For someone to expect this country to place its trust in him, as a leader, and his party for the next five years, one needs vision. This vision needs to be realistic, down to earth, based on facts and not dreams. At the same time, it must be ready to address the future in a cautious but factual manner. To daydream may be a wonderful hobby and many are those who daydream their life away. Then they wake up one morning only to realise, in the latter part of their life, that they could have been more down to earth, more realistic and thus could have achieved much more.

Adverts keep on harping that the past is no guarantee for the future. But in actual fact, if one abides by a set of principles, which in turn become the basis of one’s ambitions, one realises that having a solid base paves the way for a better future.

This is the main difference between the two parties vying for the coveted premiership seat in Malta’s next general election. The two parties are well represented by their two leaders. They will each issue their party’s manifesto – hopefully both will be based on fact and not myth as has been the case with so many of the more recent Labour Party manifestoes. More than that, no one would want to back a party whose manifesto is one massive Pandora’s Box. The people wish to see the contents of the box beforehand and not merely see it from the outside.

Regrettably, this was the case prior to Labour’s last electoral victory in 1996. So much was promised that the waters had already started to dance to serenading music during election day. The electorate realised in the following months that the waltz had turned into a funeral march, with each budget looming nearer the doom ahead.

The Nationalist Party has stood by its guns and reached most of its projected goals. Since 1987 it has had realistic projects concerning a new modern telephone system, a new airport, a new road network, raising standards for the population through open market policies, better economic projects, a better life-long education policy, a better prepared workforce and an IT-knowledgeable population.

Add this to the fact that our finances are in order and under control and you basically have a formula for success that has to be well administered, developed and sustained. Do not forget our joining the EU and the fact that, at least up to 2013, Malta will be a net beneficiary of EU funds.

I believe that each party must have a fundamental political agenda made up of its inalienable and determined policies which, come what may, it will be ready to adhere to. These policies should not be changed or thrown to the wind as soon as the party realises that they have come second best. One may ask: “Is Labour now retreating from its formidable stand prior to the 2003 elections?” It is becoming pretty obvious that the various u-turns made by the Malta Labour Party in the last four years are clear proof that the Nationalist government has been right all the way: in its policy, the country’s administration and the projected results – which have been achieved.

Dr Alfred Sant is forever trying to wriggle from one uncomfortable position to another. His political life has been more than colourful and varied. His popularity percentages always lag behind those of Dr Lawrence Gonzi, even with those indicating the MLP as their preferred party. His answers to questions put to him by various journalists not only confuse but also see him giving a new twist to most of the stands he took so vigorously in earlier days.

The latest glaring examples are his replies to the media when visiting Actavis, formerly Pharmamed, for which he predicted doom and gloom when Malta joined the EU. He dared suggest that this company, which unashamedly states that its success story came about through the fact that Malta joined the EU, had based its policies on the advice which he had given them in 2003.

Dr Sant was against Malta joining the EU. We joined and our membership became a fact of life. Melancholically, he eventually made a u-turn and stated that now he was all for it. Every now and then he still turns up at some Labour Party Club with statements that put this issue very much in doubt. To date, the vibes being sent are confusing and if one listens to certain Labour supporters talking about the subject, a lot is left to be desired, as sentimentally they want out of the union and believe that Dr Sant could get them there if elected to government.

His predecessor, Labour Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, certainly agrees and wants to get us out. Through CNi, this very week, he was still ranting away and suggesting that if he had his way, Malta would withdraw from the union. He is questioning Malta’s application to join the eurozone on 1 January 2008, even though his successor Dr Sant has repeatedly confirmed that, notwithstanding his initial scepticism, he now believes in and agrees with this move.

And the music goes on; you think that people have finally seen the light and then a moment later, in the next few bars, they come up with a darker shade of black.

Hopefully, if Dr Sant is elected to head a Labour government, his Finance Minister will be better at numbers than Dr Sant was back in 2003. His assessment, made in the run-up to the referendum, of the financial benefit to Malta from the EU to the tune of Lm1.5 million was very far off the mark. We received e189 million from the 2004-2006 EU budget and are in line to get in excess of e850 million from the 2007-2013 EU budget. A far cry from Lm1.5 million indeed!

Perhaps, if elected, he will decide to retain the present financial policies that have met the Maastricht criteria and are now on the verge of being again proved to be efficient, once the EU decides that Malta is ready, financially and economically, to take up the euro.

But then u-turns remain the order of the day for Labour. The party was sceptical about SmartCity, to put it mildly. Here too, when it came to the crux of the matter, they came round to the government’s thinking and voted in favour. All the stalling during the discussion on the matter at the Public Accounts Committee stage, and during the earlier parliamentary sittings that discussed the resolution on the transfer of land for the project, turned out to be a smokescreen, for the bene-fit of their diehards maybe. A u-turn followed and they agreed. Hurray for that.

These examples, of which there are many more, confirm that the PN has a sustainable vision, while the other side seems to be intent on politics based on revision.

Tony Abela is parliamentary secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister