Editorial

Never mind the political parties' electoral programmes, what ultimately counts most is trust, something that has been raised a number of times in recent months. Beyond all the promises that are made and the endless flow of political rhetoric, the winning party will be the one the people think they can trust to run the country over the next five years. Trust is built on performance, clear policies and direction, and stands that are easily understood.

Very often Labour candidates tend to make statements that are unclear, so unclear that they sometimes betray lack of preparation or cohesion with the trend of thought running across their own party. Take, for example, the choice quote over social benefits reportedly made by Labour's deputy leader and repeatedly brought up by the Nationalist Party. The Nationalists quoted, verbatim, Charles Mangion, as having said that debt servicing had reached such a level that the country would have to reduce spending on health services, assistance to the old, housing and infrastructure.

When Labour project themselves as the bulwark of social services, the quote may be considered perplexing and certainly damaging to the MLP's political interests. Clearly, therefore, it would seem the politician had only brought the matter up to emphasise the extent of the problem, which, in his view, the Nationalists have created, not that they really would want to reduce social benefits. In fact, Labour immediately denied they will reduce social services if they are elected.

This is well and good but there is a counter-argument to this. It may well be held that the quote indirectly suggests that Labour are not that confident after all that Malta would be able to go on making the kind of economic progress it is registering today, even though they are aiming at a growth rate of between four and six per cent. This would mean that the Nationalists are right in accusing Labour that they have no confidence in the people's ability to move ahead. Lawrence Gonzi has already made this one of the running themes of his party's election campaign.

When the Nationalists felt that the island's best place was in Europe as a member of the European Union, Labour did not think Malta could make it and preferred negotiating what they called a partnership agreement. This essentially meant lack of confidence in the people's ability to move at a speed that would enable Malta to qualify for membership. But the government did manage to narrow the deficit in the government's finances and, instead of contracting, the economy expanded, contrary to all the fears instilled by Labour before the EU membership referendum five years ago. Not only that, but the country is now in the eurozone. Even on the introduction of the euro, Labour would have preferred marking time until the economy expanded further.

Labour are now feeling very uncomfortable when they are reminded of all this, so uncomfortable in fact that, believe it or not, they are accusing the Nationalists of resorting to scaremongering when they accuse the MLP of being eurosceptic.

This is rich indeed coming from a party that had done all it could to persuade the people that membership would work against the island's interest. Their strong resistance to membership and to the introduction of the euro at this stage are not matters that happened a very long time ago but only since the last general election.

What ought to determine the outcome of the election, therefore, are not empty election promises but trust in a party's ability to deliver, strong confidence in the people's ability to move ahead and, above all, a keen sense of direction. These are three key passwords that ought to be kept firmly in mind in this election.