Editorial

Labour are still licking their lips with delight following their fourth local council elections win, which has given them renewed hopes that the biggest prize on the horizon - victory at the next general election - is practically theirs for the taking.

Even though political grandees within their own party might caution prudence in the reading of the election results, there seems to be no way stopping Labour frontliners from proclaiming that they are heading towards victory at the polls, possibly in May next year, going by what the Nationalist Party's general secretary said in an interview with this newspaper.

By contrast, while Nationalist politicians, particularly party leader Lawrence Gonzi, insist, quite rightly too, that the race is to the finish, a swathe of their supporters are still seething with anger over the government's decision to allow spring hunting. Stavros Dimas, the European Union's Environment Commissioner, might not have meant much up to a few days ago, but suddenly the man has descended on the Malta scene like a tonne of bricks.

Rounding up a debate on the hunting issue in Malta in the European Parliament, Mr Dimas drove the Commission's point home when he said: "The (Maltese) government's decision to keep spring hunting this year is a perfect example of misimplementation of EU law. I do have a glimmer of hope that following our second warning the Maltese government will comply with community law". The EU executive has now given Malta a month within which to reply to the charge that the island has breached the Union's Birds Directive.

The "glimmer" the commissioner saw at the European Parliament must have already dimmed a bit following the interview given to The Times by Environment Minister George Pullicino a few days ago. In fact, the government appears all set to stand its ground, at least up to now, basing its stand on a common position paper drawn up between the Commission and Malta in September 2002, that is, before the referendum on EU membership.

As the pot keeps boiling over the issue, the Labour Party expertly exact the greatest possible political advantage from the situation. But, other than putting the blame for the situation on the Nationalists, they have so far distinctly failed to be very specific as to what they would do if elected.

When, only up to a few months ago, Labour were promising to do this and that within only six months after being elected, it would seem they are now toning down their language. Alfred Sant says his party is not promising heaven on earth, but it would work on its programme seriously and prudently, with one of their priorities being job creation. But is not this what every electorate expects of their government? Or is he backtracking already? Hopefully, many would like to think that Labour would this time show greater realism when they come to making promises. Labour may have scored another win at local elections level, but unless they get out of the wings and spell out their intentions unequivocally, they are unlikely to convince the electorate that they make up the best team to govern the country.

It may not be wise to disregard the significance of the local council election results, but Labour would be wrong to think the people have already made up their mind as to which party they would want to see governing the country when the term of the present government expires. The key to the next government is in the hands of those who have been staying away from the polling booths in the council elections.