Being the Leader of the Opposition is the most thankless task in politics. All that the Opposition Leader has is a voice. He has no capacity to act. The Leader of the Opposition has to strike a balance between whingeing complaint and constructive suggestion. Responsibility without power is never easy

But even having entered all those caveats about the difficulties faced by any Leader of the Opposition under our system of confrontational parliamentary democracy, Dr Joseph Muscat needs to do more if he is to persuade those in politics – the floating voters – who will decide the next general election in 18 months’ time.

The divorce referendum was not really a test. The Nationalist Party made a dreadful error of political judgement in taking its unbending stance, and party loyalists deserted it in their droves. Neither is it sensible to rely entirely on voter dissatisfaction with a party which has been in power for nigh on 25 years and has in the course of this Parliament committed several tactical errors. The handling of the ministerial pay increases, the cack-handed way in which the new water and electricity rates were introduced and their continuing impact, and the botched public transport reforms are but three examples, for which electors may make the government pay.

But even allowing for these setbacks – and notwithstanding the government’s acute embarrassment in the brouhaha over the vote of confidence in Austin Gatt – a Leader of the Opposition has to do far more than simply count on the electors’ narrow vision, and admittedly low threshold of pain tolerance (the grass is always greener on the other side of the hill), of what is best for the country in the long term to return him to power. If Dr Muscat wants to be taken seriously as a potential Prime Minister of Malta, his task is to give a real flavour of what his leadership is going to be like in the event that he moves into Castille. Relying on soundbites cannot be the answer.

Thus far, Joseph Muscat has relied on an inevitable jadedness with over-familiar, sometimes arrogant and self-satisfied, faces and a patchwork approach to politics: The arrival of a new, young face at the helm; the attempted re-branding of the party; criticism of virtually every step taken by government whether deserved or not, or muted support for those where the national mood was clearly in favour.

But simply not being Lawrence Gonzi should not be enough, in an informed democracy, to win Joseph Muscat the next general election. An impartial and objective observer is looking for a more substantive approach. What, given the circumstances, would the Opposition have done differently in government in dealing with the Libyan crisis, the volatility in the capital markets, the fears about the immediate prospects for the world economy and the eurozone crisis?

The real gap lies in the dearth of properly thought out policy statements by the Labour Party. I cannot think of a single speech in which a coherent policy – a programme of work based on research, analysis and decision – has been laid out. Wherein lies the substance of the government-in-waiting? In most other countries a party which has been in opposition for the length of time this one has would have formulated significant alternative policies. But the Opposition appears to have none – or none that it is prepared to reveal for fear, it says, that these will be cherry-picked by an overwhelmingly pro-government media and undermined. While it may be right in this assessment, it is only through public debate that we can assess whether what it is proposing makes sense and would pass the test of competence.

Instead, we have got populist promises of change – for example, on relieving the burden posed by high water and electricity rates – without an explanation of how they will be paid for. Which part of the budget will be cut to accommodate a reduction in the rates? This is a legitimate question which not only Nationalist supporters will ask.

We all know what the Leader of the Opposition is against, but we have little idea of what he is for. If he is to persuade floating voters to elect his party to government, they need to be clear what he stands for and what new policies for improvement of the nation’s social and economic well-being he intends to implement. A policy-lite approach will no doubt impress the unquestioning party faithful. But to win an election, as finely balanced as all Maltese elections tend to be, will require much more than policy-lite to persuade the floating voter.

Given that the policy differences between the two parties appear to be not of substance but of detail, when we elect a government we are looking, above all, for competence and good governance. We judge this in two ways. First, by an assessment of the policies on offer. Are they credible? Have they been properly worked out and costed, or are they simply empty promises? Will they meet the country’s immediate and long-term needs? Do they demonstrate a willingness to confront tough issues (such as the unaffordability of our social welfare system)? And, secondly, by making a judgement about the calibre of individuals – the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and to a lesser extent, the Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet – likely to form the next government.

It was Prime Minister Gonzi who inadvertently let slip his concerns about the dearth of talent available to him among his Members of Parliament. But the Leader of the Opposition has, if anything, a greater problem. Most of his shadow spokesmen and women are untested and unknown, and some that are well known carry baggage from the past that could be unpalatable to many independent voters. The government media have already begun harping on this.

Joseph Muscat needs to show us exactly who his front bench team will consist of and, indeed, what shape his government will take. Will he, for example, retain the present (large) ministerial structures, or will he revert to the shape obtaining before 2008? Who will fill the key diplomatic post in the EU? On the major issues, how will he deal better with the economy? How will he tackle the pressing issues of our over-stretched welfare state, our ageing population, our pressure on natural resources, such as water, and our growing energy needs? How will he deal differently with Europe or foreign affairs? Just as importantly, who, by name, will he appoint to deal with these issues?

My sense is that people do undoubtedly hanker for a change. The polls indicate this. But people also need to know what they will get when the change happens. Above all, they wish to be confident that the party they vote into power will provide competent and effective government. The Nationalist Party has been tried and tested. After a gap of almost a quarter of a century, the Labour Party of Joseph Muscat has still to persuade a generation brought up under the Nationalists that it has what it takes to govern. It has some way to go before it can be said to have done so.