Ever since Edward Scicluna was elected member of the European Parliament he has been acting more as a politician than as an economist. Though he remains a leading economist, his party's political call seems to be drawing a strong pull on his arguments. A case in point was when, in one of his recent contributions to this newspaper, he went along with a Labour Party argument suggesting that the government had changed its tune when it linked the hike in utility tariffs not just to the rise in oil prices but to its efforts at cutting the deficit in its finances.

This is what Prof. Scicluna wrote: "So the cat is finally out of the bag. The pain to be suffered by all Maltese firms, families, pensioners and all is but a medicine we need to take to avoid a worse economic outcome such as the one in Greece. The link with oil prices has grown so thin that the main Cabinet protagonists are now explicitly linking the tariffs to the prevention of another Greece in Malta."

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that in the wake of the rise in oil prices the government had opted to keep the entire subsidy on water and electricity, who would have had to foot the bill? The government may well be attacked for deciding to reduce the subsidy the way it did, rather than gradually, as it had often been suggested by many, but it cannot be denied that a heavier subsidy payment to the energy corporation would have further dented state finances. Therefore, the fact that the government may not have handled the matter well does not mean it has no sound case for the removal of the subsidy, or part of it.

Now some may well argue, as Prof. Scicluna does, that the government's economic measures are misguided but others may, equally convincingly, disagree with this, pointing out that its economic direction is in fact producing results. These may not be big enough to give any scope for excitement but, at least, they constitute an improvement, not regression.

Unsurprisingly, Labour is taking full advantage of the sentiment against the rise in tariffs and has often trivialised the issue. There is bound to be opposition to any rise in tariffs of any service from both the consumer and all economic sectors but, once arrangements are made to help out those in real need, the removal of subsidies makes sense as it discourages waste and allows the Administration to make a better use of the funds saved.

Before the presentation of the Budget for this year, Labour argued, that, once the government had been saying that the worst was over, it could well splash out. Labour leader Joseph Muscat argued much on the same lines when, following the announcement of the slight rise in gross domestic product for the fourth quarter last year, he was quoted saying: "If Lawrence Gonzi is so convinced he did the trick and has solved all problems, he might as well want to withdraw the sky-high water and electricity bill increase he voted for last week".

When and where did the government say it has solved all the problems? It is sad that, rather than helping people understand the reality of the situation, Labour over-indulges itself in efforts seemingly directed at confusing issues. This is not a modern way of doing politics and will certainly not draw the moderates or progressives to its side.