In a context where neither of the main parties are currently talking about the issues of deep poverty and hardship, it is imperative to find out what key swing voters think about such issues.

You don't need to look far in Malta today to see signs of deepening hardship, whether it's ever-longening queues at local food banks or kitchen soups, wild-west product pricing in supermarkets, or the arrival of so-called 'warm spaces' over the winter.

A pandemic that forced low-income families to take on increasing debt, followed by the worst cost of living crisis in 40 years, has made things worse. However, the truth is that deep poverty was intensifying for many years ahead of these crises, even before the Labour Party took the reins of government in 2013.

Today, the combined effect of this longer-term trend and the most recent crises is leading to eye-watering levels of hardship: low-income households have to cut down on or skip meals because they do not have enough money for food, while the number of people going without core essential items such as food, heating or basic toiletries remains.

Getting ahead and tackling the root causes of these horrendous levels of deprivation must unquestionably be an urgent priority for any government. Failure to act will see the continued manifestation of such hardship in record food bank use and rising homelessness. Knock-on effects such as increased pressure on public services, and longer-term scarring impacts on children, productivity, and communities will also store up further problems for the future.

There is currently, however, a notable lack of focus from either of the major parties on the sharp end of hardship and what needs to be done about it. One explanation for this might be that concern for these issues is not being heard by party researchers and strategists as they listen intently to what the electorate says matters to them ahead of any election.

With this in mind, one must guess what key voters think about these issues, as well as how they view the main parties' current positioning on this agenda.

While current national polling figures suggest Labour would be on course to win a down-sized majority if a general election were to be held any time soon, we cannot dismiss considering a range of plausible scenarios that would reduce the likelihood of this. History has also shown that polls typically tighten as election day approaches, and certainly no outcome can be taken for granted.

It is clear, therefore, that, at this stage of the political and electoral cycle, winning over undecided voters-especially those who voted Nationalist or other fringe parties in 2022 but are open to voting Labour or Nationalist now-will be of critical importance for both main parties.

Within this group, I would focus on those who are financially insecure on the basis that economic insecurity is a strong draw factor towards Labour. As such, this group will be both high on Labour's target list as well as one that the Nationalists will need to work hard to retain whoever is in that group.

Also, one cannot fail to concentrate on swing seats that changed from Labour to Nationalist in 2022, as well as longer-standing PN seats with higher majorities in certain electoral districts that Labour will need to overturn if they are to secure a working majority at the next election.

People from all walks of life have common issues they take most into account when considering who to vote for. The cost of living comes up time and again, and what impact it was having on them. People describe how they had changed the quality of the food they buy, foregone enough heating, and cut back on activities such as days out with their children. There are even those who raise more extreme examples of hardship, including cutting down on bare essentials such as food, heating, medication and baby formula.

These experiences of hardship must be seen to have intensely negative personal impacts, particularly on mental health. Others identify a range of wider knock-on impacts, such as rising crime and a sense of frustration or even anger within their communities.

Given these levels of hardship that are occurring, many are shocked and angry that things have gotten so bad, especially given how wealthy the country is felt to be.

People clearly feel it is primarily the responsibility of the government to address issues of hardship and that it should be a priority issue, while lamenting that politicians are not taking the issues seriously enough. Many feel that politicians are too wealthy to understand the practical impacts of hardship and, therefore, lack the empathy to deal with it as a political problem. Many are the politicians seen as out of touch with reality on this issue.

Despite the Labour Party traditionally being seen as speaking more to the issues of poverty and deep hardship, the general feeling in our country is that currently there is very little between the two main parties on this agenda. Neither party is regarded as demonstrating compassion. It could even be that Labour risks losing touch with its purpose and core values on this agenda.

Broad-brush and general messaging is not persuading swing voters. People want to see tangible and actionable plans for how politicians are going to reach their stated goals, not just what those goals are.

Voting is as much an emotional act as it is an intellectual one.

Dr Mark Said is a lawyer