The Prime Minister gently chided us for bringing up two issues which he did not really wish to discuss in the interview with him we are carrying today: unrest on the backbench and what should be done with the opera house site.
On the day it was announced Malta had officially come out of recession (the interview was conducted last Thursday), he said: "This is fascinating... As we're talking, the BBC is announcing a general strike in Greece. Today I'm being asked about the roof of a theatre and a group of backbenchers. It speaks volumes about our success."
Two points are immediately apparent in the light of such a statement: This newspaper was not the body that conceived the plan for a new entrance to Valletta. It was his doing. So if a trivial talking point emerged during a period of economic depression, it is because he put it firmly on the agenda.
It is at best naive, at worst intolerant not to expect such a grand scale project to lead to controversy, when in Malta the capital punishment of flies would probably lead to a divisive debate.
Second, we did not put the backbench issue on the national agenda either. Nationalist MPs like Robert Arrigo, Jean Pierre Farrugia, Jesmond Mugliett and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando did by expressing disagreement with the government, or discontent. And Franco Debono did by walking out of Parliament just before a vote was taken, hardly a common occurrence in Maltese politics.
We as the press did our duty by reporting it and following up the issues that inevitably emanated from it. So it stands to reason that we will ask the Prime Minister about these topics during the first interview conducted with him since the incidents took place.
It is also legitimate that we ask him whether his decision to appoint some MPs as parliamentary rapporteurs - what this means has yet to be defined - was motivated more fundamentally by considerations to steady the ship rather than improving the running of the country. Particularly since some people believe it has not been adequately thought through and risks being undone when put into practice, especially if the new voices within the ministries are not given adequate attention. Or whether it goes against the concept not just of governing with a small Cabinet, but Cabinet government as a whole.
He would have preferred to talk about his - whatever happened to the campaign slogan 'together, everything is possible'? - ability to keep the economy afloat when those of other countries, notably Greece, have either been taking on water or sinking. And well he might. This has been no mean feat.
Yet if his ability to deal with the crucial aspects of our economy in a time of crisis has been a success, his apparent unwillingness to see the need to take the time and make the effort to communicate his moves and policies has been a failure.
In the same manner as the US President but to a greater extent, Lawrence Gonzi seems to have lost sight of what it was that won him the election in the first two weeks of the 2008 campaign - his ability to persuade the electorate that what he and his colleagues are doing is right, which is the very essence of every successful politician.
And only when that element moves towards the top of his agenda once again will he be able to recover lost ground and move forward.