Talk:United Future New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Where votes moved

"Outdoor Recreation still providing about 1% of the vote" - How can we possibly be sure of this? For all we know, a whole lot of it may have gone to say, National (considering National's weakness in 2002). Also the "votes lost by Labour and the Greens", it may be true, but I'd consider National to also likely have bled votes to United Future (United Future being ideologically closer to National and National generally bleeding votes everywhere). -Nichlemn 02:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. It should probably go. And "The leader, Peter Dunne, showed signs of frustration after the results, being labelled as Mr Grumpy rather than the old term of Mr Commonsense" needs a reference. --Midnighttonight 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also question the page's NPOV when it states that United Future New Zealand is not a conservative Christian political party. That is not the case, as many of its erstwhile first caucus in the 47th Parliament had some degree of involvement in fundamentalist Christian organisations, and often promoted their position in New Zealand fundamentalist media ie New Zealand's national fundamentalist newspaper, Challenge Weekly. [1]. In New Zealand, it is widely acknowledged that United Future's formation was somewhat of a Faustian bargain- United got Future New Zealand's infrastructure, while Future New Zealand got hold of an electorate seat. [User: Calibanu] 17:13, 23 March 2006.

[edit] United Party

Shouldn't this page also have information on the United Party which existed before United Future? In many ways it was the same party, and if there is a page on it, it's not linked to here. --Helenalex 09:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

United New Zealand is linked to in the second paragraph of this article. Is that what you meant? If you really did mean the United Party, see United Party (New Zealand), but it was not in any way the same party.-gadfium 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: read article properly. I still think it's kind of weird to deal with United NZ and United Future on seperate pages, as they are basically the same party. United has absorbed many different parties but doesn't have a seperate page for each incarnation. It has also radically changed its composition before - at the 1999 election it was Peter Dunne plus a whole lot of ethnic minority reps. I propose merging United New Zealand into this page, with 'United New Zealand' redirected here. The other option would be to reduce the United New Zealand article to a stub, rather like Future New Zealand (Dunne), and transfer most of its text to this page. --Helenalex 21:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be possibly more valid to argue that the Future New Zealand party should be merged in here, since the policies of the current party (according to the article) are more a continuation of that party's policies. Until they merged, United New Zealand and Future New Zealand were distinct parties, and United Future now has elements of both, so I favour the existing structure of articles.-gadfium 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your superior knowledge of minor party policy. Perhaps the best option is some kind of infobox showing th evolution of the party/parties, with links to the relevant pages. --Helenalex 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)