Editorial

Labour leader Joseph Muscat waited till the last phase of the European Parliament election campaign (just 11 days to polling day to be exact) to take the rabbit out of the hat: A report on health services, which, he said, proposed the scrapping of health centres and the introduction of a patient registration system, with people being required to go to their general practitioner and paying for the services. Politically speaking, Labour must have thought they could hardly have had better luck.

They were already running ahead of the Nationalists at the time and the report sealed, as it were, their victory, for few subjects attract more voter attention than a health report of the nature as that made public by Dr Muscat.

It made no difference that the Nationalists kept repeating their stand that health services would remain as free as they are now. The rabbit-out-of-the-hat tactic had already made all the impact the Labour campaign strategists had hoped for, much to the consternation of the Nationalists who, clearly, were caught unprepared for it.

Labour won the election, and all is now supposed to be fine and dandy for the Labour Party (PL), except that there may come a time when they will rue the day they made such political capital of the report. Their short-term gain may very well turn out to be one of their "economic" albatrosses when they are returned to power.

True, the next general election is still too far away for anyone to start theorising about the way the PL would go about administering the country if elected. One thing is sure, though, as Alfred Sant had found out for himself when he was in government between 1996 and 1998, there is no magic wand with which to raise revenue for the Administration and, as sure as night follows day, a Labour Administration would essentially act no differently to the way the Nationalists are acting now, that is, seeing how they could balance the Administration's books without hurting those most in need.

Maybe the country's financial situation four years from now would not be as difficult as it is today but making the best possible use of any available financial resources at the Administration's disposal is an exercise that ought to be followed in both good and bad times.

Away from the heat of an election campaign, and however much the two main political parties insist, purely for their own political ends, that health services will remain free under their administrations, does it not make sense for the country to seriously look into the sustainability or otherwise of the health services? Are the political parties saying that, whatever the costs involved in running the system, all health services will remain free of charge to all for good? Would this be socially and financially wise? With health already taking a huge chunk of the government's budget, would it not be wiser to see what savings can be made without, in any way, hitting those who cannot afford to pay for medical care at all levels of the system? Is there no limit, in the PL's view, to which health costs can go up? It is one thing to make political capital out of an emotive issue such as health in an election campaign but quite another to take care of the country's finances and ensure wise utilisation of financial resources in the interest of all. On this issue, Labour has been politically irresponsible.