The Labour Party would have won the election easily had it favoured the EU, says John Attard Montalto, who has just been returned as an MP on the sixth district. Talking to George Cini before Alfred Sant announced his intention to step down, he speaks about the MLP leadership and why the party lost the election.

What made you think that Labour would win the election?

First of all, the government had mismanaged the country for such a long time. The government failed to take up the opportunities that came its way. Many projects are still in their starting phases and unemployment is rampant, reaching 10,000, 4,000 of whom are under 24. Exports and tourism are going through a bad phase, hospitals are dirty, and illiteracy is growing.

This all shows that the government was past its time but there was the overall question of Europe which evidently turned the electorate in the direction of the Nationalist Party.

Was there not a feeling within the Labour Party that the electorate would favour EU membership?

Europe is a magnet and the whole idea sounds mystical. People do not go for details or small print but for the general line. Europe was more attractive to people.

Why did the Labour Party go against the grain when it knew all this?

The decision within the Labour Party all along had been to form a close relationship with the EU short of membership. I am quite sure that the Labour Party would have won the election easily had it favoured the EU because the people are fed up with the Nationalist administration.

Why did the party not change tack then?

Because it would have gone against what it has been advocating for the past four years.

Was there not a faction within the party that pushed the idea that Labour should adopt the people's wish for EU membership especially after the EU referendum result was announced?

You do not change tack after a referendum with the election being a few weeks away. Parties have to appear to stick to one direction and not make U-turns overnight. It is very difficult if you are convinced of a policy, to change that policy overnight to win an election.

Was it possible that you were all convinced within the party that Labour ought to stick to that particular policy if it wanted to win the election?

Obviously, there were discussions within the party. Labour is more democratic than one imagines. The impression is that we are not given the opportunity to express ourselves but that is not quite the case. Dr Sant always gave me, at least, every opportunity to discuss any matter and I did so liberally, and I think my colleagues should have made more of this opportunity which he gave to me.

But was not the result of the EU referendum an eye opener for the Labour party?

Not really, because the no vote actually did very well and the yes lobby had expected to do much better.

Are people in the party pointing fingers at who or what led to it losing the election?

Labour lost because the people were pointing in the direction of joining Europe and the party was listening to only a section of the people, which is traditionally Labour. It is a question of marketing. The party was not selling what the people wanted and that is why it lost.

I believe that the party should and will be restructured. I think the party leadership - that is Dr Sant, George Vella and Joe Brincat - will resign because they are honourable people. I know them as gentlemen.

Would these resignations not disrupt the party?

No, I do not think so. I think this would be very democratic. We did not win the last two elections, in 1998 and 2003 and I think the leadership will give an opportunity to new faces to be able to conduct and direct the party with further impetus.

Will you be among those who would contest the leadership?

I will put my name forward along with some colleagues for the leadership post. It does not mean that I will contest for leader or deputy leader. This will have to be decided. This means that I will present myself as a candidate for the leadership but if I feel that somebody can do the job better than me, I will be more than willing to amalgamate and form a team.

Do you see any outsiders contesting the leadership if the three posts become vacant following the resignations?

I do not see outsiders taking up that role. The leaders will be chosen from within the party and from among parliamentarians. Although I have seen the cartoon in The Times which shows George Abela among those who are rescuing the party, I do not think Dr Abela will be among those that will contest a leadership role.

Would not the majority of Labour supporters be disappointed if they have to remove Dr Sant, who has become an icon to them since he took over the reins of the party 10 years ago?

This a question of cause and effect. You have to judge by performance. There is no other way. Dr Sant and his team registered an extremely good performance in 1996 but in 1998 and this year, things did not go well. Therefore, I am sure he realises that it is time to give opportunity to new blood. It is not a question of an individual who failed but what was presented by the party was not acceptable to the electorate.

A lot of people might have felt that Dr Sant did not come across as convincingly and strongly as Eddie Fenech Adami.

I do not think the result depended on personality but more on the political direction, principally Europe.

Do you think you will be marginalised by the party once your views on the leadership become public knowledge?

At first, the reaction is not going to be positive but in the end internally everybody will realise that what I am saying is a public expression of what is being privately said. The difference between me and others is that I speak my own mind and I have no qualms about going public. Not everyone has this way of expressing oneself publicly. People will respect you more in the long term for saying what you think than for censuring what you think.

Could this, in some way, undermine your political career within the Labour Party?

I do not think so, not in the long term. Many people in the party have been congratulating me for expressing myself in this way and said they will back me. I am not doing this for a personal ambition. I am doing this for the party because I think it needs new blood. It is a strong party with strong membership and its structures are sound to a large extent but on the other hand one has to restructure what there is.

The party should project itself in a fashion that is attractive to all sections of society, have an image that represents its beliefs that run from down up. To help the disadvantaged should be the basic principle but when one talks about the electorate, employees and the self-employed and the middle class, these sectors should feel at home within the Labour Party.

The party's electoral achievement in 1996 was that the middle strata saw a place for itself within the Labour Party. The party has to be seen as a refuge for all strata of society, not only the disadvantaged and the middle class but also other people who are prepared to invest in new projects, take risks and prosper.

What is your personal opinion on EU membership?

I have always believed the country is capable of managing its problems and standards without the need for Malta to join the EU.

The Labour Party has accepted that people have voted for Malta to become a member of the EU and the party has to look forward to use all the opportunities that the EU offers. The Labour Party is a better administrator than the Nationalist Party. Labour has star players who have had the opportunity to prove themselves in their professional life - such as Karmenu Vella who did a good job as a tourism minister in the 18 months of a Labour government.