Shoring up the Christian vote

It seems likely National, in tandem with its own MP Alfred Ngaro, will do a deal before the next election to ensure the formation of a new Christian party.

It also seems likely that deal will involve some sort of "Epsom-style" allowance to ensure the votes cast for the new party will not be wasted.

Depending on who you talk to this is either sensible, or a cynical attempt to pervert democracy. The latter style of criticism, though, holds little water.

Labour, if it feels inclined to do so, could pull its candidate from Wellington Central, virtually guaranteeing the Green Party stays in Parliament.

It could do the same in Northland to give New Zealand First a real shot at gaining that electorate seat.

Conversely, if the Green Party hadn't stood a candidate in Auckland Central over the last few elections, it's almost certain Labour would have won that seat.

The rules are the rules. They have been decided on by experts, voted on by all of us, and in place for decades. There is no skullduggery here.

That's not to say what has been discussed over the last week is sound political manoeuvring, or is immune from critique.

A key aspect of the idea is that, if successful, it could make National's major coalition partner a very socially conservative, religious-grounded party.

If the National Party's leader was someone as socially liberal and openly unreligious as both John Key or Helen Clarke were, for example, that might not be a major issue for the wider electorate. They might trust such a leader to approach religiously-grounded social conservatism with caution.

But Simon Bridges is not Mr Key or Ms Clarke. He lacks the experience, the gravitas and, of course, the popularity.

Perhaps of even more concern, though; he has a background of strong pentecostal Christian beliefs. Most of the electorate do not share those beliefs.

That would unlikely be a problem if those beliefs didn't influence his politics to any great degree. But should his main coalition partner be a party based on those same beliefs, it may raise concern with the middle-ground voters National needs.

Those middle-ground voters are more likely to want National to pair with a new environmental party than a new religious one.

It is also uncertain how many voters who would normally stay left-of-centre would vote for a Christian party tied so explicitly to National. There is no point having a coalition partner if the share of the vote remains the same.

Mr Bridges initially made a lot of noise positioning himself as a new breed of National Party leader, one who is aware of environmental concerns and willing to act on that awareness. But lately there's been nary a peep from him or his party on how they intend to marry such rhetoric to action.

The "blue/green" idea seems to have almost vanished from the public narrative. Yet a Christian party, in an age where we are collectively moving beyond the strictures of scripture at a blistering pace, seems to have significant support from National.

All this comes at the same time self-proclaimed bishop Brian Tamaki is declaring his political aspirations. And there, perhaps, is the salient fact behind National's move to shore up the Christian vote.

Perhaps it is not so much a move to ensure a coalition partner, but instead a ploy to ensure the Christian voters tick the box of a party National feels it can trust and work with - one that won't spook the majority - rather than risk those votes falling into the lap of Mr Tamaki.

Perhaps, then, this is a "better the devil you know" move from the National Party, rather than an all-out attack on next year's election. Time will tell.