Centre right voters have three realistic options this year.

• The National Party, which is currently at something of a low ebb but which remains the primary vehicle for conservative and moderate liberal voters; or

• The libertarian ACT Party, which is undergoing a temporary boom as National struggles; or

• The centre-left Labour Party might be prudent if it keeps the anti-capitalist Greens out of office.

After a lot of thinking, including about the third option, I have decided thats I will vote for National. And if you’re generally of a centre-right persuasion, I think you should too. Allow me to lay out my case,

Collins would be a capable prime minister

A condition of voting for one of the large parties is the question of whether its leader would be a sound prime minister. Judith Collins easily clears that hurdle.

It is no secret that Collins was not my first choice to lead the National Party. I have not - and continue to not - agree with everything she does or the policy positions she takes. That is true of any leader.

There can be no doubt that she has what it takes to do the job, however.

Collins has a great reputation among her current and former staff and the public servants worked for her in the past. As a minister, she ran a tight ship and could be relied upon to get a firm grip on her portfolio. Whether you agree with her or not, she is an experienced and capable leader.

There are also times when Judith Collins has risen to the occasion in a way that many politicians would not.

When John Key was caught out with the ponytail fiasco, she was the only National MP who, so far as I can recall, gave him both barrels in public for it. That is no small thing in the days of tight party discipline. Has any other MP who has publicly rebuked their own leader like that in recent years?

National has the best plan for the economy

Has National laid out a fool-proof master-plan to rebuild the economy once covid finishes its demolition job? No. But no political party can do that.

Contrary to what the libertarians say, the government does have a role to play in creating the conditions for general prosperity. For the most part, however, this involves the boring work of maintaining the rule of law, ensuring regulations are effective but not overbearing and realising that the engine of growth remains the thousands of small and large firms throughout the country.

National is not perfect on that score. Not by a long chalk. It has a more intuitive understanding of the possibilities and limitations of what can be achieved by Wellington-based bureaucracies, however.

Labour supporters would prefer we all forgot about Kiwibuild but it is such a perfect illustration of the fool’s gold that is so often the product of “hands-on” government management the economy. Here we had an entity backed by the implicit guarantee of the Crown and the resources of the state charged with building and selling houses in a market crying out for them - and it somehow ended up failing to provide anything like the number of houses promised in areas where its target consumers were able to live.

The differences between National and Labour are often exaggerated, but you will get fewer mistakes of that particular nature with National.

Who can we trust on immigration?

This is one that matters to me. Your mileage may vary, particularly in an environment where there is no immigration to be had for the time being. Hear me out.

It is the right of New Zealanders to insist that immigration policy be set with the serving New Zealand’s interests first and foremost. However, it is presently in our interests to be recognise the benefits that new New Zealander have to offer us.

One reason is that longer lifespans coupled with our own poor fertility threatens the sustainability of the welfare state. Continuing to attract people who want to become New Zealanders, therefore, is the most immediate way to stave off demographic collapse that endangers our way of life. The times call for a sensible and relatively open immigration policy as soon as the threat of the virus has abated.

Of the parties likely to be returned to Parliament, only National has not indulged in scapegoating and denigrating immigrants in recent years. That’s not because people in that party are more morally virtuous, of course. It may simply come down to the fact that National’s closeness to the business community gives it a good insight into just how valuable migrants are.

Whatever, the fact remains that National is the only party currently in Parliament not to have engaged in blaming or otherising migrants for the offence of wanting to make a life here. For me, that counts. It factors into my vote.

ACT are of limited value

For moderate conservatives, the ACT Party will often prove to be useful co-belligerents. As with all small parties, though, they lean heavily on ideology as a point of difference. That is not something that is generally conducive to stable, harmonious government.

For those primarily interested in the long-term wellbeing of the country, it is better to support political parties that have an incentive to appeal to the widest number of voters. The more equal in strength Labour and National are, the more tempered our politics will tend to be. Stability is a crucial ingredient of prosperity.

Temporarily boosting ACT is contrary to the interests of the centre-right if this comes at the expense of National. It means the exchange of promising MPs in a party that will one day govern again (and therefore be in need of experienced politician) for the more random assortment of people who tend to populate the tail end of minor party lists. That is not an outcome that strengthens the cause of sound conservative government.

tactical voting Labour doesn’t add up this year

One hope of many wavering National voters is that if Labour achieves more than half the vote it will tell the Greens to take a hike. The chatter I have heard, however, is that Labour would make space for the Greens even if they were not needed. There is precedent for this, since John Key kept the Maori Party in the fold after 2014 even though he didn't need to in order to retain power.

If New Zealand Frst were a viable going concern then voting for that way might make some sense on strategic grounds. Winston Peters has been instrumental in moderating Labour and keeping the Greens down this term. He could be relied upon to do the same after this year’s election if only it was realistic to expect him to be there at the business end of things.

On current polling, however, that’s just not going to happen.

So for voters opposed to the Greens gaining more sway over things - and I am one of them - the best hope is for the party to drop out of Parliament too. Opinion surveys do not tell us to expect this. Given the historic weakness of Green get-out-the-vote operations, however, it is entirely possible.

The only thing that centre-right voters can do to increase that possibility is to vote for any of the other parties that will make it into Parliament. In that regard, a vote for National is as good as a vote for Labour and there is probably little to be gained by any kind of strategic defection.

For centre-right voters, National remains the logical home

Needless to say, this is all based on my own preferences and alignments. Natural centre-leftists are hardly going to find it persuasive. For those of a like sensibility, however, I do think it all adds up. Vote for National.