The Coalition’s Collapse: Can the Nationals Break Free from Globalism, or is it All Political Theatre? By Paul Walker and Tom North

The Australian political landscape just got rocked. After 80 years, the Nationals have ditched the Liberals, splitting the Coalition that once defined conservative politics Down Under. Headlines scream of historic upheaval, but let's cut through the BS: this is a moment of truth. The Nationals, under David Littleproud, could seize this chance to reclaim their conservative soul, stand up for regional Australia, and fight the globalist tide swallowing our sovereignty. Or they could squander it, staging a hollow performance to appease their base while clinging to the same elitist policies, like net zero, that chain us to globalist agendas. The Liberals, now led by the faltering Susan Ley, are a sinking ship, too weak to lead. But are the Nationals any better? Or do we need a new force, a One Nation alliance or a UK Reform-style uprising, to crush the globalists and Leftists once and for all?

The Nationals' break from the Liberals, announced in May 2025, is no small deal. For decades, the Coalition was the bulwark of Australian conservatism, but it's been rotting from within. The Liberals, under Ley, have drifted Left, pandering to urban elites and globalist dogmas like climate hysteria and open borders. Their weakness was exposed in the federal election disaster, leaving them a shadow of their former selves. The Nationals, led by Littleproud, finally had enough, or so it seems. As George Christensen's Nation First Substack lays bare, this split was born of necessity, driven by internal unrest and a near-upset in leadership.

But don't pop the champagne yet. Littleproud's leadership is shaky, built on inertia rather than conviction. Senator Matt Canavan's bold challenge for the Nationals' top job, though defeated, exposed a party fracturing under the weight of its compromises. Canavan's battle cry, rejecting net zero, fighting for farmers, miners, and small-town families, lit a fire under the base. Yet Littleproud, despite walking away from the Liberals, still clings to net zero, a policy that strangles regional Australia with renewable energy nonsense and globalist red tape. Christensen nails it: this is like a lifeguard refusing to swim because the water's too cold. Either you fight the climate cult, or you're complicit in its takeover.

This isn't just about party politics, it's about sovereignty. The Nationals' flirtation with net zero mirrors the globalist control we've raged against, like the WHO's Pandemic Agreement that pressures nations into digital IDs and vaccine compliance. Littleproud's refusal to ditch this policy, even after splitting from the Liberals, reeks of the same cowardice that lets Australia bow to global elites. The WHO, UN, and Davos crowd thrive on crises, climate, health, or otherwise, to erode national autonomy. Australia is a compliant pawn, its government too spineless to resist. The Nationals could've been the antidote, but their silence on bold moves, like challenging Liberal seats or partnering with Pauline Hanson's One Nation, suggests they're still playing the globalist game.

Canavan's defeat, though close, shows there's fight left in the Nationals. He gets it: net zero isn't just bad policy; it's a globalist shackle, tying Australia's energy wealth to the whims of unelected bureaucrats. His call to "fight like hell" for cheaper energy and regional prosperity is what the base craves. But without a leader like him at the helm, the Nationals risk becoming a sideshow, splitting for optics while failing to challenge the real enemy: the globalist-Leftist machine that's gutting Australia's freedom.

The Liberals, under Susan Ley, are a lost cause. Post-election, they're weaker than ever, bleeding votes to minor parties and independents. Ley's leadership, tied to urban centrism and climate appeasement, can't rally the conservative heartland. The Coalition's collapse proves it: the Liberals are no longer a viable partner for anyone serious about fighting globalism. Their failure to back Canavan's vision, energy independence, pro-farmer policies, shows they're more comfortable cozying up to BlackRock and Vanguard, the same corporate giants pulling strings in media, pharma, and defence. These are the puppet masters behind the WHO's tyranny, and the Liberals are their willing pawns.

The Nationals' split is better than nothing, but it's not enough. Littleproud's half-measures, ditching the Liberals but not the climate agenda won't cut it. The party faces a choice: become a true conservative nationalist force, rejecting globalist policies like net zero, or fade into irrelevance as a watered-down version of the Liberals. Christensen's Substack warns of this, noting the absence of bold steps like targeting Liberal seats or partnering with One Nation. Pauline Hanson's outstretched hand is a lifeline, but the Nationals' silence speaks volumes. They're not ready to go all-in.

So where's the hope? It lies in the minor parties and a potential new movement. One Nation, with its unapologetic stance on sovereignty and anti-globalism, could be a natural ally. Their track record, calling out vaccine mandates and corporate overreach, aligns with the rebellion in RFK Jr.'s WHO withdrawal. But even One Nation might not be enough. Australia needs a UK Reform-style party: a populist, nationalist uprising that channels Nigel Farage's defiance, uniting farmers, workers, and freedom lovers against the globalist-Leftist elite. Such a party could rally the disaffected, from regional Nats voters to urban conservatives fed up with Ley's Liberals.

This split is a wake-up call, but the Nationals aren't the answer, not yet. They've cracked the door open, but without ditching net zero and embracing a Canavan-style fight, they're just performing for the cameras. The real battle is against the globalist machine, BlackRock, the WHO, the UN, that's strangling Australia's soul. Like RFK Jr. staring down the WHO, we need leaders who'll spit in the face of centralised control, not compromise with it. The Liberals are dead weight. The Nationals could rise, but only if they choose courage over comfort. Until then, it's up to the minor parties or a new movement to carry the torch. Australia's sovereignty is on the line.

https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/will-the-nats-sell-out-again

"So, the erstwhile conservative Coalition of the Liberal and National parties in Australia has split. The headlines scream it. The press gallery swirls in speculation. Some call it historic. Some call it chaos.

But here's what I call it: a moment of truth. A fork in the road. And depending on what happens next, it will either be remembered as the day the Nationals found their spine, or the day they put on a show before crawling back into the same old bed with the same old Liberals.

The Nationals' split from the Coalition presents a pivotal moment: either reclaim conservative roots or stage political theatre.

David Littleproud's continued support for net zero despite leaving the Liberals reveals a lack of genuine direction.

Matt Canavan's strong leadership challenge exposed growing unrest within the Nationals and a weakening grip by Littleproud.

The absence of bold steps—like targeting Liberal-held seats or aligning with parties like One Nation—suggests the split may lack conviction.

The Nationals' future hinges on choosing between climate policy compromise and a full-throated defence of regional Australia.

Let's be clear. There are two futures on the table.

In one of those two futures, the Nationals finally step out of the shadow of the Liberal Party, tear up their allegiance to the climate cult, and become a real conservative force again—standing proudly for the people who put them there: farmers, miners, small-town families, and regional workers.

But in the other? This split becomes pantomime. A desperate delay tactic. A way to distract the base while holding onto the same disastrous policies—like net zero—that are tearing the guts out of regional Australia.

Right now, David Littleproud is steering dangerously close to that second path. He may have led the Nationals out of the Coalition, but let's not pretend it was done from a position of strength. The truth is, the move came on the back of deep unrest within the party room—and nowhere was that clearer than in the challenge mounted by Senator Matt Canavan.

That leadership tilt wasn't just symbolic. It was close. Very close. We will never know the numbers, but what was revealed by the challenge was that Littleproud's grip on the party is built more on inertia and loyalty than real confidence. Many of those who backed him did so not because they believed in the direction, but because there was no personal incentive, or no immediate personal gain, to switch. Had the winds shifted slightly, or positions been dangled in the air, Canavan may well have taken the reins.

And what was the fight really over? Net zero. That's the red line. That's the poison that's been slowly killing the Nationals' identity and strangling their support in the regions. The fact that Littleproud is still clinging to that policy—even after walking away from the Liberals—shows just how hollow the Coalition split risks becoming.

Nation First, by George Christensen is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

Worse still, Littleproud keeps saying it out loud. Over and over again, he has told the press that he's still committed to net zero—he just doesn't want a whole heap of renewables. Think about that. It's like calling yourself a lifeguard but refusing to get wet in case the water's too cold. Either you're in or you're out. Either you fight the climate agenda or you sign up to it. But Littleproud wants the applause from both sides without upsetting anyone.

Speaking about working for both sides, even the Liberals believed Littleproud was on their side during internal National Party discussions on the Coalition agreement. In fact, they were convinced he would keep the Coalition together. One senior Liberal, quoted in The Australian, said they expected Littleproud to "win the day" at the Nationals meeting last Friday, where the fate of the Coalition was being decided. But by the end, they realised it didn't matter what the Liberals wanted—Littleproud had been rolled on the decision to walk away. And that tells you everything: this isn't a man leading his party with conviction. This is a man being dragged by internal forces he can no longer control.

Meanwhile, others are trying to chart a real path forward. Canavan, even in defeat, made it clear where the battle lines are now drawn:

While it is disappointing that we in the Nationals have not reached agreement with the Liberals, we have to fight for what is right for Australia, not what is convenient for us politically.

And even more pointedly:

We in the Nationals will now fight like hell for you in the Parliament so that we can use our energy resources to bring down prices, protect small businesses and farmers and restore the development of our great nation.

That's the energy the base is demanding. That's the message that could turn this split into a moment of realignment—if it's acted on.

And yet, all signs point to a familiar ending. No talk of challenging Liberal-held regional seats. No movement toward bold rebranding. No serious conversation about forming alliances with real conservative forces like Pauline Hanson's One Nation, even after she extended the invitation. That silence speaks volumes. Because when the chips are down, the real test isn't about making a move. It's about following it through.

There are good people inside the Nationals—many principled, many fed up. I've sat with them. I've watched them grit their teeth and fight against the drift. The Canavan challenge may have come up short, but it showed how fragile Littleproud's leadership really is. How close the tide is to turning.

So is this split the beginning of a revival, or just a performance?