Joseph Muscat has proposed 23 measures to combat inflation.

They are as follows, as reported on the Labour Party's own site and summarised by yours truly.

First, make better use of financial resources, including funds coming from the EU. That's about it: there's no detail as to how this platitude is to be given effect, except to premise the proposal by auguring that more and better work is created.

Second, control expenditure: truly a noble aim, though not many details are given as to how this should be achieved.

Thirdly, Government-imported goods and services should be sold to the public carefully, transparently, efficiently and without too much bureaucracy. Great idea. How, in particular? Ah, no details here, either.

Fourthly, liberalisation should not lead to cost increases, or something like that. I lost the will to live, almost, after the fifth line dealing with public transport reform, which actually restricted itself to the transport of dead people, which is only as far as it's gone thus far, leading me to wonder how much I would have to plough through if there ever was a reform.

Moving on, the fifth proposal seems to concern itself with the housing market, though precisely what it was driving at was not entirely clear. I'm sure some commenting elf will elucidate.

And then came number six, which makes the point that corruption is a tax on virtually everyone, presumably because it's the punters who have to pay the increased costs of goods and services supplied by a corrupter with the connivance of a corruptee. Again, not a proposal that anyone, not even the most cynical of bloggers (cynical, moi?) should find fault with, but come on, guys, do you really think that it's a stand-alone point? Stop corruption because it's costing us money? Really?

Point number seven is sure to be a favourite: drop taxes for everyone. What can I say, other than "and so say all of us"? How one squares this with the expectation that Government carries on supplying the services we all want and need is not fully obvious, though presumably cutting costs elsewhere will cover this.

And coming in at number eight is the all-time statement of the bleedin' obvious: remove monopolies, which operate to make it so expensive for consumers to obtain whatever it is the monopoly supplies. It says it in many more lines than that, to be sure, but it doesn't say much more than that, really.

Complementary to number eight is number nine: make sure the various regulators that impact on the amount things cost do their thing properly. Again, very good idea, but specifics are conspicuous by their absence.

Numbers ten and eleven seem to be quite closely related, if not actually twins: pay less for oil and consequently charge less for power. Nifty idea, and it would take an even more cynical observer than me to gainsay it, but let's take it as read that it would be nice to know how.

Number twelve reprises seven: cut down on taxes, to which is added the rider "and administrative charges", to which I reprise my "and so say all of us", but then along comes thirteen, demanding that Government pays up what it owes, immediately if not sooner. Again, what a darn good idea, but woe will be us if this means that taxes might have to be levied, because it will go against twelve and seven. Who'd be Minister of Finance, I ask you!

Calming us down from considerations of matter of high finance, along comes proposal fourteen, which talks about the price of fruit and veg, which apparently is on the rise. The reasons for this are obfuscated by officialdom by labelling them as due to "market imperfections" (according to the Labour Party, anyway) and the Government is called on to take the matter in hand. And there the proposal stops, for all intents and purposes.

Proposals fifteen through twenty-one go on (and on, a bit) about sensitising consumers and making sure they get a good deal. At risk of repeating myself, this is obviously a good idea, but we're getting very close (and this applies to virtually all the proposals) to a situation where the Government will have to do everything and regulate everything, and we all know how much of a good idea that was back in the Seventies and Eighties.

Proposal the Twenty Second suggests rolling back VAT, particularly on labour-intensive industries, such as hospitality. Not a bad idea, but will the books balance? Don't ask me, I'm not making the proposals. And so, on to twenty three, which says we should have investment in the infrastructure to make sure we can move ahead as a country. Again, book balancing, anyone?

I'm not saying that the ideas are not good in themselves or as a whole, but let's not run away with the idea that they're the cat's whiskers, shall we? It must be great to be in opposition.