What do we stand for? This is the crucial question that any organisation that wants to be relevant in society needs to answer.

Labour's answers to this question have not always been clear during the past few years. At times, issues seemed to become more important than principles.

During the leadership campaign, I made it clear that by choosing me, Labour would also be making a clear statement of what it wanted to stand for. My vision is that of building a Movement of Progressives and Moderates - a new alliance brought together by the will and energy to meet and surpass the environmental, economic and social aspirations of our society.

With this vision in mind, we can speak out clearly on issues which have to date proved thorny for most politicians.

That is why I found no qualms in saying I am in favour of the introduction of divorce and am ready to move legislation - while allowing a free vote - on this civil right. As a progressive, this is a position I believe in and which is in line with my political principles. Moreover, I would find myself in an extremely uncomfortable situation advocating any other position or staying mum.

I entered the political fray to state my ideas and work to change things, not to stare at the status quo.

The silence of Lawrence Gonzi and the Nationalist Party over this issue, which they have been eluding for so long, is impressive. A division is perceptible. The Prime Minister, who in the past pronounced himself against divorce, must state his position.

Simply calling for a discussion or passing on the buck in a referendum would simply equate to a failure of leadership.

• Some were surprised at my proposal calling for the voting age in local council elections to be dropped to 16 years. I had one particular person asking why change things when Labour does generally well in these elections.

I do not think that it is an issue of whether a party does better or worse with a particular change. Once again, it is a matter of principle. Progressive politics calls on us to get things moving and challenge pre-concepts.

This is Labour going back to its core values. Back in 1921, the party which was only one year old, campaigned against the concept of plural voting (whereby a man would be able to vote in every district where he had property) and in favour of a one-person, one-vote system.

In 1945, Labour stood up for a wide-ranging reform, which included giving every man (irrespective of wealth) the right to vote, giving the same right to women, and lowering voting age to 18 years. There was huge resistance, especially by some elements within the Nationalist Party, who were against women being "burdened" with this responsibility and said that they were not well-prepared for it. The vote in the National Assembly was very tight. Finally, with 145 votes in favour and 137 votes against, all men and women were granted this right. Nevertheless, voting age was kept at 21 years.

The lowering of voting age to 18 years had to wait until the Republic Constitution piloted by Labour in 1974. This was approved with 49 votes in favour and six votes (of some members of the Nationalist Party) against.

The call for voting age to be lowered to 16 years in the case of local council elections has been met enthusiastically by the progressive generation, and scepticism by conservatives. The subjective "maturity" card is being used and over-used.

It is ironic how some Nationalist Party apologists tried to denigrate the suggestion, only to cool down their criticism when finding out that the youth branch of the same party agreed with such a policy.

Having said that, it would be interesting to know what the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party think about this proposal.

• The Nationalist Party's silent parade continued when faced with Labour's suggestion to come up with a Climate Change Bill.

As aptly explained by our main spokesperson for environment, sustainable development and climate change, Leo Brincat, we want to go beyond action plans and legislate on this sector. This would make sure that any agreed recommendation put forward by the expert committee on the subject would be implemented.

This system, which would ensure implementation and accountability, is already being used elsewhere, for example in the United Kingdom.

This is the progressive way forward.

Dr Muscat is leader of the Malta Labour Party and a member of the European Parliament.