As Malta enters another week of intense electoral campaigning, it is ever so clear that proposals have not been lacking from the political debate. The electorate is increasingly aware, however, that not all proposals are born equal, and there is a difference between a mad rush to try to earn favour with the electorate based on hand-outs, and a cohesive vision for a better Malta.

The main difference between the two parties is growing clearer by the day, as the Labour Party is clambering to copy and make its own the proposals made by the Nationalist Party.

Case in point, the Nationalist Party proposed the inclusion of cancer medication on the national health service. The vision behind this proposal is to extend the maximum support to those going through the roughest times in their lives, and their families, through the best free medical care available and possible.

The Labour Party was swift to try to shoot this game-changing proposal, saying that it is impossible to fulfill. But when it realised that the electorate was not buying it, and was warming up to the proposal of the PN, it changed tact and brazenly came out proposing the exact same thing.

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. And this story has already repeated itself numerous times during this campaign, making for some very disappointing moments on the part of the Labour Party.

It is evident that Robert Abela tried to pull a fast one on the Nationalist Party by anticipating the election by a whole year. But the Nationalist Party was well prepared to go for the electoral test and started campaigning absolutely immediately.

Yes, proposals are flying in abundance, but they are not all the same.

The proposals being fielded by the Nationalist Party are all parts of a large mosaic called a better Malta for tomorrow. They form a vision to bring the necessary changes for a quality leap in the country.

Rather than promising everything to everyone, the Nationalist Party is addressing the issues that matter most, and that our families, pensioners, businesses, young couples are worried about.

Because while the Labour Party continues to insult the electorate's intelligence, many of the biggest anxieties facing Malta remain largely unresolved. Traffic continues to dominate daily life. Overdevelopment continues to exert untold hardships on families. Public spaces continue to disappear beneath concrete. The national conversation grows increasingly toxic, aggressive and polarised, particularly online. Mental health struggles are becoming more visible across every age group. And many people, especially younger voters, see no future for them in Malta.

The uncomfortable truth is that economic growth is no longer enough. The GDP may be on the rise, but our quality of life is in freefall. This is perhaps the real challenge Malta faces today, and that is because consecutive Labour Governments have favoured quick wins, rather than long-term national vision.

What kind of Malta are we actually building? How do we preserve quality of life while continuing to grow economically? What will Malta look like in twenty years if planning remains inconsistent and population growth continues without long-term infrastructure planning? How do we prepare young people for a future shaped by artificial intelligence and rapidly changing industries? How do we rebuild trust in institutions and encourage healthier public discourse? Most importantly, how do we create a country where people feel not only economically secure, but emotionally and socially hopeful?

These are the hard questions that the Nationalist Party is successfully addressing through its campaign, close to the people, and through its studied and well-researched proposals.

I wish all candidates the very best of luck for the upcoming election, and all success to those who dedicate their lives for the service of others.