It is all very well for the Labour Party to make political capital out of the energy price rises and to accuse the government of lacking a social conscience, particularly when considering they have come about following the small allowance given for the rise in the cost of living and, also, the announcement of the pay rises for ministers and MPs. One could have hardly expected otherwise from the Labour Party, and, in truth, the government deserves all the flak it is getting for the way it went about awarding the honorarium rise to MPs.

But moving beyond the controversy over the pay rise for MPs, what would be the wisest thing to do now? Does the couintry re-introduce subsidies? Give an allowance or energy benefit, as Labour is suggesting? The answer is not as easy as it may sound, particularly if one takes the national interest into the equation rather than narrow political gains. Some years back, Labour too was accused of lacking a social conscience and the charge then was not made by the Nationalists but by a former Labour Party grandee.

However, even if, for the sake of argument, the government decides to give an energy benefit, where would one draw the line? If, hypothetically, the government were to give an energy benefit, would it also have to give an additional benefit to cover the rise in the price of cereal? For, make no mistake about it, the international oil price rise is going to have a domino effect on the prices of many commodities.

There are other circumstances that will push up the price of oil and, eventually, of commodities. The floods in Queensland, Australia, for instance, have already pushed up the price of coal, leading to a heavier demand for oil. The price of oil has already reached what has been described as a dangerous zone and economic analysts feel this is likely to make an impact on the world’s economic recovery. This is not good news for if this triggers another slowdown, the island would be hit as well. Of course, there could very well be a re-ordering of priorities in the sense that the government can, for instance, choose to drop a capital project in preference to giving an energy bonus or a higher allowance to make up for the rise in the cost of living. Realistically, though, the choices available to the government are limited.

The worst thing the island can do at this point in time is to politicise the issue, though, in all honesty, it is difficult for Labour not to do so, considering how badly the government has handled the pay rise to the MPs. Even so, there is still far too much time to cover before the general election and it would be a pity if the island fritters away its time by politicising the issue or, worse, create a crisis where one does not exist, as one organisation has put it so well.

It is only natural that trade unions and employer organisations express concern over the price rises but this ought to be tempered by genuine willingness to tackle such problems with a great dose of realism. Protests or street demonstrations may have their usefulness, politically speaking, but the way forward ought to be mapped out intelligently and politically dispassionately following consultations within the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development, which is expected to discuss the price rises today.