The Prime Minister was at some pains during his winding-up on the Budget motion to remind listeners and viewers that the government is at the half way point of its life. In Malta there are no mid-term elections, as there have just been in the US, where the voters let the incumbent president know how they feel about him and his policies or lack of them.

Nor are there occasional by-elections, as there are in the UK after the death or resignation of an MP. We have opinion polls, which are becoming more professional but, as all such polls are, are based on relatively small and not always representative samples.

We also have local elections which, to an extent, do serve as some barometer to test the government’s standing. The two major political parties have their own internal polls, which are possibly more representative than private ones. The parties keep the results of their polls close to their chests but use them to help the leadership adjust policy.

It is the variations of the style of delivering the policies that largely influences the leadership in government, as against the opposition of the day, which would still be drawing up and shaping its own policies. There are also circumstances, which also shape the style of the government.

In the case of the current government the major circumstance that shaped the Prime Minister’s style was the outcome of the 2008 general election. He won by half a hair’s breath, despite having the advantages which come from fighting the battle while ensconced in office, advantages which, it has become very clear, were used to the full.

That notwithstanding the electorate told Lawrence Gonzi that there was practically no difference between him and Alfred Sant. The restored Prime Minister had a choice to make. He could either display humility towards the electorate, accept that the result was almost a tie and seek to govern in a conciliatory manner, as far as possible sincerely seeking consensus.

Or he could do the opposite, show that all that was needed to govern was a majority of one seat, even if squeezed in with a handful of votes, and administer as forcefully as could to leave no doubt as to who’s boss.

Lawrence Gonzi chose the latter style. From the outset he swaggered into office as boastfully as could be. His body language and subsequent actions said it all. He ensured that, once again, public boards, authorities and corporations were stuffed with party faithful or fellow travellers.

Even in the most sensitive of cases acted against objective technical advice to entrust a major position to a ‘safe’ pair of hands, though the alternatives did not by any means come from within the Labour ranks.

That style of government percolated through all the layers of government, to an extent that soon enough even the ranks began to grow rebellious. Hints of rebellion appeared most openly on the backbenches. The government quelled them through an accentuation of his nakedly partisan style. He created the post of parliamentary assistant, which is not provided for in the Constitution, and he extended funds for it without constitutional approval by the House of Representatives.

With allegiance politically bought thereby, the Nationalist Party focused on ensuring that the rank and file and others who need accommodating were aided as much as possible through a twinning of efforts by the party and the government. The trouble with that approach is that it is impossible to please all the people, all the time.

Whether it is reported to him or not, I cannot tell, but there are fervent Nationalists who are angry with the Prime Minister and his team because they feel they are not getting their share of whatever is going. There are also sympathisers of Gonzi who are aghast at the metamorphosis he has passed through, even allowing for the hurt of the desecration of his parents’ tomb by unknown spiteful hands.

A glimpse of that was his description of Labour as a disease. More visibly, in his televised Budget motion winding-up last Wednesday, he was strident to the point of astonishment.

What does that say? As was shown by various Nationalist speakers last Sunday, the party is acutely conscious that the next general election is not that far away. So, obviously, is the Prime Minister. From now on, every government action will be more calculated than ever with an eye on the election date. The timing of the income tax cut will be one major decision, but there will be others.

Is Gonzi feeling confident about what’s in store? In a sense, he should be. Grassroots Nationalists, like secretly unhappy MPs, have nowhere to go. When push comes to shove, they will vote PN. So will most businesspeople, despite what they are saying now. Joseph Muscat’s chances, having won back the bulk of the Labour vote, lies in capturing more votes from uncommitted under 30s-or-so than Gonzi.

The game is still too open to suggest a result. But the ferociousness of Gonzi is beginning to contrast strongly with Muscat’s more relaxed style. Expect the style and the language to grow harder, as the pollsters in the two parties whisper in their leaders’ ears their latest finding. That most people will continue to complain about the water and electricity tariffs will not be a main deciding factor. Nor the eventual slashing of the top income tax rate.

The personality of the leaders will tell most in the coming 30 months. That, and their ability to attract new credible candidates for the 2013 general election. Early days still, but the countdown has begun.