It is quite disappointing but, admittedly, foreseeable: the Labour Party’s deep artificiality. Preferably, I would have liked to be writing, if at all, on some serious policies, thoughts or fresh ideas that would truly improve and develop this country’s identity. But reality is totally different.

Four years ago, the PL, through its newly-elected leader, assured and promised the Maltese and Gozitans that it will be the party of change, to move on, to be a liberal-progressive movement.

Today, the only visible results are a torch light which looks like an ice cream, giving us a hint of some contemporary art work on a white background coupled with the words ‘Partit Laburista’. Other than that, we are faced with a generous amount of post-Independence MPs, some economic policy of the 1970s and 1980s together with daily press releases and statements highlighting some statistics that lead us to nowhere.

An example of this is the promise of a reduction in the water and electricity rates that has now changed to a reduction in the cost of electricity. Years have now passed and this promise is not backed by solid amounts or ways of how it could become a reality.

Maybe such a promise is not possible so soon? Or, perhaps, when repeating such a promise, the PL leader is confident that, with the Delimara extension in place, together with the interconnector, electricity would be cheaper thanks to past and current investment?

What is keeping the PL from stating by how much the electricity bills will be cut?

In the meantime, we are waiting for the roadmap – the famous, mysterious plan of the movement that has been mentioned regularly in political discourse, especially in the congress organised in September.

I could not imagine what would have happened if the election was called on of the 23 dates forecast by the PL.

How could we have known about this road map if it is only being used as part of a new style of rhetoric? One day we would be talking about a living wage, on another day it is said that the minimum wage cannot be increased.

Apart from this twist, I would like to ask if someone has any idea of what this living wage (if the idea still holds) consists of, who will pay it, what amount are we talking about and what would happen to the minimum wage? Can someone guarantee that it will not result in unemployment or hyperinflation?

Edward Scicluna is another contradictory character in this road map/plan (for a Labour election victory). In one instance, he says that stipends are unsustainable given our finances. In an article on The Times (October ), he says that stipends will not only be kept under a Labour government but increased.

Which Edward Scicluna is saying the truth or, better, stating the real Labour policy?

Another point mentioned by Scicluna is the difference in the minimum wage given to different age groups. There already exists a marginal difference between the minimum wage paid to under 17s, to 17-year-olds and to those who reach the age of 18.

In an interview this summer, Scicluna insisted on reforms that need to be introduced to pay a lower minimum wage to youths to encourage them in pursuing their studies. What does this imply exactly? Logically, it implies an even lower minimum wage than the current one since the minimum wage is not to be increased.

Finally, I would like to conclude on a thorny issue: what Labour likes to refer to it as the “€500 increase behind the people’s back”.

Without any doubt, this decision (for a pay rise to Cabinet ministers) bothered many, especially due to the economic demands on our finances and the sacrifices by all genuine workers, businesses and employers. However, let us not forget that such a decision was taken in May 2008, exactly at the start of the legislature and was announced in Parliament in December 2010, exactly when the cost-of-living adjustment increase was at its lowest due to low inflation in the preceding months.

Firstly, it is a blatant mistake to try to compare a wage rise to the COLA increase, which is there to compensate for inflation. What I mean is that it does not make sense comparing an increase of one euro and some cents per week to the honorarium given to MPs.

Secondly, it would have been a real mistake and it would be incorrect to do what Anġlu Farrugia proposed on TV: increasing the ministerial salary when the need arises. If this is done, what will the capping be?

What was done in 2008 is a matter of principle. In 2007, all MPs, except members of Cabinet, became eligible for the honorarium given by Parliament, even if they were civil servants.

Why could not this be done also in the case of ministers, especially when considering that many backbench MPs (including all Opposition members) earn much more than a minister through their profession which, in some cases, is due to their service in the public sector?

Therefore, it should only be fair that ministers, as members of the legislative body of our country, should be entitled to receive the honorarium. It is not a wage increase but a separate pay for a separate job.

It would have been much brighter for Labour to propose some concrete ideas to make Parliament an autonomous body in our democratic system of government rather than repeating the same sentence over and over again in every debate of a financial nature.

Hopefully, as time passes by, the bleak picture we are faced with starts to clear, enabling every one of us to be more decisive and determined in our choice of who is to run this country in the coming years.