We had been led to believe the Prime Minister and his party considered that the cost of halving the surcharge on utilities to families was excessive and totally disruptive of public finances.

Yet, as soon as the general election date is announced, in they come with a proposal to rearrange tax bands and to decrease the top marginal income tax rate. They themselves eventually cost the measure at almost twice what Labour's surcharge reduction is expected to entail.

The opportunism of the new "proposal" is palpable, not to mention the hypocrisy of meanwhile raising hands to high heaven in horror at the cost of the cut proposed in the utilities surcharge.

The justification for the measure is, we were told, the need to give an economic stimulus to the economy. Now I for one had also understood, from the declarations they repeatedly made, that the Prime Minister and his henchmen were convinced that the economy is riding on a high. Stimuli are needed by economies that are faltering or sliding into recession. If we have been and are doing so well, where does economic stimulus fit in?

In any case, if there is need for an economic stimulus - and I think there is, because the rosy picture that the government prides itself upon will soon turn out to be overdrawn - a reduction in the surcharge is much more effective as a tool by which to generate new economic activity. For one thing, it is spread much more evenly across the population: Everyone will benefit from it, the rich, the not so rich, the middle classes and lower income families.

Moreover, it will almost immediately translate into higher sales of products and services which have been cramped by the cut in purchasing power that the utilities surcharge and other government-induced burdens have imposed on most families. That will improve the commercial position of numerous small businesses, not least in the retail sector, which have suffered most from the cutback in internal consumption of past months.

In turn, there will be part compensation for the loss of government revenue caused by the surcharge reduction as tax receipts increase to follow the rise in consumption. Practically none of these effects would result from the government's proposed changes to the income tax structure. Indeed, the Prime Minister's statement that the loss in revenue caused by the latter would be recouped in two years at most sounds like pie in the sky.

Labour has made it clear that, apart from the hypocrisy inherent in the Gonzi-PN measure, considerations related to social justice should lead one to prefer the cut in utilities surcharge. What is more just, a benefit that applies to all citizens, regardless of status or income, or a benefit that can be enjoyed only by the upper middle to high income earners?

There is, of course, no quarrel with the aim of reducing the burden of taxation. That features as an important element of Labour's economic policy and has been linked to the wider target of reining in the growth of tax burdens on our society. Over the past four years or so, Malta has topped the EU league by way of growth in tax as a percentage of gross domestic product. This unwelcome development needs to be stopped in its tracks. When efforts succeed to make the economy grow sustainably at the rate of some six per cent per annum in real terms, then that will be the time to cut taxes, not least by widening income tax bands. We are confident that such an outcome can be achieved within a reasonable period of time.

The change that many families are looking forward to - as of now - in public management is defined by the failure of the present Administration, among other things, to control its expenditures. It compensated for the consequences of inefficiencies, incompetence and, yes, corruption, by raising taxes. In this way, it managed somehow to balance the books but at great cost to the national welfare.

The problem has been compounded by the prolific promises that were made to many people.

Even if most such promises were not kept, they led to further rises in expenditure and taxation, magnifying problems of social injustice. Middle and lower income families found that taxation had substantially eroded their purchasing power.

This is where Labour is seeking to redress the balance. The government - any government - cannot continue to "benefit" (if that is the right word) from a situation where it remains unaccountable for its growing inefficiencies. People must be given relief from a system that penalises them for the lack of good governance.

The vicious cycle leading from prolific promises to prolific taxes must be broken in ways that enhance social justice. A reduction in unjustified consumption taxes, as with the surcharge on utilities imposed on households, is the best move forward.

Which is why Labour proposes to introduce it at great speed as part of the change we wish to usher in starting March 8.