Interesting! According to the Herald Peter Dunne has gone into 'bed' with national (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10539486). This means a vote for UnitedFuture is a vote for the right. It is great that Dunne has clarified which direction he will go in. This makes UnitedFuture a viable option for those who are uncomfortable with Labour and with national but with right leaning preferences. On the other hand, it helps those who want to support the left and Labour to make sure that they don't vote for UnitedFuture. My suspicion is that a number of Christians will go this way, liking the morality of UnitedFuture. The only danger here is the question of whether UnitedFuture get the numbers or an electorate seat to get anyone in. If not, the vote is lost in the wilderness. However, the election is certainly becoming clearer in terms of what the implications of a vote are.
To add to my earlier blog:
A vote for UnitedFuture is a vote for National and vice versa (if they get in).
A vote for National is a vote for Act if they crack the 5%.
A vote for Labour is a vote for Greens (not just the other way around)
Someone read my earlier blog and thought it sounded right wing. Well, that is where the problem lies. In terms of the ethics if marriage and family, for me it is a no-brainer, the right is better. In terms of social concern, globalisation, ecology etc, it is equally a no-brainer, the left is better. Where economics is concerned I am not so sure. It could be we need wealth generation at the moment as we face the recession; if so, we need the right. However, it could be that we need a government that will distribute the wealth to the poor of whom there could be a number as we face this recession; if so, the left may be better. That was the point of the blog. It is a tough call; I am still thinking, thinking, thinking...