Tradition, Sovereignty, and Renewal: A New Path for the Nationalist Party

Between Tradition and Renewal: The PN’s Struggle for Relevance in a Changing Malta

The Malta Today results did not come as a surprise to the PN—it was actually anticipated. Current trends appear to be working against the party. Despite a decline in quality of life due to the country's overcrowding, the economy continues to perform well. In such circumstances, it is difficult for any opposition to succeed without the creativity needed to overcome the situation. To make matters worse for the PN, the party's financial situation appears to be a central factor contributing to its current troubles. Another challenge for the party is finding a centre ground that aligns with its identity—one that doesn’t alienate its grassroots supporters while still appealing to new voters. Striking this balance is no easy task. A party that has succeeded in attracting both liberal and Catholic voters—much like during the tenure of Eddie Fenech Adami—must now find common ground, positioning itself as a conservative party capable of representing a wide spectrum of society.

 

Reclaiming Public Services: Restoring Integrity, Sovereignty, and Social Responsibility

The PN should firmly assert that essential services must remain under state control, because unlike private companies, the state has no profit motive—its only responsibility is to serve the needs of the people. It is unacceptable that €400 million were lost in deals like those with Vitals and Steward, when those funds could have been used to improve the lives of the most vulnerable, particularly the sick. A strong, publicly run hospital system ensures that patients receive care based on need, not profit, and keeps corrupt business interests out of healthcare.

In many countries, people take pride in their national health services—pride that has been eroded in Malta under a Labour government. The PN must show the people that this pride can be restored, and that Malta can once again have a healthcare system that works for everyone.

But it’s not just healthcare. The energy sector has also been compromised. Is it really acceptable that 33% of Enemalta is owned by a Chinese state company? To make matters worse, this deal has been mired in allegations of offshore accounts, kickbacks, and shady dealings. It’s possible that the country lost €7.4 million and $5 million through these arrangements—money that should have gone into improving our energy infrastructure, not lining the pockets of the few.

And beyond the financial loss, there is a deeper concern: a foreign government, through its state-owned enterprises, now holds influence over Malta’s electricity supply. This raises serious questions about sovereignty, transparency, and long-term national interest. The PN must commit to regaining control of our essential services, restoring accountability, and putting the Maltese people—not foreign states or corrupt business networks—at the heart of public policy.

A Vision for Sustainable Growth and National Renewal

The PN must put forward a clear, forward-looking plan for Malta—one that directly addresses the problems created by Labour’s economic model, which has favoured quantity over quality. What the country needs is a strategy focused on sustainable growth, improved infrastructure, and a renewed commitment to preserving both our environment and cultural heritage.

This plan should include the creation of new open spaces in overdeveloped urban areas and the protection of our rural landscapes from further degradation. A more environmentally conscious approach—clearly defined and professionally guided—would show that the PN is serious about long-term quality of life, not just short-term gains.

Equally important is addressing the country’s growing traffic crisis. The PN must champion a strong public transport strategy, developed in consultation with experts in the field, to provide efficient and reliable alternatives to private car use. Reducing congestion and pollution must be a core part of this vision.

At the heart of this plan should be a shift in economic direction: away from a system reliant on imported cheap labour, and towards one that prioritises high-quality, well-paid jobs. New economic projects should aim to attract innovation, talent, and investment that uplifts the country, not strains its resources.

This kind of model will not only raise living standards, but will also ease the pressure on our population by discouraging unsustainable growth. It offers a more balanced future—one that delivers opportunities for citizens and foreign residents alike, while restoring dignity and direction to the national economy.

Balancing Belief and Progress: A Pragmatic Path for the PN

 The PN has long grappled with the challenge of balancing the support of its traditional Catholic base with that of more liberal-minded voters. To remain relevant and representative, the party must adopt a pragmatic approach that respects and includes both perspectives.

The PN must position itself as a future government for all—Catholics, people of other faiths, and non-believers alike. It should reflect the diversity of Maltese society, while still acknowledging and respecting the values of its more conservative grassroots. One way to achieve this balance is by introducing the principle of a free vote on matters of personal morality.

It is essential that the party’s parliamentary group includes individuals who represent the broad spectrum of Maltese public opinion—from conservatives to liberals. This ensures that Catholic voters see their views represented, while also allowing space for differing positions. When it comes to matters of conscience, imposing a uniform party line risks alienating those whose convictions are deeply rooted in their faith.

The PN should therefore focus on being an inclusive political movement—one that unites around common policy goals while allowing room for individual freedom on moral issues. The real debate within the party should be centred on political direction, governance, and national priorities—not moral doctrine.

Sliema’s Struggles: Residents Left Behind by a Pro-Business Government

 

From Seaside Charm to Concrete Jungle

Sliema and its neighbouring towns—St. Julian’s and Gżira—have become the business and commercial heart of Malta. While that may sound like progress, the reality for residents tells a different story. What was once a peaceful seaside town known for its Victorian charm and Art Deco elegance has now been transformed into a dense urban sprawl, choked with high-rise apartments, relentless traffic, and unregulated commercial activity.

Plots of land once housing a single family now accommodate ten to fifteen households. Many of these are short-term lets, offices, or multi-car households, but few buildings offer enough garage space. Congestion has become unbearable. And while residents are expected to adjust, the government continues to favour business development over liveability.

Economic Growth Without Balance

For over a decade under the Labour government, the pace of development has been relentless. Sliema—already densely built—has been pushed to breaking point. The government’s focus has been on enabling growth and attracting business, while the needs of residents have been ignored.

A glaring example of this disregard was the suspension of the residential parking scheme—one of the government’s earliest decisions. In a locality where space is already scarce, residents suddenly found themselves in a daily struggle to find parking, competing with office workers, diners, delivery vans, and tourists. The resulting frustration is not only understandable—it was entirely predictable.

Local Councils Undermined

Local councils, the level of government closest to the people, have found themselves increasingly sidelined. Under Labour, there has been a clear trend of eroding local authority and replacing it with regional structures that lack sensitivity to local needs.

The 2024 Social Impact Assessment made this flaw painfully clear. Sliema was grouped with Birkirkara, Għargħur, and Lija—localities with very different challenges. Despite the quality of the academic work, the study’s relevance was diluted, and its findings have since been ignored.This kind of centralised approach does nothing for the residents who live with the consequences of poor planning every day.

A Questionable Motion from Labour

Against this backdrop, it’s difficult not to be cynical when Labour councillor Ryan Borg presents a motion for a Carrying Capacity Study just days after PN leader Dr. Bernard Grech announced a similar initiative. The timing alone suggests political opportunism. Mr. Borg even took to social media, claiming credit and implying Dr. Grech should have acknowledged his initiative. But gestures mean little when they come from representatives of the same party that caused the crisis in the first place.

Mr. Borg has also accused the Sliema Local Council—led by Mayor John Pillow and other PN representatives—of failing to cooperate with the government on reinstating residential parking. This, despite the fact that it was Labour that suspended the scheme in the first place. The council has, in fact, long advocated for its return. It is not cooperation that has been lacking—it’s government interest.

The Problem with the Motion Itself

Even the motion itself raises eyebrows. It includes no costing, no implementation plan, and suggests that the council should bear the financial burden. A second version of the motion had previously proposed a cost-sharing arrangement with the government and was expected to be presented alongside the mayor. But that plan was scrapped, and instead, a new version was tabled—seconded by the Labour minority leader.

Why the sudden shift? And what does it say about Labour’s sincerity?

A Responsible PN-Led Council

As a PN-majority council, we cannot accept a motion that asks us to pay for a study likely to be ignored, just like the 2024 Social Impact Assessment. If such a study is to be meaningful, it must be funded by the government. Only then can we hope it will be treated with the seriousness it deserves.

The claim that the council has the money to fund this alone is misleading. Our financial stability is the result of prudent management and responsible budgeting by previous PN-led administrations. These funds exist to serve residents, not to be wasted on motions designed for political theatre.

Our Position: Study, But Only With Commitment

Nevertheless, we are not against the idea of a Carrying Capacity Study. In fact, we see it as necessary. But it must be done right—led in good faith, funded properly, and tailored to Sliema’s specific situation. And most importantly, it must lead to action. Studies that sit on shelves serve no one.

Moving Forward for Sliema

Our commitment remains clear: to defend the quality of life in Sliema and to resist attempts to reduce the town to a commercial free-for-all. We will continue to advocate for planning that serves residents, not just developers and business owners. This town deserves better—and so do the people who call it home.

Local Councils and their detrioration under a PL government.

  

If we are to understand what local councils are meant to be, not what the PL government has transformed them into; voting for the PN should be everyone's natural choice. It is a known fact that the party that truly believes in importance that local councils have to the lives of people lives is the PN. Contrary to this, the PL government considers local government goes against what their true intention is, which is having more power in their hands to influence elections to their favour. For this reason, under a PL government we are experiencing the erosion of the local council, favoring a system that centralizes power. PL confuses local government with customer care, thus impacting the lives of people with inefficiencies that are avoidable in a truly decentralised system. The efficiency brought by a PN government in 1993 when introducing local council no longer exists, and is replaced with malfunctioning system, which ensures more resources to Labour leaning council as to make them look better. It is a system that runs through the present government and its agencies, one that is intended to trade in influence to the detriment of us all.

 The creation of regional councils was intended at bringing local councils of the same region to work together on projects that benefit that given region. The true purpose of regional councils was however betrayed when they became an excuse for the PL government to strip the local councils of their powers. From garbage collection to environmental management and infrastructural maintenance, these all happen to fall under the regional council. Typically, the PL government have sought to fool people by defining regional councils as one thing only to transform them into something completely different. The ultimate aim of coordinating and supporting local councils within the region was thrown out of the window, only to encroach projects that are supposed to implemented locally. Local councils have been blamed by some for the lack of efficiency in our towns and villages. Yet this lack of efficiency is coming to a large degree from the government, especially the Public Works and Infrastructure Malta. The inefficiency of these two entities has fallen on the lap of the Local Councils, especially those with a PN majority. 

If we are to take, for example, public gardens, their day-to-day maintenance falls under the local councils. However, landscaping projects fall under the responsibility of the Public Works. In other words, renovation in public gardens as is in Independence Gardens in Sliema the local council I form part of falls under  the Public Works. Moreover, public gardens also fall under the Ministry for the Environment, Climate Change and Planning or Parks Malta which is a government agency. Just imagine what the PL government and their agencies wouldn't do to undermine PN Local Councils and in this way fomment an anti-local council environment in the locality. Little do they care that it is we as Sliema residents who are suffering their dirty tricks. Fortunately, however, local councils with a PN majority as is that in Sliema refuse to fall for this kind of trickery, and are always there to put pressure on both Government Agencies and Ministries.

If we take major road works in Malta, these fall under the responsibility of the government agency, Infrastructure Malta. If we consider the way work is done in towns and villages that have a PN majority as is Sliema, one could see only inefficiency at its worst. A case in point is how Infrastructure Malta worked on the High Street in Sliema. There were times when the number of workers on the site did not justify the magnitude of the project. It took way too long for the project to be completed, and not to mention the damage made of people's properties. Had it not been for the pressure that a PN local council made on Infrastructure Malta, especially the Mayor John Pillow, I am pretty sure that the job would be still halfway through till this very day.   

 

Why Voting PN is Good for the Environment

 As we are approach the general election on March 26th, we are faced with two choices that will determine how our country will be governed for the next 5 years. We are either stuck with more of the same with Robert Abela as prime minister, or get the true change that our country needs with Dr. Bernard Grech at the helm of our government. The current brand of Labour politics has been far from innovative, stultified in the past, both in the way that it perceives our relationship as a country with the EU and the rest of  the world, and also  the way that our country is governed in general. The truly progressive party in Malta is the PN, with a track record that speaks for itself, and a electoral program that really caters for our country's needs. Amongst the many progressive pledges, one will find that there is a lot about repairing the environment in the PN's program, which also includes our international obligations with regards global warming.  

A good quality of life is what every government needs to cater for, and it is reasonable to argue that the present government has a horrible record on this regard. The PL government has spent the last 9 years in a construction frenzy, senseless planning, and an unprecedented greed for land and money. The mantra is that whatever makes money is acceptable, which has brought our country to a situation in which it is overcrowded due to imported cheap labour, dirty, and with limited open spaces to enjoy. Although the prime minister promised more open spaces in this campaign, the government's track record is there for all of us to see. On the other hand the PN is serious about making our environment one that people could enjoy. Open spaces are a must in a country that is as densely populated as is ours. With this in mind, the PN is pledging an increase of 50,000 square meters of ODZ land. It is important to create urban open spaces. However, it is wrong to come up with a plan that solely creates man made open spaces, without ensuring the existence of our natural environment as PL does. Moreover, every attempt by the PL government to create open spaces has led to more concrete and bland spaces, as is the main square in Paola among many others. On the other hand ODZ under a PN government is better protected, as what is being pledged is that there is a  need of two thirds of parliament for the development of ODZ land. The involvement of civil society on decisions having to do with the environment is also included in the PNs program, which is a step towards democratizing our environment.    

Reaching a target 80% of our country's carbon emission target by 2030 is another ambitious but needed target that a PN government will achieve. This is a pledge by a prospective PN government that will decrease the number of respiratory diseases, as well as contribute towards the fight against global warming. The PN are committed to reach targets not only for our country, but also for the entire planet. The EU made a commitment under the Paris agreement to the Secretariat of the UN Convention on Climate change to reduce carbon emissions by 55%, the PN is committed to this, because unlike PL their politics is about Malta in a wider world.       

Of Thugs and politics

The word democracy is being used a lot during a time wherein decisions need to be taken about the future of the PN. There are those who on the social media define democracy in ways that are worry, and act in ways that is definitely the antithesis of how a truly functioning democracy should be. The definition of democracy by those who vehemently support Adrian Delia is that once a leader is chosen he has to remain at the helm whatever happens. This is no democracy. They fail to realise that a true democracy is an ongoing process, and that if a leader fails to deliver, or his leadership is put to question by a reasonable number of activists, a new ballot is required.

It has been more about thuggish behaviour, crass language on the social media, and no substance at all, than a true debate on how we wish to see our party today and in the future. This opportunity to renew our party has become a platform for thugs to show how thuggish they are, and the myopic to manifest a trait that only brings stultification, and no good to our party and even less to our country. What politicians say about being close to the people has become chaos at its worst. It has become an excuse for party members who support the current leader to attack on Facebook all those who refuse to adopt a myopic attitude, and who are more inclined towards being constructive. Facebook is being used by Delia supporters to attack the activists, MPs and MEPs of our party. They are acting as their judge and executioner, and when all this happens no one in the current leadership bats an eyelid. This is the situation that our party is in. And, whatever the result is this Saturday, things will have to change if any progress is to be made to our party, and its prospect of becoming a stronger opposition is possible.

We cannot have thugs lurking in front of Dar Centrali, threatening journalists, and activists who do not share their unquestioned loyalty to the current leader. Under Delia's leadership, our party has become unrecognisable to what it was under past leaders, and not in a positive manner. The New Way is as negative as we could get. Adrian Delia hasn't brought progress to the PN. He has transformed our party into one in which MPs are followed and spied upon by his closest aids, threatened and ridiculed on private Facebook pages, and humiliated by a mob. He has created an environment in which activists are being called all sort of disparaging adjectives by some of those who have been part of his entourage ever since he decided to contest the leadership election in 2017. A look outside Dar Centrali bears witness to this

This comes with no surprise, when considering that Delia's rhetoric during the leadership election could be defined as nothing other than rabble rousing. When he became leader, his approach did soften to some extent. Yet, those who he holds close to him, his henchmen (so-to-say) still share the kind of bullish attitude that attracted them to him in the first place. His inaction has made the mob stronger, transforming our party from one wherein thoughtful debate happens freely, into one in which mob rule is rife. The idea of being close to the people and opening the doors of the Dar Centrali has become an excuse for mob behaviour. Moreover, the voice of the mob is given priority over that of the elected MPs, who represent not only the party members and activists, but all those who have voted for them beyond the party affiliations. The party is being held hostage by the mob, and their leader is no other person than Adrian Delia. For that reason alone Delia has to go.

Politicians are there to lead. It isn't the mob that leads, but politicians who look into their needs and come up with solutions. Being close to the people doesn't mean that everything they say or do is acceptable, or that politician should take their solutions as the solution to the problem. Politicians are there to find solutions to the problems, and to do so they need to understand what the problem is by being close to the people. Allowing the people to come up with solutions for the party, while rubbishing politicians in the process by calling them the establishment that should be thrown out was the worst thing to do during the leadership election. Delia sought simplistic solutions for complicated problems. This is so typical of the populist movements we are seeing today. The establishment includes the free press who were attacked by thugs in front of Dar Centrali.

    



  

Daphne Caruana Galizia, Maltese Society, and Partisan Politics

 Journalism is one of the most important pillars of our democracy, there is no denying it, as journalism is what guarantees that those who are supposed to live up to our democracy - those who are in power as are politician and influential individuals of  our society - are held accountable for their actions. Politicians should accept and also respect that journalists are going to be critical of them when there is the need to do so, and that it is their (the politicians') responsibility to prove to the journalists that they are wrong about what they are saying about them. And, if politicians are unable to defend themselves against what is being said about them, about their honesty and integrity, then they ought to resign from their respective positions. There should be no doubt allowed about the integrity of  politicians by those whose country it is their duty govern, nor should there be doubt on the integrity of those who are on the opposition benches in a liberal democracy, as doubt is what will subsequently bring a lack of trust of the political classes, which will not happen without repercussions to that same liberal democracy. Moreover, it also boils down to an issue of competence: imagine how competent politicians are at living up to the interests of their country and society, if they are unable to live up to their own interest in portraying their true selves as honest persons  (i.e. if what is being said about them is not true). And, it goes without saying that people who lack honesty and integrity should not even be trusted on more trivial matters, never mind politics. Daphne Caruana Galizia had written in her blog allegations that are more than unflattering towards some politicians, corroborated by documents, that albeit inconclusive if some want to make them so, make the position of certain politicians untenable. The untenable nature of their positions still stands today even that Caruana Galizia is dead, and even if these politicians decide to withdraw their libel cases against her, possibly to cover up their own alleged wrongdoings. From allegations of brothels to money laundering to failed promises of credible audits, accountability runs very low in our country,  too low for us to consider ourselves as a normal EU country. For this reason, one trusts that  Daphne Caruana Galizia's family will continue to seek answers, by being exigent that all the libel cases by politicians on her are brought in front of the court as planned. They have already done so with a minister, and for we should all be grateful to them for that, as they continue the fight that Daphne Caruana Galizia had started.  


 Malta is a hostile country to independent and investigative journalism, and also to journalism that requires some kind of thinking or discernment, as people are more inclined to being impressed by what they hold at face value. For this reason, some kinds of radio programmes go down pretty well with the general public, especially if these are of a partisan nature, and require no discernment at all, as opinions are fed to them ready cooked in the form of what one may define as propaganda. Unfortunately, certain kinds of blogs or newspapers (including foreign newspapers) that require more thought and discernment are only read by the very few, and there are some who would read them, because of the allegations they make against the foe of the party that they support. These blogs and newspapers are read by some when they are endorsed by the politicians who they support, and are attacked if they are attacked by those same politicians, or others who they have come to support. It is easier for people to listen to a one sided attack on the party, politician, or journalist they disagree with and come to hate, than to adopt an attitude of true analysis of a situation. And, moreover, we are a country that is happy with sermons and dogmatic speeches on the radio stations, and frown upon free thought or speech, especially when this goes against our parochial and partisan attitudes. People adore politicians, as if they were statues in our parish churches - demigods of an infallible sort, who ought not be questioned, as it would sinful to do so. The same attitudes of scantily dress young women on the shoulders of men of a macho disposition in parish feasts, is seen in mass meetings of our political parties, as these consider politics as if what matters are the piques that lie deep in our culture. With this kind of attitude, and with an inability of some form of discernment, what we get is an attitude that says that the only important aspect to politics is to win, over and above what is best for our country and for the future generations, as it is good to celebrate in the way they do in their parish feasts, and the more satisfactory to spite one's own adversary. Our choice of a leader is based on whether our party will win or loose under his/her leadership, not on the principles that should guide our choices for a common good.

Some people find Caruana Galizia's pictures taken of random individuals at mass meetings or elsewhere, and her comments on the way that they were dressed and/or even behaved as unacceptable. Those who are critical, especially those on the left of our political spectrum, believe that this kind of journalism is prejudiced and brings class hatred into the equation. I am sure that that wasn't the intention of Caruana Galizia. Albeit there might be some truth in their criticism that it isn't right to invade one's own privacy, I can also see a failure on their part to understand what stood behind those pictures i.e. a critique of and against the parochial attitude ingrained in our culture - the macho culture of some men, and the submissiveness of certain kinds of women. She never limited her critique to class, as one may see from her commentary and photos of ministers, members of the opposition party, as well as businessmen/women. Caruana Galizia was critical of the same aspects in society that her own critics were also being critical of. The difference was in the way she did it.

We may see how some politicians do thrive on the attitudes that Caruana Galizia used to hate. The problem is that that kind of attitude is widespread and dominant in our culture, and that it is difficult for any journalist to promote a kind of position in society that goes against this ingrained culture. During the past decades, Caruana Galizia's blog was perceived as if it were a beckon of truth by people who supported the P.N, and was seen as the opposite by those who supported the P.L. Some of those in the P.L who were against what Caruana Galizia spewed hatred against her, calling her a witch, threatened her, and used all kinds of violent adjectives to describe her. Then came the leadership election of the P.N., and some in the party stopped supporting what Caruana Galizia had to say before the general election, and blamed her for the P.N.'s drubbing in the 3rd June general election. Rightly or wrongly, she was  critical of Adrian Delia who then became party and opposition leader after winning the leadership election. At that point we began to witness the same kind of violent attacks on the social media by the supporters of Delia. The attacks were no different to the venom that spewed out of those on the other side of fence, it was the same kind of venom by different people belonging to the same culture of parochial ignorance.
 


         

Who is harming the P.N.?

Sometimes I expect too much from people. Then I am befuddled by what they say, and I think to myself - and sometimes think so aloud on the social media - that there are people who are just unable to grasp things as they stand. We can all see  - i.e. if we are not too  myopic to do so - that there are a significant number of people who are just not convinced by Adrian Delia's leadership. This is a fact that cannot be denied, and whoever does deny this fact, or tries to give an impression that this is not the case by stating that there has been 600 new members in the P.N. are living in a parallel universe that few people know of. We need to face the facts, even if they hurt, or are so unpalatable for us that we manifest our denial and anger with an indignation that sounds more like a tantrum than anything close to somber or constructive reasoning.

In no way am I suggesting that because of this haemorrhage Delia must go. It goes without saying that it is only fair to give the man a chance to prove himself. My point is that there are people who support Delia who are harming him unknowingly - and the party also - and who are so blindly livid, or possessed by a paranoia of an acute kind that they are unable to understand that what they are doing or saying is what is leading to what they themselves are dreading. I will state fairly and squarely that telling people to join the P.L., because they do not support Delia is stupid to say the least. Don't these people realize that if doubters leave the P.N. altogether, there is little chance of any kind of inroads in the next electoral challenge in less than to two years time? Don't they realize that intelligent people do not follow leaders at all cost, and that honourable people are those who are true to themselves? It seems that they are unable or unwilling to reason that way, and for that reason, I am able to state with a degree of certainty that their attitude is what will be the downfall of the P.N., not those who are critical, and who are entitled to be so. You do not tell an intelligent person to shut up, without repercussions.

My advice to Adrian Delia is that he should attempt to calm people down, by telling his own supporters - obviously by persuading them about the harm they are inflicting to his leadership and the party - to stop kinds of comments such as: "you are negative for discussing the idea of a free vote in parliament" or worse still: "you are annoying a lot Nationalists, because you are giving an opinion". People are entitled to an opinion, and a debate on issues of different kinds should transcend the walls of the Dar Centrali. If you want to bring politics to the people, the worst thing you can do is to treat the leader of a party as some kind of titular statue in a village festa, or attempt to shut people up, or worse still, expect everyone's brain activity to be so backwards that the only contribution that they could give to a political debate is: "Delia!!! Delia!!" That's not what the P.N. need. The P.N. should be in the kazini, the grocer etc., but must also be a party that accepts constructive criticism by people who support it. The P.N. should not be a monastery, wherein things are done behind closed doors. The P.N. should be a party that embraces criticism, and is so close to the people that doubters are contacted, and given a voice in within the party. I will advise Delia that it is easy to be liked by some people, because notwithstanding the fact that you are the leader, you seem to be one of us or them - depending on how you see it - by making coffees in kazini, and playing table tennis, or billiards with students. However, you might also need to address the more difficult task of speaking to those who are less easily persuaded about your qualities.