Labour is falsely claiming that PN wants to remove energy subsidies. PN does not want to remove subsidies — 'is-sussidju non si tocca'.
Two-part claim. (1) Labour HAS publicly attacked PN as wanting to remove subsidies — companion #114 documents Robert Abela's framing that Alex Borg called energy subsidies 'short-lived', and PL ministers have repeatedly used the 'PN will scrap subsidies' line in campaign attacks. (2) PN's current campaign position is the explicit commitment Delia describes ('is-sussidju non si tocca' — the subsidy is untouchable). What complicates the picture: PN's own past framing has been mixed. Alex Borg did call subsidies 'short-lived' (#114 True verdict) and PN past communications have characterised them as fiscally unsustainable. So Delia is right that PL is attacking PN's position on subsidies, and right that PN's current campaign position commits to maintaining them, but PN's own prior framing fed the attack line.
Two-part claim. (1) Labour HAS publicly attacked PN as wanting to remove subsidies — companion #114 documents Robert Abela's framing that Alex Borg called energy subsidies 'short-lived', and PL ministers have repeatedly used the 'PN will scrap subsidies' line in campaign attacks. (2) PN's current campaign position is the explicit commitment Delia describes ('is-sussidju non si tocca' — the subsidy is untouchable). What complicates the picture: PN's own past framing has been mixed. Alex Borg did call subsidies 'short-lived' (#114 True verdict) and PN past communications have characterised them as fiscally unsustainable. So Delia is right that PL is attacking PN's position on subsidies, and right that PN's current campaign position commits to maintaining them, but PN's own prior framing fed the attack line.
We tested Delia's two-part claim against (a) the documentary record of PL public communications attacking PN's position on energy subsidies — Robert Abela's framing in companion fact-check #114, repeated PL ministerial statements across the campaign — and (b) PN's own current campaign commitments via Borg's PN press conferences and the PN 2026 policy programme. The methodological question is whether the PL attack line is documented and whether PN's current position is the clean commitment Delia describes.
Verdict lands at Mostly true because both halves are broadly supported: PL has publicly attacked PN's subsidies position repeatedly across the campaign, and PN's current campaign commitment is explicit on maintaining subsidies. The Mostly true rather than fully True reflects that Alex Borg himself did characterise energy subsidies as 'short-lived' (companion #114 — True verdict), and PN's earlier communications across the legislature were less unconditionally pro-subsidy than the current 'non si tocca' framing — giving PL's attack line a documentary foothold even if the current PN campaign position is unambiguous. The deep-dive lays out both the PL attack record and PN's position evolution.
Is Labour really falsely claiming PN wants to remove energy subsidies
Tested against the documentary record of PL public communications on energy subsidies, PN's current 2026 campaign position, and Alex Borg's prior statements characterising subsidies as "short-lived" (companion fact-check #114). Delia's defence has two distinct parts — that PL is attacking PN's subsidies position, and that PN's current position is explicit on maintaining them. Both are supported on the documentary record. The complication: PN's own past framing has been mixed enough to give the PL attack line a foothold.
Part 1 — PL has been attacking PN's subsidies position
The PL framing Delia is rebutting is well-documented. Companion fact-check #114 verifies Robert Abela's public characterisation of Alex Borg as having called energy subsidies "short-lived" — verdict True on Abela's claim that Borg used that phrasing. PL ministers and party communications have repeatedly deployed variations of "PN will scrap subsidies" / "PN cannot commit to subsidies" across the campaign, including in the contrast with PL's own subsidies-as-achievement framing (companion #142).
So the PL attack line is real — it is happening in the campaign, and Delia is accurately describing what PL is saying about PN. The question is whether the attack line is "false" or whether it has a documentary basis in PN's own prior framing.
Part 2 — PN's current campaign position is the "non si tocca" commitment
Delia's quote — "Il-Partit Nazzjonalista ma jridx ineħħi s-sussidji... We will not be toying with subsidies. Is-sussidju non si tocca" — represents the PN 2026 campaign commitment that energy subsidies will be maintained. This is the explicit, unconditional position the PN campaign is running on. On its own terms, this is a clear commitment, not a hedged one.
So Delia's representation of PN's current position is accurate as a description of the current campaign commitment.
The complication — PN's past framing was less unconditional
The PL attack line is not fabricated from nothing. Borg himself characterised subsidies as "short-lived" — companion fact-check #114 has the verdict True on Abela's framing of Borg's phrasing. PN communications across the legislature have at various moments characterised the subsidy programme as fiscally unsustainable, and the EC + IMF critique of subsidy fiscal cost (companion #153) was the policy framing PN's earlier "short-lived" positioning drew on.
So the position evolution is: PN earlier characterised subsidies as fiscally short-lived (Borg's quoted phrasing, companion #114); PN's current campaign commitment is the unconditional "non si tocca" framing. Both are part of PN's record. PL's attack line uses the earlier framing; PN's current campaign position is the later framing. Delia is accurate that the current position is "non si tocca"; he is less accurate that the PL attack is "false" — it draws on documented PN framing from earlier in the legislature.
So is the claim accurate?
Both halves of Delia's two-part claim are supported on the documentary record. PL has been attacking PN's position on energy subsidies across the campaign, and PN's current campaign commitment is the explicit "non si tocca" framing Delia describes. The Mostly true rather than fully True reflects that the PL attack line is not "false" in the strong sense — it draws on Borg's own documented prior framing of subsidies as "short-lived" (companion #114), giving the PL attack a documentary foothold even if the current PN campaign position is unambiguous.
Verdict: Mostly true.