Maybe it is due to my creeping old age plus my experience of politics, but at times I tend to feel cynical over some of the declarations made by our political class. One of those times arrived last week as I tried to follow the debate on the surrealistic Budget for 2013, one drawn up by the previous Government and understandably opposed by the then Opposition, but presented by it once it captured office on understandable grounds – clearance by the European Commission and public confidence in Malta.

Enemalta is practically bankrupt, with a massive €805 million debt guaranteed by the government

Yet, surrealistic it was. It was almost painful following Lawrence Gonzi, now Leader of the Opposition, repeating and repeating why the Opposition was voting in favour of the recycled Budget. Later on in the debate, Dr Gonzi indulged in some self-praise. He said the week’s report by the European Commission on the state of the economy and the financial sector was the best certificate that could be given to his government.

One should not deny him that pleasure, seeing that his political career is now practically over once he decided to give up the ghost after his thumping defeat on March 9. But the Commission certificate did contain a few distinctive blots here and there.

The Commission did not bother to segmentise economic progress, much less analyse the fact that there are important parts of the economy which are not doing well at all. But it did express concern over the long-term viability of the public finances and growing burden of the public debt.

It is not enough to try to reduce the structural deficit as a proportion of nominal Gross Domestic Product. It is essential to forecast or at least guess fairly correctly whether the reduction is sustainable, given that there are some expensively generous benefits which have ‘unsustainability’ splashed all over them in garish colours.

The Commission’s report was also drawn up before the new Minister of Finance, Edward Scicluna, revealed that the 2012 deficit reached €340 million, and not €180 million as forecast by his Nationalist predecessor, Tonio Fenech. The latter’s reply to the failed forecast was as drab as drab can be. He said it was distorted by the failure of Enemalta to pass €66 million to the government, and accused the Government of trickery.

Fact: That amount represents excise duty that should have been transferred to the government a year ago. It was not transferred because Enemalta, operating at substantial loss, has grave cash flow difficulties.

Conclusions: 1. Even adjusting for the €66 million, the forecast deficit was very badly exceeded, by €134 million, or 74 per cent.

2. Given Enemalta’s parlous situation the delayed amount shouldn’t even be included on an accrual basis as one can classify it as a bad debt.

3. Enemalta, for which Fenech was responsible, is practically bankrupt, with a massive €805 million debt – so far – guaranteed by the government.

The Nationalist speakers’ approach to public finances is as cynical as can be. But that is not the reason why my own cynicism surfaced.

It’s been edging up in the context of Joseph Muscat’s desire to be all things to all men, admirably to base governing on a consensus basis. It rose further when I heard the Leader of the Opposition first accusing Dr Muscat of negating his own promises, then saying he was offering his own hand of friendship to the Government.

More facts: The Government so far has kicked friendship in the teeth once or twice, certainly by appointing Franco Debono as coordinator of talks on the Constitution. Appoint him as Commissioner for Laws, yes. As coordinator having to deal also with the Nationalists he had helped topple from office, no. The Constitution task should have been given to someone neutral, say a retired judge.

On its part the Nationalist Opposition, through its media and its MPs, has already gone out of its way to hit the Government as much as it could, including below the belt.

And all this happened in the first month of the new Government’s stint in office. One can guess what will be coming as the next five years unfold.

Truth is that whoever is in office, the opposition opposes practically everything.

There are rare exceptions, like the cooperation on the financial services package, which built strongly on the start made earlier by the services forerunner, which included stalwarts like Anthony Curmi at its helm.

But as a general rule, the opposition of the day disagrees with the government in a kneejerk reaction.

On its part, the Government of the day rides a high horse. Gonzi’s steed could not be higher between 2008 and 2013, though he won the 2008 general election by a gasp and half.

Given the Labour Government’s massive victory it would be surprising if the Administration did not swagger a bit now and then, despite pre- and postelection promises. That is the way of politics. That is why I become cynical when I hear declarations of good intention and see hands reaching out in declared friendship.

There are areas where MPs can cooperate. For instance, they should carry out an early review of the various codes of ethics, such as that applying to ministers and parliamentary secretaries prohibiting them from doing any of the work they did before assuming office, even on a non-payment basis.

That’s a good point, but there should be structured and supervised exceptions.

Members of the medical profession, for instance, have patients who depend on them, whether for their speciality or psychologically. Suddenly these patients find themselves abandoned, as some of them lamented in the letters pages of The Times stable.

According to the existing codes of ethics, that is right. But does it make sense?

The House would do worse than setting about spring cleaning with a sensible brush and agreeing on a few measures that cost nothing but mean a lot to many people.