The Labour Party has been in power for three years and inevitably, the focus is on what it has achieved while in government, as well as where it has gone wrong.

It has been a very mixed bag, and while there have been a good number of positives, these have been overshadowed by the growing belief that the country is worse off in terms of what is being done to combat corruption.

But let us start with the positives. This government has pushed hard to break stereotypes and taboos in the realm of civil liberties. We have seen the introduction of gay marriage in all but name and a concerted effort to boost the role of women in society and setting up free childcare as well as the social inclusion of people with disabilities.

This administration has also continued to build on the success of the tourism industry which has flourished under successive administrations through the foresight of Dom Mintoff, Eddie Fenech Adami and the follow up skills of the Gonzi administration and now the Muscat one.

The economy is also booming, and the government has done well in nurturing the resilience it carried under the previous administration and accelerating its growth further. However, we are yet to see any concrete investments that have borne tangible fruit. Employment levels are at a historic high and people are duly benefitting from the Labour Party’s electoral pledge to cut water and electricity bills. And this is where the buts come in. As previously stated, the public’s perception is that we are not better off when it comes to corruption, especially given Dr Muscat’s Taghna lkoll battle cry. If anything it seems to be the opposite way round as jobs have been given to the boys and outright cronyism and nepotism.

Take Konrad Mizzi. In parliament on Monday, he said that he could have “exercised better judgment” in opening a company in Panama. He said his intentions were noble, but what are the public supposed to believe? How can we trust Dr Mizzi’s judgment in hedging deals for oil and fuel that have left us with some of the highest prices at the pump, following such a declaration?

What about the bailout for Cafe Premier? The government justifies it by saying that it did it with the interest of Valletta at heart, and because of over-eagerness in being a bit wet behind the ears. But all the taxpayer thinks is that we have all shelled out over €4 million for a failed business venture.

What about Ian Borg, who was found by the National Audit Office to have used “devious methods” in securing a development permit? At the same time, Ian Borg was in charge of overseeing the administration of EU funding to build the Coast Road, which was vetted by the EU and found to be in breach of regulations. Again, we ask the question, does this inspire the public’s confidence? What about Gaffarena having free rein at the Lands Department, and what about Michael Falzon’s involvement in that same scandal?

It is understood that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat is facing his first internal rebellion after the eruption of Panamagate, with some of his Cabinet members making veiled references to the issue on social media and out on the street. The Prime Minister must act fast if he is to save the ideal which he set out with. Unfortunately for him though, the Teflon coating seems to be losing its effectiveness. Early in the administration, he was tainted by his association with John Dalli, for example, but it was like water off a duck’s back. But successive mounting scandals of ever increasing proportions do seem to have caught up with him and eroded his aura of invincibility. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. How does he save face and try and restore public faith in him, without ditching his two most trusted lieutenants? It is a hard balancing act. On the one hand, the public want them both gone. But on the other hand, what will become of his internal support if he loses his biggest power base within the party and within government? Decisions, decisions.