PM blames 'responsible decisions' for defeat

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday said the electoral loss suffered by the Nationalist Party had come as no surprise since the party had had indications of such a result for some weeks.

Addressing a news conference at the party's headquarters in Pietá, Dr Gonzi admitted that his party had lost the local elections, with a result four percentage points lower than in the elections held three years ago. It had suffered a net loss of six councillors and lost its majority in the Mqabba and Sta Venera councils.

However, one had to keep in mind that the PN was still in the second year of its legislature and the general election was still a few years away, he said.

The government was carrying out an ambitious reform programme and as a responsible government it was making responsible decisions which could weaken the party's popularity.

"Every politician likes to win but the country is winning, even though my party may be losing...

"We could have chosen the easy way out but we did not. We are taking decisions in the best interest of the country but with sensitivity and an understanding of the people's criticism.

"At the same time we are trying to explain that what we are doing will bear results," Dr Gonzi said.

The easy way was to do nothing. "But this is not part of our nature."

The result obtained, he said, had to be looked at objectively. Compared to 2002, there had been a low turnout - 68 per cent. But comparing like with like, the PN still lost four percentage points. On the other hand, the Labour Party increased its support by nearly five percentage points. And although the PN gained a councillor in Dingli, its net loss amounted to six. It also lost two majorities.

The only surprise, Dr Gonzi said, was losing Sta Venera. The party had not expected such a result in that locality.

However, it knew the result would be borderline at Mqabba and although the PN had won a majority of votes there, it now only had a minority of seats. Dr Gonzi said the result of the local elections spoke for itself and could not be interpreted on a national level, as was being done by the Leader of the Opposition.

For one thing, the turnout could not be compared to the turnout at national elections. One also had to keep in mind that national elections would not be held for another three years and a lot more work had to be done in this period. So an objective analysis had to be made.

The Prime Minister said the result could have two important dimensions: that the government's policies had affected it by causing some people to abstain and that there were purely local reasons for the outcome.

Whichever way the result was analysed, the government was taking note of it. It was putting value in the people's message.

It would move ahead while keeping its feet on the ground and as a party in government it would remain concentrated and focused so that the measures being taken would bear results. Some results, such as deficit control and economic revival, were already being achieved but other measures taken more recently required more time to work.

The government, Dr Gonzi said, was determined to continue working with the determination the country deserved. "We learn from our mistakes but we will remain focused on the work the country requires to be done."

Asked whether the government was willing to change the electoral system to ensure better proportionality, Dr Gonzi said his government was open to suggestions as to how it could be improved to avoid the scandalous result achieved in 1981 when the PN won a majority of votes but a minority of seats and could not administer the country.

Asked to divulge the strategy behind the party's decision to withdraw candidates from Zejtun and Marsa so that an election in these localities would not be necessary, Dr Gonzi said he was not ready to divulge any of the party's strategies.

Asked whether he thought insulting a comment by his deputy Tonio Borg that through abstaining the people had voted with their feet, the Prime Minister appealed for this expression not to be interpreted as an insult. When one referred to someone as voting with one's feet, it only meant that one had decided to stay at home rather than go out and cast one's vote. The people who did this had made an important decision too and the PN had to pay attention to the fact that a mass of people had chosen to stay at home.

One also had to keep in mind the fact that the people who were called to the polls this time round had had to vote five times in a relatively short period, so besides a protest vote, there could also have been electoral fatigue.