationship: it would give the Nationals a lot more freedom to express disagreement, but the electoral system does not do well for smaller parties. The Nationals have been able to keep these seats to themselves. I don’t think the Liberals would sweep them away if there was open competition, but I think it would be tougher on the smaller party. I also don’t see how such a relationship is possible as long as the parties are merged in Queensland, their strongest state.

My assumption at the moment is the parties will find a way to patch up their differences before 2028, but perhaps with such a large gap between their current position and a return to government, the parties may decide to take their chances on a more open electoral contest next time around.

Liked it? Take a second to support the Tally Room on Patreon!