Joseph Muscat is absolutely right, political parties ought to meet the promises they make to the electorate before an election. But the new Labour Party leader may come to regret being so categorical in what he is saying over this for, as voters know only too well, few governments, if any, have been able to implement all the promises they make to them at election time.

Parties tend to overburden their election programmes with a countless number of promises and, to compete with their opponents, they may even undertake to do things they know it would be difficult to implement if they are elected. It is not without good reason, therefore, that seasoned voters take many election promises with a pinch of salt.

Of course, this is not to say that voters usually ignore the promises made.

Many do not, as Labour found to its cost in the last election. Two of their promises, that to introduce a reception class and the other to halve the energy consumption surcharge, for example, must have lost the party quite a number of votes. They both showed that the party failed to do its homework well and the electorate did not take long to realise this. The point is that before making the promises, political parties ought to study, in advance, their feasibility and implications. This may well be a truism but it is what the electorate expects. But even if a party does its homework well, what should that party in government do if changing circumstances make the implementation of a specific proposal unfeasible? Should it go ahead with it or mark time?

Before his election as MLP leader, Dr Muscat said it would be unacceptable for Lawrence Gonzi to use the price hikes of oil and cereals as an excuse for him not to implement what he had promised. He argued these had been all too clear before the election when the PN made its promises.

The Times had taken him to task over this comment, strongly holding that a government, any government, would be unwise to ignore changing circumstances when it comes to implement promises made at election time.

However, Dr Muscat is now being more specific, as he was when he met the General Workers' Union's national council.

He is saying that, since the PN had been aware of the sharp rise in prices of crude oil and food, it would be unacceptable if the government were to mark time over its income tax proposal. However, since the PN worked out its promise, the price of crude has risen so high that the government has had to almost double the energy surcharge. To inverse the argument, would Dr Muscat have insisted on Labour implementing its promise to halve the surcharge had the MLP been elected? Probably not, given the reasonableness of many of the arguments he has been putting forward since taking over from Alfred Sant.

If, in view of changing circumstances, the government decides to mark time over the proposal, Dr Muscat will be quite in order to open fire at the PN for failing to fully grasp the seriousness of the oil crisis at the time it worked out its election proposal. But he would be unwise to continue pressing for its implementation, if it can be proven that doing so will go against the country's interest.