One characteristic that emerged during the election campaign, and which had a direct effect on the outcome, was the fact that while the Nationalist Party concentrated on achievements and put forward a long list of proposals for an even better future, the Malta Labour Party preferred to focus on all that was negative in the administration, without offering itself as a valid alternative.

It was a kind of positive campaigning against negative campaigning, and in the end the party which was more positive ended up winning the election. It did so with a small margin, but this was enough to give it the victory.

All throughout the fives weeks of meetings and conferences, the PN, through its leader Lawrence Gonzi, made it a point to speak about the success achieved by the country in the last four years, ever since it joined the European Union.

Dr Gonzi repeatedly spoke of the economic progress that was registered in spite of the difficult international situation with regard to the price of oil and cereals. The country had done so well that the government was able to present two tax-free budgets and, by giving people more money to spend, gave the economy the boost that it needed.

The PN’s proposal of further tax cuts that will further push the economy forward was an idea that was welcomed across the board – both by employers and employees who saw in it the chance of making more money.

More than this, the government had set its sights on what it called Vision 2015, a period of time in which it will work to make Malta a centre of excellence in six sectors – IT, industry, health, tourism, financial services and education, not to mention the attention it will be giving to Gozo.

The PN was also very clear as to how it will be spending the e855 million that Malta will be receiving in European Union funds until 2013, with nearly one third of the sum going towards the environment sector. Dr Gonzi strongly indicated that he will be concentrating on the environment by taking the Malta Environment and Planning Authority under his wing.

On the other hand, the MLP preferred negative campaigning, and this they did by trying to put the government – and individual ministers and MPs – in bad light. They picked on what they called scandal after scandal, used the word corruption a million times, and chose to sling mud at one and all in the hope that enough of it will stick.

Their campaign seemed to have been to try to win the election not because they were the better party, but because of the faults of the party in government. When they did come up with proposals, the MLP was quite confused as to how they will be implemented, and this did not convince the electorate that the MLP knew what it was doing.

The halving of the fuel surcharge, the proposal to abolish tax on overtime and the reception class were all ideas that the MLP could not quite explain well how it would carry them out. And the MLP continued to insist they would have been the right moves in spite of being told that these proposals would not work – they would negatively affect the economy and waste one year of children’s lives.

Unlike the PN, the MLP never said how it would use the funds from the EU. Talk of retouching the EU package brought memories of the MLP’s anti-EU stand in the years preceding the 2003 election, and this was not a plus for the party in opposition.

All in all, and although the difference between the two parties is minimal in terms of votes cast, the campaign showed that the PN is more forward-looking and positive. This is something the MLP must think about.