Is there a new general election due tomorrow, or what? One might be excused for wondering that out loud, given the flood of positioning, fomenting and spin coming from the various nooks and crannies of the political class.

That same class which, one would have presumed, would take a short break to catch its breath and let its overworked lungs and larynx recover after the excesses of the referendum and election campaigns. The prime minister, sporting a new lease of office, did go on holiday after all that. Not so his party's media.

The Nationalist Party newspapers, sound and vision sections have stayed in full gear in their political aggression against the Labour Party. They do not seem to have kept a copy handy of their leader's address as soon as the April 12 election result became known.

He had called for a reasonable degree of unity so that the country could move forward. His party's media clearly have anything but that on their mind. They do not give any hint of recognition that the PN's majority over Labour was not quite what it seemed to be.

They do mention that it most probably includes an unidentified number of Labour voters, but do not take due cognisance of the implications. The parties, having monitored closely the second preferences of many of the votes counted under their piercing view, will have made their own estimates.

I would hazard a guess that the PN's majority included around 2,000 Labourites, who wanted to ensure Malta joined the EU, and about 2,000 votes that would otherwise have gone to Alternattiva Demokratika.

An adjusted majority remains a majority. And if a majority of one vote is enough under our Constitution, a majority of 6,000 - over two percentage points - is certainly a licence for the winning side to govern. Yet, common sense, basic political decency, and a wise touch of humility would suggest that this government and the PN ought not to be so cock-a-hoop.

As it is, the prime minister has not been able to shape a new administration that had much newness about it. Apart from losing two members of his previous Cabinet, he 'disappointed by not reappointing' only one other long-serving member, Antoine Mifsud Bonnici, who had been parliamentary secretary for 11 years.

He denied himself the opportunity to be bold, and persevered with the trend of appointing over half his MPs to office - 14 as ministers, five as parliamentary secretaries.

He put some square pegs in round holes. The PM also had an invitation turned down by one his MPs, who would only accept to serve as a parliamentary secretary if he could continue with his professional private practice.

Incidentally, that MP's position - that he had a large family to support and could not afford to 'kill' his private practice - can be appreciated in the context of the honestly blunt way he went about setting it out publicly. Less easy to comprehend is how his assertion that others appointed to office - "from both sides" - had done what he wished he could do, meaning accepted office but went on practising privately, was left to stand without official explanation. For more than 14 of the last 16 years there has been a Nationalist government in office.

The prime minister has his hands quite full. That cannot be an excuse for being statesmanlike in speech (twice, in Malta and in Athens) but then have his troops shooting away ferociously as if a new war had started.

One would be too naïve to assume that, unless forced to do otherwise by brutal circumstance, Maltese political parties will continue to march forward not only disunited, but harshly opposed to each other.

Even the idealistic Alternattiva Demokratika was buffeted mercilessly by the Nationalist leader and prime minister in the last week of the election campaign, and is now licking its wounds while growling - sort of - at the unfairness of the treatment meted to it.

The two main parties will never tango together. But to see a fresh, virulent offensive open so soon does not only contradict the Nationalist leader's call for unity, but is disheartening to those who would like to hope that we can start a new chapter in the way we play politics.

That should and will always involve contrasting ideas and clashing styles. But surely, this is a time to consider moving forward on a revised basis, on reaching disagreement through blunt but civilised debate, not through fresh resort to spin and appeals to base emotions.

Tell that to the marines. The Nationalist media, orgasmic jubilation about the EU aside, focus fiercely on the Labour Party, its current leadership, its goings on or lack of it.

They have once again taken it on themselves to try to determine, through spin and subterfuge, who will lead the Labour Opposition from this point on. Rather than leave the job to the party delegates, while analysing what is going on and commenting on it at will, they spin speculation and weave in naughty untruths as well.

The intent is obvious, as I seem to recall it was too in 1992. The Nationalists, with an early eye on the next general election, will do their utmost to ensure that the Labour leadership selected in mid-May, through reappointment or contest, to administer the party will be the one that they feel will be of least threat to their chances five years on.

The prime minister, with more than a touch of paternalism and condescension, talks about what he "expects" from the Opposition. His media scheme and spin how to put spokes in the wheels of those they would prefer not face them, as if intra-party opponents cannot produce enough spokes of their own.

On the Labour side there are two clearly discernible post-April 12 trends. Parts of the party media, not unlike their Nationalist counterparts, act as if the general election has not yet taken place, or as if the next one will be held tomorrow.

That of a fortnight ago, as various Labour commentators have recalled, was the fifth defeat in the six contests held since 1981. No defeat is similar to another. Though the experience of the present leadership stretches across the full period, it cannot be held collectively accountable for 1981, '87, and '92.

The great early crash of 1998, had its special features. These were not present this time round. The parliamentary group and the national executive spoke with one voice. Dom Mintoff went to great pains to demonstrate that he wanted his old party to defeat the Nationalists, even if not for the sake of the current Labour leadership.

Rather than analysing objectively why Labour lost this election as well, though the leadership was so confident of winning, parts of the party lash out in the same pre-election metaphors and style.

Others, though professing to accept responsibility (the buck has to stop somewhere), see nothing to fault in themselves and effectively say of the electorate: "Lord forgive them, for they know not what they are doing."

The other trend, while retaining the dignity of conviction on Labour's stand on Malta's relationship with the EU, centres on affirming that, in reality terms, the Maltese electorate has democratically decided that Malta should join the EU.

Those who have spoken out publicly hold that future policy should be designed within this reality, while strengthening its roots in social democratic principles. Terms like democratic socialism and social democracy were not much in vogue up to the election. That seems likely to change.

What else will change is becoming less and less clear. The Nationalist spin on the Labour leadership helps to stir up the haze and cloud outlook. The Nationalists would love nothing more than to see in total control the Old Guard of what was until 1998 called New Labour.

There is no categorical imperative that the party delegates, the only ones entitled to take such decisions, should not reconfirm those who seek re-election.

Whether there ought to be change, and what bedfellows to encourage is for the delegates alone to determine.

Observers and analysts are free to comment, irrespective of the vicissitudes they have to go through in the process.

Outside the parties, their internal jockeying and external spinning, civil life must go on. Huge social and economic problems cry out to be tackled. That could be done better if the political exchange, within the parties and between them, does rise a few degrees above the humdrum, the bent and the ugly.

If democracy is given more space so that argument is countered with argument, issues are not personalised, and character denigration and assassination is rejected as a dirty tool that self-respecting politicians refuse to employ.

Politics, while continuing to be exercised fully as is essential to democracy, should not once again become the dominant item on the national agenda. Certainly, not so soon a general election has taken place.

It is time, in fact, to set out the national agenda for the four years ahead. It should not be hijacked by politicians and politics. They will come again into their own soon enough, in the year after that. It is far too early, and nationally debilitating, to go into general election mode now.

Toenote

Last week 'Roamer' included my name among those who "may be tempted" by the (hypothetical) Labour leadership. A few others expressed themselves in similar vein. Some Labourites have approached me on the possibility.

No, thank you. I have said my goodbye to all that. Prior to the 1996 general election, I advised my helpers and political colleagues that was to be my last contest. Irrespective of the outcome, I promised my family and myself before it came about, if I were elected that would be for my last term. I would leave politics thereafter.

Without ill feeling or disrespect towards anyone, whatever time is left to me will not include any political role.