The shortness itself of the election campaign, the many issues discussed, and the incredible explosion of public debate are among the hallmarks of this campaign.

I've been covering campaigns since 1966 with a preliminary run in the 'mortal sin' one of 1962. 

The history of elections since those days has been one of increasing complexity and at the same time processes and time-frames getting increasingly squeezed together. 

To explain: in 1962 and 1966 voting was spread out over three days whereas today it consists of just one day with an early voting day tacked on.

In those early days there were only three daily papers - one, il-Hajja, church-owned was of limited range and usefulness. And broadcasting was foreign-owned Rediffusion, before being taken over by the employees spurred on by Mintoff 's government. Just those. 

That is why the Church's abuse in those elections was so toxic because the church had access to so many people since all went to the church, not just on Sunday but every day.

Today we have all this wealth of different opinions - television stations, radio stations, and the vast expanse of the Internet where everyone can be his own editor, speak to everybody, especially through YouTube.

If I was the undecided voter I would immediately discard most of the proposals of the Labour Party. They have been in undisputed rule for all of 13 years and now they propose to do this or that?

It is in the wider interest of Malta to encourage this trend of increasing the complexity and divergence and conversely it is not in Malta's wider interest to reduce everything back to simple choices, black or white. 

Winning the election is not the be-all and end-all of political life. Even better than winning the election is ensuring that the democratic debate in the country gets stronger as time goes by. 

We have now passed the first phase of the electoral cycle, the phase where specific commitments are made.

That phase was soon reduced to ineffectiveness as both parties copied their opponents' key commitments and quickly came back with their own pale carbon copy.

Thus the renewal of the entire Gozo Channel fleet commitment by PN was soon copied by LP. On the other hand the metro commitment of the last election by PL which remained unimplemented by PL during an entire legislative period and which was mentioned so often before the election date was announced remained a dead letter on the PL side, at least until the time of writing.

Then the parties focused on money with commitments to increase pensions coming from both sides, for the younger generations, for husbands in specific cases, for young couples wanting to get their first home, etc. Cheques rain down from both skies. Forgive me if I have forgotten other commitments.

And yet reality checks point out how we are failing the new generation - our children are the most obese in Europe, educational attainment is at a low, we are drowning in drugs and abuse, we have to import practically all we need and eat, our roads keep getting more clogged adding to stressful days, and people of all ages find it more and more difficult to make ends meet.

And yet, here we are in mid-campaign with our instinct telling us we are getting excited about the wrong things and that we are not focusing on the right issues.

Want examples? PN began the week by taking its team to Valletta, the first district, and they all delivered the right soundbites,  except failing to notice the tables and chairs clogging most streets and turning the City built by gentlemen for gentlemen to something like the Casbah of Tangier. So there was no commitment to regularise this glaring omission.

PL on the other hand kept doing what they do at every election when they have power, hand out jobs and promotions in defiance of the law with PN being so weak it does not dare commit a future PN government to annul any promotion given after the election was announced.

Next we have the density of population and the number of people coming to live in Malta, an issue which so many times leads the discussion to pure racism. This suits people like Mario de Marco who chose this particular phase of our country's history to take his leave and lecture us about the evils of racism instead of facing up to the mess they've left behind and we who have to try and solve it.

Will the candidacy of the Muslim Omar Rababah hurt Labour or will he draw Muslim voters to Labour?

And what happened to those weighty subjects like abortion or drug-taking by politicians which now seem to have eclipsed?

And then we have Adrian Delia who seems bent to reinvent himself as a sort of Tribunus Plebis and who barged into the closed and rat-infested St Luke's Hospital straight into a clash with the security guards. He may spawn imitators of direct action on either side.

In other words, the campaign seems to have degenerated into set pieces with no side claiming to have the upper hand. The rejoicing crowds at PN's rallies resemble very much those of Simon Busuttil's "Barra, Barra" premature and ill-omened time.

Then we have the past Labour mayor of Gzira who has crossed over to PN. It is hard for me to be objective about Conrad Borg Manche. I assisted his mother as she lay dying and later I rushed him to hospital when he slipped and fell on the church's roof while they were doing something up there. Normally voters punish a candidate who crosses to the other side. But we'll see.

Aspiring MPs try to develop their particular signature theme but I still have to find a common theme running through most of the narratives.

And, more profoundly, what our country deserves to build its future upon. Labour will have left us without any signal monument to symbolise its era except the 'turd monument' at Castille, while we have City Gate and the Parliament buildings and indeed Valletta for PN's time in power.

Which is why I keep insisting that the Royal Opera House must be rebuilt exactly as it was, even if it is on no programme.   We must build our future on our past.

[email protected].