In the high-stakes arena of national governance, consistency is more than just a virtue; it is the bedrock of public trust. When a political leader shifts positions with the wind or makes sweeping promises that crumble under the slightest fiscal or logistical scrutiny, it is called “flip-flopping”.

At its core, flip-flopping politics refers to a pattern of behaviour where politicians frequently change their stance on key issues, often to suit the immediate populist mood, or propose half-baked policies that lack a foundation in reality. For the electorate, this creates a dangerous sense of instability.

The Façade of Consultation: A Public Relations and Fund-Raising Stunt

The latest actions and declarations of the Nationalist Party (PN) Leader Alex Borg serve as a textbook study in this brand of political inconsistency. Only a few weeks ago, the PN organized a high-profile “National Convention.” The event was marketed as a grand listening exercise, inviting people from all walks of life—academics, workers, business leadersand others—to help shape the party’s future policies. It was presented as a democratic, bottom-up approach to nation-building.

However, the sincerity of this exercise was called into question barely a month later. With the ink on the convention’s minutes likely still wet, Alex Borg announced that the PN’s upcoming Electoral Manifesto was already finalized and ready. This timeline beggars belief. One must wonder: how could the complex, diverse ideas elicited from a national convention be properly evaluated, costed, and integrated into a comprehensive manifesto in just a few weeks? It suggests that the convention was not a genuine policy-making tool, but rather a public relations and fund-raising stunt designed to give the illusion of inclusion.

The VAT Gamble: An Unnecessary Fiscal Black Hole

Further evidence of this “policy-on-the-fly” approach surfaced last week when Dr. Borg announced a ‘plan’ to slash VAT for catering establishments from 18% to 7% in his first 100 days as Prime Minister. Framed as a bold anti-cost-of-living measure, the proposal collapsed under the weight of its own internal logic within barely forty-eight hours.

The Association of Catering Establishments (ACE) quickly clarified that they had not been consulted. More tellingly, ACE pointed out that such a reduction would likely be used by businesses to mitigate their own rising operational costs rather than being passed on to the consumer. In short: the price of your Saturday dinner or Sunday lunch would remain the same, but the State would lose a massive stream of revenue. Finance Minister Clyde Caruana estimated the cost to the taxpayer at €140 million.

A policy that costs the state €140 million without guaranteed relief for the consumer is not an anti-inflation measure; it is a fiscal black hole. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of market dynamics by Dr Borg and a refusal to engage with the very stakeholders the policy is supposed to help.