It is all very well for the Labour leader to be highly critical of the Budget for next year but in calling it "irresponsible" he is exposing himself and his party to serious criticism over what can well be called as a politically irresponsible attempt to derail the Administration from its course of remaining prudent in dispensing with the financial means available at its disposal.

It does not take an Einstein to see what Labour will be up to now. Besides dismissing most of the measures taken, or which are planned to be taken, it will mainly concentrate on the plans to raise the water and energy rates, which have yet to be approved by the regulator.

But what would Labour have done in the circumstances? Yes, they no doubt have a quick answer to this question, but, were the government to keep on subsidising, to a greater extent than it is doing now, the fuel bill, would it not exert further pressure on its finances?

Any rise in utility rates is bound to create controversy as it hits the pockets of both consumers and employers. By all accounts, the rise is therefore expected to remain a talking point in the weeks to come and will, no doubt, also dominate the debate on the Budget in Parliament.

As the Labour Party exploits the move to win the greatest possible political advantage, the Administration has, naturally, to face the reality of the situation from the driver's seat, rather than as an observer.

When Labour shoots from the hip, as the party is doing now, it starts creating doubt as to its ability to see the wider picture. This is politically dangerous to the party itself as it runs the risk of not being taken seriously when it pontificates about what should, or should not, be done. Is the Budget in fact a half-hearted admission of failure, as the Labour leader has said? True, the economy is still in recession but does Labour think that Malta would have escaped the impact of the slowdown had it been in government?

Labour has to be doubly careful in its criticism as it can easily betray its inexperience, a matter the party would have to carefully guard against if it wants to win credibility. Very often, Labour is sounding too superficial in its criticism, prompting a question that the Nationalists will, no doubt, push forward with greater force when the right time comes, that is, when the country is close to a general election: Is Labour ready to take over?

There is still much time within which to answer the question as, despite all the rumblings, claims and counter-claims over disgruntlement among Nationalist backbenchers, flatly denied by those held to be suspects in this regard, there does not appear to be any sign of an early election. Labour may be on the ascendant but winning a general election will require the party to have greater support. It would need the backing of the uncommitted voters, people who are not usually won over by any political rhetoric but by well-reasoned arguments and policies that inspire confidence in the party's ability to govern.

Right now, the Labour leader may be riding the crest of the wave in terms of popularity but if he keeps dishing out the kind of criticism he has been serving lately, without beefing up his arguments, he may well earn the Texan appellation of being, politically, all hat and no cattle.