The Labour Government continues to accuse the Nationalist Opposition of not having learnt anything since the election. However, I have never heard anything from the PL which spells out exactly what it is that the PN has not learnt.

The PN had a report written subsequent to the election, the executive summary of which listed a number of reasons for its defeat. Is the lesson the PN fails to learn, according to the PL, included in this list? I don’t think so.

The mistake the PN persists in committing is to underestimate the electorate. Let me try to back this up with a few examples off the top of my head, starting from the time prior to the election.

The party insisted that the PN government would call an election not when it lost its majority in Parliament, as Simon Busuttil admitted it had done, but when it was in the country’s interest (not the PN’s).

It said that the €250,000 received from Żaren Vassallo was only a short-term loan to cover a cash flow problem.

It insisted that the Arriva problems were just a result of people’s perception and that the bus service was much better come election time.

There was also the silly spin on the clock (tal-lira).

Busuttil wanted the electorate to believe that the PN, after 25 years in power, was the “party of change” and this on the back of a PN campaign against the introduction of divorce and the publication of a draft law that did nothing to appease the gay and lesbian community clamouring for their rights, just to cite two examples of the conservative ethos of his party.

We were also told that the obligation on the developers of Smart City to provide 5,000 jobs was no longer binding of them because the Nationalist government did not move some relatively insignificant water treatment plant by a certain contractual deadline.

Now, some examples of consistency in underestimating the electorate after the election.

The PN called the decision of the board led by a judge, in whom the PN leadership expressed total confidence, a “travesty of justice”. I suspect most ignored this platitude.

It passed poor negative judgement (without even seeing the final deal) on the prospect of a strategic partnership for a bankrupt Enemalta, with a Forbes 500 Chinese company, while almost everyone and every institution considered it a boon.

Busuttil politicised the Archbishop’s suggestion to set up a parliamentary committee to address society’s diminishing moral fibre by stating that it was the PL government after six months that had weakened the country’s moral fibre. This is hard to swallow but, then, the reason he cited made it quite incredible: the replacement of PN-dominated boards with PL-dominated boards.

Blaming the PL government for the excessive budget procedure imposed by the EU because of the PN deficit for 2012.

The underestimated electorate might still consider as weakness what the Nationalist Party deems to be strength

The Opposition was very critical of the Government when this chose not to ignore a professional independent report which raised the possibility of risks to public safety at the Marsascala Family Park. What did the Opposition expect the Government to do, no matter how remote the risk?

And now, we have the Leader of the Opposition again declaring a national scandal because it was okay for former Police Commissioner John Rizzo to “subjectively” (Rizzo’s word) decide to arraign former European Commissioner John Dalli but a “crisis of democracy” because Rizzo’s replacement “subjectively” decided, also after consulting the Attorney General, that the evidence could not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Rizzo also stated under oath that there was a lot of parliamentary pressure on him on this case (before the election, I assume). So, the Leader of the Opposition wants the electorate to believe that the PL had an interest not to arraign someone who had aggressively militated all his life (against the PL) within the PN, who was a PN minister for most if not all the 25 years it was in power and who was appointed European Commissioner by a Nationalist Prime Minister. Or that the PL government chose to “interfere in the course of justice” simply because Dalli had a fallout with Gonzi.

Insisting on an explanation for the difference in the judicious “subjective” opinions of the two commissioners is one thing, gravely accusing the Government of creating a very serious situation where justice is not equal for all is another. Busuttil expects the electorate to believe such a serious accusation, especially given the lack of information he admits to when asking the Attorney General to explain his position.

Apart from the issue of not giving the electorate its due, the above probably exposes a PN strategy to taint the PL government with the mistakes of the 1980s. If so, it can try but I believe that over the full legislature this strategy will fail.

The leadership style is totally different; the times and circumstances today are much different too. In a nutshell, the welfare state is here to stay, the middle class will continue to dominate and grow, we are firmly entrenched in the EU and the parties now encroach and fall over each other’s ideals.

Busuttil declares that the PN is aiming to win the next election, and, of course, it is. To do so it will need to be a strong opposition, as he boasts it will be.

The problem is that strength is in the eye of the beholder for I suspect that what he, and the unwaivering PN support, might consider strength, the rest of the underestimated electorate might continue to take as weakness.

As I conclude typing this, the PN Leader has just declared Malta the worse country in the EU.