Questions surrounding the Nationalist Party’s electoral manifesto continued to intensify on Wednesday as Labour MPs Glenn Bedingfield and Alex Muscat pointed to what they described as repeated proposals, contradictory targets and shifting financial projections within the document.

During a press conference focused on the manifesto’s contents, the two MPs argued that several measures either duplicated existing policies, repeated proposals already listed elsewhere in the document, or referred to legislation that does not exist.

Among the examples highlighted were two separate proposals on private pensions, one referring to increasing the limit of private pension schemes and another proposing stronger incentives for the same scheme. Similar concerns were raised over two measures relating to pensioners changing residence and not paying stamp duty, which Labour described as repeated proposals presented as separate measures.

Bedingfield also accused the PN of lifting proposals from Labour’s manifesto published a week earlier, referencing Prime Minister Robert Abela’s remark during a university debate that the document “would not pass a plagiarism test”.

The manifesto also came under criticism for inconsistencies between the party’s official document and its campaign material.

Particular attention was drawn to the PN’s AI chatbot, which initially listed the party’s renewable energy target at 30 per cent, while the manifesto itself refers to a target of 50 per cent.

“To look sophisticated they created a chatbot. The first thing it said was 30 per cent renewable energy, while the manifesto says 50 per cent. The chatbot said 30 per cent, the leaflet said 50 per cent, and now they’re saying they fixed it,” Bedingfield remarked.

He also took aim at PN MP Alex Borg, joking that since Borg often asks journalists to send him corrections by email, Labour would “make things easier” by drafting one containing all the mistakes identified in the manifesto and sending it to both Borg and the media.

Other proposals, Labour argued, either already exist or refer to legislation that does not exist.

National Insurance credits for students, for example, have already been part of government policy for several years, while a proposal aimed at removing injustices linked to a so-called “double pension act” was criticised on the basis that no such law exists.

Another proposal relating to elderly care contributions had already been addressed in the latest budget, despite the PN having voted against the measure.

Bedingfield described the manifesto as “full of contradictions, mistakes and basic errors”, adding that corrections and clarifications continued to emerge after publication.

A significant part of the criticism focused on the economic projections tied to some of the PN’s flagship proposals.

Labour MP Alex Muscat questioned the credibility of the figures being presented, arguing that repeated changes to projected revenues raised concerns about the reliability of the Opposition’s economic planning.

“Numbers matter. If you get the numbers wrong, you push the country straight into a wall,” Muscat said.

The PN’s proposed offshore fuel hub project was singled out repeatedly during the press conference.

According to Muscat, different figures had been attached to the project at different stages, with earlier estimates referring to €350 million in revenue, later statements mentioning €450 million annually from the third year, and the manifesto itself now referring to €500 million.

At the same time, the document states that revenue generation would only begin after at least five years.

“Three different figures — €350 million, €450 million, €500 million. It sounds like a lotto game,” Muscat said.

Questions were also raised about claims that the project would generate €70 million in taxes despite taking years to complete.

Attention then shifted to proposals relating to AI, data industries and “new space” sectors, where Labour argued that the figures presented had also changed significantly.

Previous statements had referred to a €12 million investment generating €100 million over five years, or roughly €20 million annually. The manifesto, however, now refers to €500 million yearly instead.

“How can people trust the PN to present a national budget if they cannot present consistent numbers in their own manifesto?” Muscat asked.

The proposed cultural district project also came under criticism after previous claims that it would generate €110 million annually were omitted from the manifesto itself.

Reference was additionally made to reports by Times of Malta alleging that the project’s design had been copied from Helsinki.

The PN’s proposed metro system also featured prominently in the criticism, particularly after the Opposition acknowledged that the offshore fuel hub project would take more than five years to complete.

Labour questioned how a metro project could realistically be delivered within the same timeframe, while also criticising the decision to publish studies related to the proposal only after the election.

“They are asking for a mandate on a project while refusing to share the details beforehand,” Muscat said.

The press conference concluded with Labour arguing that the choice facing voters on 30 May was one between competence and incompetence.

The MPs described Labour’s manifesto as clear, structured and fully explained from the first day of the campaign, backed by what they called a strong and competent team capable of implementing its proposals.

“The choice on 30 May has never been clearer,” they said.