It has already been two weeks since the Budget speech for 2012 was delivered and during this time, the government has continuously sought to beef up its plans with additional information. Political pundits and economic gurus have had their fair share of dissecting and pinpointing the highs and lows of this eminently important annual political exercise and obviously the Opposition has also had its say and its reply was keenly anticipated.

This heightened anticipation is due to two main reasons. Firstly, it has been abundantly clear that the Labour Party – for its own ‘tactical’ reasons – has for too long steered clear of making solid pronouncements about its policies and thus attracting disagreement from many quarters. Secondly, the Nationalist Party has persistently hounded Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat to clearly state his policies, especially in view Dr Muscat’s somewhat weird promise to reveal his hand “only at the opportune time”. Clearly, it was time up for open-ended criticism and time for Joseph Muscat to demonstrate firmly his party’s much-trumpeted “new vision” for Malta’s political and economic future.

Frankly, after three years of waiting many were expecting much more than this 51-point proposal. I have been through the document several times and have come to one solid conclusion. Rather than a blueprint for a revamped Malta under “new” Labour, it looks more like a giant extended wish list interspersed with some concrete – although not original or innovative – proposals and peppered with some controversial and highly partisan recommendations.

There are no fewer than 31 recommendations that smack strongly of political sophistry. Among the worst are promises to make business more “safe”,(what does that actually mean?), a belief in the green economy, earnest understanding of the need for more women in the workforce, the importance of traffic management and parking, the burden of the waiting lists, the need for straightforwardness and the need for less bureaucracy. And the list goes on: a need for more investment, the crucial role of tourism, the need for private public partnerships, the role of industry and the pivotal role of economic growth for prosperity. By and large, no one could deny that these are all important considerations, but surely they are anything but concrete proposals.

We are then regaled with a few “concrete proposals” such as the need to legalise IVF, a controversial change from heavy fuel oil to gas for our power stations, a reduction in ministerial pay, recognition of same-sex couples and – the cherry on the cake – lower electricity bills. In fact, many of these proposals are already being discussed and some form of legislation is already under way. Others, such as the heavy fuel to gas changeover remain unclear for economic and logistical reasons.

But, clearly, the war horse of the document remains the thorny issue of electricity charges. Once more the Opposition has skirted around actual sustainable solutions that would compensate for any cuts. While it continues to promise extensive cuts, the Labour Party has again remained unconvincing on this issue. In the last few days, Dr Muscat has been asked several times how this pledge can be safely implemented and as yet no clear and conclusive evidence has been forthcoming.

Yet beyond the substance of these proposals remains one telling and worrying problem: nowhere among these much-vaunted recommendations is there a clear recognition of the economic shocks that surround us. Furthermore, there is no mention at all of the seismic geopolitical events that have affected and will affect Malta in the near future. One would have expected that any serious future government (in less than 18 months’ time) would include in its considerations these two eminently important subjects and the fact that they have been completely ignored indicates an Opposition that is unprepared and bound with a superficiality of political stratagem that remains increasingly opportunistic and partisan.

These proposals reveal a distorted reading of the events that are currently surrounding our country and the challenges that lie ahead. In this period of economic and geopolitical headwinds, I was expecting Labour to come up with a more substantial game plan – one that is credible not just to the party faithful but more so to those few thousand voters that, at every election, determine not only the fate of a political party but also the future of our country. Clearly, Labour still has a long way to go!

[email protected]