Nationalist MP Julian Borg said that the PN's greatest opportunity to increase its electoral support lies among the more than 50,000 registered voters who abstained from voting in the last election, as opposed to focusing solely on encouraging Labour supporters to switch over.

Speaking to The Malta Independent on Sunday, Borg said the PN should analyse why people abstained, suggesting reasons could include dissatisfaction with both major parties, personal or family issues that have not been addressed by the government, and a failure by the PN to convince them that it can offer solutions. Borg expressed confidence that the 21,000 deficit - the PN lost the last election by that amount of votes, which is more or less half of the margin registered in 2022 - is "doable" to bridge, provided the party successfully reconnects with non-voters.

Borg added that the PN sees itself as representing even those who did not vote, referencing his maiden parliamentary speech in which he addressed abstainers directly. He argued that many non-voters wrongly believe politics cannot improve their lives, stressing that political decisions affect everyone regardless of whether they cast a ballot or not. Thus, he said that re-engaging abstainers should be a strategic priority for the PN if it wants to return to government.

"Every decision that is taken will affect the people out there. Those that voted, and even those that did not vote," he said.

Borg rejected the idea that the PN should celebrate reducing Labour's majority, saying that a "loss is still a loss" whether it be by 20,000 votes or 1,000. That being said, he argued that the reduced electoral gap should instead be viewed as evidence that some aspects of the PN's strategy were working, even if they were insufficient to secure victory. He said the result suggests the party was more responsive and closer to voters than in previous elections.

"Obviously the celebrations start when we win a general election," he said.

Listing possible reasons for the improved performance, Borg mentioned the leadership of the relatively new PN leader Alex Borg, the candidates who contested the election, changes in the party's campaign and organisation, and shortcomings in the Labour government's performance.

Labour's continued electoral success is due to a combination of Labour's strengths and the PN's shortcomings, Borg said. He credited Labour's 2013 victory to its ability to identify and respond to voters' priorities, including policies on gender issues and planning that benefitted many property owners financially. He argued that Labour has successfully consolidated the large electoral majority it won in 2013, meaning that even after its majority was cut, it retained a comfortable lead.

Borg said Labour's large Cabinet has given it a political advantage, claiming it allows ministers and parliamentary secretaries to maintain a stronger presence in every electoral district and stay close to constituents. He further acknowledged the PN has struggled with leadership instability, saying repeated leadership changes prevented the party from consolidating support behind a single leader. He also said that the PN must broaden its appeal to more sectors of society if it wants to return to government, and that the party's challenge is to convince more voters that it can deliver a better quality of life than Labour.

The PN's metro proposal

Turning to the topic of the PN's metro proposal, which Borg fronted during the election campaign, the newly-elected MP stood firmly by the PN's pledge to deliver a metro line within five years, saying he would present the same proposal again if another election were held. He insisted the proposal was backed by technical studies, arguing it included detailed planning on tunnels, stations, operating methods and implementation timelines, rather than being merely an election promise. Borg acknowledged the five-year deadline was ambitious, but argued it was achievable because it would be delivered by a national government with the resources and responsibility to meet major infrastructure deadlines.

"We are talking about the government of a country. The government of a country needs to keep its standards and its timelines," he said.

Borg contrasted the PN's proposal with Labour's record, accusing the government of repeatedly promising a metro but failing to make meaningful progress. He claimed Labour's only concrete action before the election was conducting limited geological drilling, arguing that no substantive planning followed and that the work effectively stopped after the election. Borg said that public scepticism about the PN's timeline stems from Labour's failure to deliver, rather than flaws in the PN's proposal.

He further criticised the government's "Malta in Motion" transport strategy, arguing its proposed surface light rail would not begin for another decade. Borg said Malta cannot afford to delay major transport infrastructure, since traffic problems are already severe and will worsen over the next 10 years without decisive action.

He also argued that an above-ground system would cause major disruptions to residents and daily life. He warned that surface rail infrastructure would be difficult to integrate into Malta's built-up urban areas, suggesting it would require disruptive structural solutions. He described his criticism of the government's plan as constructive, rather than outright opposition to mass transit investment.

"How can you afford a project like this not to start within the next 10 years?" he said.

Borg rejected the idea that the metro proposal contributed decisively to the PN's electoral defeat. He suggested the metro may actually have reduced the PN's margin, arguing the electoral gap might have been smaller because of the proposal. He said the project was generally well-received by key stakeholders. Borg insisted that there was little criticism of the project's technical viability, arguing doubts centred almost entirely on timing and delivery capacity. He said the metro would remain a flagship proposal in future elections, suggesting it would continue to feature prominently in the party's transport policy. Borg framed the transport debate as one of credibility between parties, arguing that Labour - not PN - faces a trust problem on delivering major infrastructure projects.

Borg said the metro proposal would largely remain unchanged if redesigned, arguing that the core plan was already extensively developed and "in general would stay as is". He acknowledged that any major infrastructure project can be improved, comparing it to architectural work where refinements are made even during construction. He said the PN's plan involved a phased metro rollout, starting with a north-south line in five years, followed by an east-west line in a second phase.

Borg admitted the party could have communicated more details about future phases during the campaign, saying more information could have been provided beyond the first line. That being said, he reaffirmed strong personal support for the project even after the election, saying he remains convinced of its value.