I was one of the 167,533 electors who voted to boot Lawrence Gonzi out of office. I shed and will shed no tear for the former Administration. Yet, I did not vote Labour simply to have a change of cooks. I wanted a change of recipe.

The constitutional text will not enable those in the lowest echelons of society to cook a cheaper or more nutritious meal

I did and do not think that the only shortcomings of Gonzi’s administration were arrogance, incompetence and doubts regarding the honesty in the governance of the country. I believe that there were serious shortcomings that concerned policies, particularly with regard to social policy and the economy.

Regarding the latter, I never believed the mantra that the economy was fundamentally healthy. This is not just because the agencies that awarded us a good certificate time and again were the same agencies that repeatedly issued similar certificates to countries like Argentina prior to their economic collapse. Nor is it because the money-generating sectors like the gambling industry may vanish with a signature relaxing stricter laws elsewhere or because the labour-intensive construction industry is an oversupplied artificial bubble that will one day burst. I never believed the said mantra because what I consider to be the real economy of many was under severe strains.

The number of those living in poverty or in danger of poverty was ever increasing. So was the number of those who were finding it difficult to make ends meet.

The much-flaunted fact that the unemployment rate is lower than in other countries in Europe is no consolation for many given the poor quality of their jobs. Some 15 or 20 years ago, they could have had a better standard of living on the dole. (A little aside. did anyone notice that, in barely nine years, Europe turned from the land of milk and honey, which we could not afford not to join, to a gathering of derelicts where, according to the mainstream media, we are one of the few healthy individuals? But then asking questions and challenging the official version has never been this nation’s forte.)

To be fair to Labour, they acknowledged the phenomenon of poverty in their electoral manifesto. To be even fairer, as of day one the new Administration set itself to address the electricity issue, which will, hopefully, produce a relief to those who are being saddled by exorbitant electricity rates. It also sought to improve the situation at Mater Dei Hospital.

I’m afraid, however, that this will not suffice to address the problems of many. Given the straits where the Administration’s energies have been channelled in the past few weeks, it seems that these much-needed further measures will not be immediately forthcoming. Labour seems to have other priorities.

Apart from the exorbitant number of appointments to positions and boards (without, in many cases, considering whether the number of members of these boards could be trimmed to ease the burdens on a depleted Exchequer), one priority the Government seems to be focusing on is constitutional reform.

In this regard, the dogma the conservative media seems to be dangerously pushing forward is that the neutrality clauses should be abolished or effectively neutralised under the false pretext of updating them. (I only hope that Labour retained enough bottle to resist such calls and that it did not sell its soul even on this issue lest it be made look ‘less trendy’ by the said media).

Some are suggesting, undemocratically to my mind, augmenting the powers of the Presidency. In this regard, no one, as far as I know, suggested what would be a sensible proposal: amalgamating the President’s office with that of the Speaker.

Both are non-partisan offices and adding the cutting of ribbons to the chairing of the House does not make the job description in question exorbitant. It would, however, save an onerous wage to the country’s coffers.

The same effect would be obtained by a trim to the President’s disproportionate personnel.

The Government itself has promised to retain the clauses that concern religion, even though it contradictorily claims to be promoting a secular republic.

But even if the first two suggestions were proper, sensible or coherent, they would not be of any benefit to those who struggle to make it to the end of the month.

The constitutional text will not enable those in the lowest echelons of society to cook a cheaper or more nutritious meal or to stretch the ones they struggle to prepare right now.

What these people require are better social services if wages cannot be increased. They might require something the name of which has been turned into a dirty word in the past few years: the redistribution of wealth. And they require it quite urgently.