Good, but not good enough
Last week, the Nationalist Party announced, with a little bit of pomp, what it described as its energy policy, which it said is based on six pillars and aims to always seek the cheapest source for the benefit of consumers, while at the same time offer a good service. The PN pledged to work on this policy should it win the next election.
Among its proposals, the PN spoke of a second connection with the European grid, a drive towards the electrification of public transport and increased efforts for a large scale renewable energy generation.
Hours later, the Labour Party billed the ideas as “recycled”, with no vision and, worse, the PN did not know how much they will cost. The PL said that the PN showed that it did not even know the basics of the energy sector.
The party in opposition is often accused of being just critical of the government, without offering proposals. But then, each time some suggestions are made, they are shot down. This has been the trend in Maltese politics for decades.
In this particular situation, the Nationalist Party wanted to appear to be pro-active, and it chose energy as the basis of its political programming. You will remember that the Labour Party had done the same thing, in 2013, on the eve of the election it would go on to win handsomely.
The circumstances, eight years later, are somewhat different. The energy sector is still a subject of controversy. With all that happened in the past years, including the deals reached which are now under investigation, energy remains high on the political agenda, even because power cuts still occur with regularity and Malta still lags behind other European countries when it comes to alternative sources.
Having said this, the Nationalist Party must be better prepared if it wants to be seen as more credible. It is good that it comes up with proposals in the various sectors that hit our society. But it must present a more comprehensive document, which includes how much these suggestions will cost.
It cannot just dish out proposals without first checking the financial aspect. By not calculating the costs, it is immediately thought that the PN is just trying to play on people’s feelings – promising them a better deal and cheaper bills just for the sake of obtaining their vote.
The PL was correct to pick on this aspect in its reply to the PN’s proposals. After all, the PN made the same argument when the PL, in opposition, was making its proposals in the energy sector in 2013. Saying that, under a PN government, the payment for each unit of energy generated from solar panels will increase from 7c5 to 10c5 and that consumers will be paying less to charge their electric cars during the night both appear as positive proposals – but they would be futile if the country cannot afford them.
This lesson should be learnt by the PN as we head into the last year of this legislature. We will soon enter election mode and the political parties will be filling up the pages and space on newspapers and websites more than they already do with their plans for a better future. And, not only in energy, the PN must come across as having done all the homework before it makes its ideas public.