A common understanding that is bringing the people of this country together is that Malta can and must be better. The broad majority of the people who play by the rules, work hard and pay taxes are today sharing a spirit of hope as well as will for a change and a fresh start. Change that is necessary for the entire country and for democracy. A call for national renewal where privilege is replaced by merit and where the country is run for the many not the chosen few.
The Nationalist Party, after two decades in government, is outdated. They burst their promises, most of their policies are obsolete and have failed badly, whereas their performance discredited by many. The Prime Minister is best described as weak in a tired, lost and disillusioned government featured by rampant misconduct and sleaziness. It just feels like a great big mess!
The people got tired of the selected few at the top increasingly out of touch with the rest. They are tired of politicians that think they have a divine right to rule this country. No wonder why the general public is sceptic about politics and suspicious of political promises. So much talent has been sadly wasted; so much potential has been left underdeveloped.
Labour is offering to the Maltese people a different political choice. The party has made it clear not to promise what it cannot deliver; and vice versa, to bestow what it promises. A pledge for a fresh start and a commitment to renew and rebuild this country.
For nearly 20 years, the Labour Party has been in opposition. It could not put its policies, beliefs and values into practice. That is why the Labour Party has changed. Like many of the modern social democrat parties, it is keen in its dedication towards social justice and the objectives of the centre-left; nonetheless flexible, modern and forward-looking in the way to achieve them.
The Labour is nowadays a national party, supported by people from all walks of life; from the successful businessman or woman to the elderly; the middle-aged and the young. The exercise of change started four years ago. Since then, the people have elected Labour to the administration of the majority of the local councils across Malta and Gozo. Labour has the majority of mayors and councillors after winning four local council elections, year after year. In the European Parliament elections the party prevailed with a landslide. These were no coincidences. These were not opinion polls. These were elections and Labour party won them all.
The party changed the way it makes policy and has put its relations with all stakeholders a priority on top of the agenda. A new and distinctive approach has been mapped out in which all areas of policy were rewritten following long hours of consultations.
So the party has transformed its beliefs and values into a clear and straightforward vision that encompasses a modern programme of change and renewal. A sight to build an affluent society, rich in economic prosperity, secure in social justice and convinced in attaining an effective political change. A country set to thrive in a global economy of technological change, with a modern welfare state; its politics more accountable; confident of its place in Europe and being a hub for the Mediterranean. A new Labour government working in close joint venture with private business to create the vibrant economy that can meet the competitive economy of the future. A government that seeks to restore trust in politics, that cleans it up so that once and for all put it back at the service of the public.
A New Labour’s vision based on the need and want to build the industry and employment opportunities of the future, tackle the division and inequality in our society, care for and enhance our environment and quality of life, whilst develop modern education and health services. A new Labour government will modernise the welfare state for a modern world keeping in mind that it was a previous Labour administration that moulded and gave birth to the welfare state.
The party’s manifesto will soon be published. The difference is crystal clear with the future versus the past and the many versus the selected few. The choice between a failed Nationalist government worn out and drained, yet doing its utmost to cling on to power and a regenerated Labour party that has been determined in transforming itself into the people’s party.
Like the majority of the younger generation I do strongly believe in Malta’s potential. We, the young, crave for a country which we all feel part of and in whose future we all have a stake. Likewise as the many, I am confident about our future success, even optimistic, if we have the determinacy to change and build a better nation. It is time for this country to move on and move forward.
The Labour party is being understood, supported and trusted. It is once again able to represent all the Maltese people. The citizens of this country want Labour to make a start. They strongly believe that our country does deserve better and that the Labour party will be better for Malta.
We can do it, we will do it.

Josef Cachia
Hamrun

Your correspondent Antonia Mangion (Letters, 26 September) stated that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi “cannot handle fairly straightforward questions”.
If your correspondent’s words are not so pitiful and far from the truth, I would not have stopped laughing at how absurd some arguments can be. Does she remember Alfred Sant being asked by journalists what was happening next after he lost a vote of confidence in parliament in 1998 and his replies, “Attenti mill-wires, ara ma taqghux”?
Also, a few weeks back after he addressed a press conference at Balluta a journalist asked him repeatedly who will be the chosen ones to manage if Labour is elected? He ignored the journalist and kept repeating with a grin things absolutely not connected with the question. 
If your correspondent’s fantasies that Prime Minister Gonzi “adopts an elusive tactic in steering clear of queries” inspired her to cast her vote for Labour, I can only pity her. 
Reality, and judging by his actions and not by his words, I am more than convinced that Lawrence Gonzi is the only leader fit for Malta’s needs; and this is reality and not a dream.

Lauro Fava
Pembroke

I would like to kindly ask for an explanation of why the results for the posts of the Assistant Heads of Primary (Malta) are taking so long to be published.
Mysteriously enough, an amount of teachers who attended the interviews held last August have already been given the post. As far as I know, this goes against all principles of the public service.
In order to be considered valid, all results held within the public service need to be verified and signed by the Public Service Commission before these are considered as correct.
I remember a particular year in recent history, when these interviews were nullified and all teachers had to do the interviews once again. What will happen if this situation is repeated? Why did the Education Division inform the promoted teachers by phone and left all other applicants in the dark about their results and the order of classification?
All teachers who applied for the post have the right to know what is happening with their future.
 
Sergio Belli
Luqa

Your coverage of a ‘changing of the guard’ at one section of the Health Department made interesting reading.
I will not echo valid economic analyses already much harped on. I will merely try and shift the public’s gaze to the British government’s failure in its attempts at reducing high-risk behaviour as a timely warning for our country to avoid repeating such costly mistakes.
Economists at Nottingham University, notably Professor David Paton, the author of a recent study, states that parallels can be drawn between other fields which economists have studied where incentives matter. To quote: “when you introduce policies that seem ‘obvious’, it is important to factor in the possibility that the policies may actually cause people to change how they behave.”
As a science, economics studies what can and is replicable. “Teenage sexual behaviour appears to be a little different to other fields that economists have studied in at least one important respect: incentives matter to teenagers too,” affirms Professor Paton.
“In this case, it appears that some measures (introduced) aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy rates induced changes in teenage behaviour that were large enough not only to negate the intended impact on conceptions, but to have an adverse impact on another important area of sexual health – sexually transmitted infections.”
The British government had assumed, Professor Paton said, that adolescent sexual activity was the outcome of random decisions. His findings suggested that adolescents think rationally about the decision to become sexually active. Therefore, when the cost of birth control declines, its use increases. This was found to hold both for adolescents who were previously having sex and not using birth control and also for adolescents who were previously not indulging in such activity.
This interpretation is underlined by Professor Paton’s data on the morning-after pill. Areas where the pill was made available for free had seen no reduction in teenage pregnancy rates, but sexually transmitted infection rates had increased.
The British government, and not alone, had hailed falling teenage pregnancy levels on its ‘safe sex’ campaigns. But M arch figures showed that after three years of decline, the number of youths becoming pregnant increased by 2.2% to 41,868 in the year 2001 to 2002. Hopefully this costly mistake will be kept in mind by those who might think of emulating the British in their sexual permissiveness which is wrecking the once strong British society.

J Bonett Balzan
St Julian’s