Seasoned observers have cited distrust in the Nationalist Party, a disconnect from the popular mood and a lack of time for the party to renew itself as possible factors for the astounding scale of its electoral defeat.

The margin of the Labour Party’s victory – a 35,280-vote advantage over the PN-PD coalition, comparable to the PL’s unprecedented 2013 win – caught PN insiders by surprise.

Labour officials have also pointed to the PD’s 4,826 vote tally, which they say indicates an even greater gap between the two main parties.

Although the massive majority of four years ago, coupled with the tendency of incumbent governments to win a second term, was always a major hurdle, many in the PN even felt a tight victory was not unachievable.

Party leader Simon Busuttil, who announced his resignation yesterday alongside his deputy leaders and the entire Nationalist Party administration, said that there was “absolutely nothing more” he could have done and the process of unpacking what led to the result would now begin in earnest.

Read: Simon Busuttil steps down as PN leader after crushing defeat

“I got the feeling the people were still mulling over a lot of the issues that had led to the PN suffering the electoral loss it did in 2013,” former Nationalist minister and party general secretary Louis Galea told the Times of Malta yesterday. “That result still needed further reflection. I think four years in Opposition, after the 2013 election result, was not enough time.”

On the other side of the political fence, architect and government consultant Robert Musumeci, who vocally backed the Labour Party in this election, said that the “establishment” – specifically mentioning the independent press and the Chamber of Advocates – had created a narrative that the PN believed was representative of what Maltese society was feeling.

“However, this was just an illusion,” he said. “The problem with the PN’s electoral campaign lies there, as the Maltese cultural fabric is more textured and complex than that projected by the establishment. This resulted in a perception that the PN had a holier-than-thou attitude.”

With the PN having based its campaign all but entirely on the allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister and his closest allies, many also felt the result indicated that the message had failed to land, despite pre-election polls highlighting corruption as a major factor for voters.

“A lot of people still don’t trust the PN,” said hydrologist and commentator Marco Cremona, who endorsed the Forza Nazzjonali, noting that many ‘old faces’ had remained central throughout the campaign.

“Its central electoral issue – corruption – was something the electorate ultimately didn’t trust the PN to deal with.

“This isn’t necessarily a reflection on Simon Busuttil, but the legacy of some of the negative parts of the last PN administration still hangs over the party. This was its biggest obstacle.”

Former AD chairman Michael Briguglio, now a high-profile backer of the coalition Forza Nazzjonali. Photo: Mark Zammit Cordina

Another high-profile backer of the coalition, former AD chairman Michael Briguglio, also highlighted the failure of the focus on corruption to win over voters.

He said on Sunday that bread-and-butter issues had clearly remained more important to people, while Labour’s package – including its track record in social policy and civil rights – had proved more convincing.

Read: Bread and butter issues are still important – Michael Briguglio

“Whether they were right or wrong, Labour was making key decisions on various issues where the PN was slower and perhaps more cautious”, Dr Briguglio said.

He said the message put forward by the PN could have been perceived as too negative, adding that Labour had clearly used its power of incumbency to micro-target voters.

But for some, any attempt, however cursory, to dissect the result is seen as premature. In 2013, it was three months before the PN published its report analysing the factors that had led to its defeat and a comparable process will be needed now.

One expert observer who was contacted by this newspaper declined to comment on the reasons for the shock margin: “A smaller majority would be easier to understand,” he said.

“But with the result we’ve seen, I get the feeling that nothing could have changed what happened.”