Wading through the Labour Party manifesto – all 188 pages of it, containing over eight hundred aims for government – I was reminded of what a British Prime Minster had once said about one of the opposing political parties' proposals: “As usual it offers a mixture of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately, none of the sound ideas is original and none of the original ideas is sound”.

Since we have waited this long to be given an insight into what Joseph Muscat would do when in government, it is right to set the bar for approval high. We have had, until now, no real inkling of the policy substance which would under-pin a new Labour administration. Now we know.

The Labour manifesto is, in Harold Macmillan's caustic words, a mixture of sound ideas which are not original, and some original ideas which are not sound. It is a programme which tries to tick all the boxes to garner votes. Nothing wrong with that in itself. That's what politics tends to be about. But, like the Nationalist Party's manifesto, it avoids confronting the tough realities which will face any new administration after 9th March.

Both parties should know better than to try to hoodwink the electorate in this way. In the Labour Party's case because they should have been capable in the last five years in Opposition of mustering sufficient in-depth policy analysis to expose and tackle some of the deep-seated challenges that lie ahead. Instead, this manifesto mostly proposes cosmetic improvements at the edges, while ducking many of the fundamental make-or-break issues which will mark the next Maltese decade.      

The manifesto is well produced, easy to read and highly ambitious – almost certainly over-ambitious. There are some good things among the 834 proposals. The criticism, however, is that when one casts aside all the “in praise of motherhood” initiatives -  proposals which are so saccharine-sweet as not to need stating, for example stopping bullying in schools, better health and safety, more family picnic sites, re-invigorating arts and culture – blinding statements of the obvious without  any substantial, practical policy initiatives to under-pin the stated objective, the “road-map” begins to resemble a map with landmarks but without any roads leading to them.

None-the-less, there are some parts that are well worth supporting. The chapter on Civil Liberties is excellent and exposes well the opportunistic and mealy-mouthed chapter in the Nationalist manifesto. The chapter on Justice focuses on action to deal with an issue long over-due for fundamental review which is key to the proper exercise of the rule of law, civil liberties and a healthy democracy. If Joseph Muscat is able to effect the culture changes set out in the chapter on Social Justice, his premiership will be truly notable. “Malta for All” may be a catchy campaign slogan, but there are many Labour supporters who will be expecting pay-back simply because they are party apparatchiks. The decision that future ministers will immediately fore-go the €500 a week pay increase is not only good politics, but also over-due. The need to modernise the Police Corps by - albeit not stated explicitly here - a root and branch change in its training, recruitment and structure, is to be welcomed.

But there are also some truly awful proposals, and many notable omissions. The proposal (a “pilot project”) for direct elections to public boards and regulatory authorities is populist, silly, unworkable and will add nothing to “open government”. The chapter on foreign policy, Malta: Maltese, European and Mediterranean, betrays an inflated sense of Malta's diplomatic reach (“to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem”is one of the targets). The section on the review of the Maltese Constitution with its talk of a “Second Republic” betrays either that Joseph Muscat has never read our constitution, or has not observed how well on the whole it has served us. He should drop that kind of empty and undignified rhetoric if he wants his administration to be taken seriously. The introduction of unions for the disciplined forces is a retrograde step.

The chapter on the Environment, Planning and Resources is also a mixed bag, with a  misconceived plan to break up MEPA (possibly masking a hidden agenda to exercise fewer constraints on developers), but with sensible proposals about parliamentary scrutiny, the greater involvement of Local Councils and the introduction of plans for greater mitigation and adaptability in the face of climate change. But there are also important omissions. It lacks any commitment to restrict construction development to within current designated areas and absolutely no commitment to the strict enforcement of planning laws. There is no mention of how to settle the scandalous Armier and other “boat-house” illegalities. The section on hunting contains such weasel wording that the suspicion must be that a deal has been struck with hunters to allow them greater hunting and trapping concessions.

The section on Illegal Immigration is remarkable for the paucity of any proposals for dealing with the 4/5,000 immigrants already here – no talk of improving their conditions or of dealing with the inescapable issue of integration. There is no mention of the need to control our lethal, life-threatening fireworks factories. The dire situation of the Corradino Correctional Facility is also studiously glossed over. Any party aspiring to be the government-in-waiting that fails to confront these issues is failing in its duty.

But worst of all, the central economic challenges which any new government must address have also been largely ignored. This is a criticism which is applicable to both the Nationalist and Labour Parties. The Labour Party road-map contains some imaginative proposals in the chapters on Economic Development, Education, Health, Pensions and Social Security. But on current trends, and taken together, they – and this includes the promised reductions in utility rates - are almost certainly unaffordable unless compensating reductions elsewhere in the budget, or tax rises, can be identified. These options appear to have been ruled out. 

Malta is facing difficult economic challenges. It has received clear warnings from the European Commission and two leading international credit rating agencies that its burgeoning public debt risks bringing down the economy. Unless it takes action to control it, Malta will not be immune to the consequences. The promises being made in the Labour manifesto can only be met by borrowing more, making economies elsewhere in the budget, or by raising taxes. To place one's faith on economic growth or “efficiency savings” alone at a time when Malta's main trading partners in Europe are struggling to get out of recession is to take a major gamble.

Warnings have been sounded about Malta's rapidly ageing population and the unaffordability of its pension and welfare schemes. Free hospital care, free medicines, free education and ever more generous stipends will place great strains on Malta's economic viability. But this manifesto has set its face firmly against any form of means-testing and is committed to ever-increasing expenditure in all these areas.

These are the stark realities of Malta's economic situation and the inescapable economic constraints that lie ahead. Irresponsibly, this manifesto fails to acknowledge or confront them realistically.