Strange but true - one does find doses of good sense on occasion in the workings of the House of Representatives to keep total cynicism among those who watch from outside at bay.

That came to mind as I read in The Times last Thursday that the evening before opposition whip Joe Mizzi had, unasked, effectively paired with Parliamentary Secretary Mario Galea when the latter could not attend to vote because he was hospitalised with pneumonia.

Mr Mizzi said it was the gentlemanly thing to do. It certainly was and one should look at his action in a wider context than its immediate background. That was, as few will have forgotten, a very unfortunate incident when the Labour whip, under pressure in a TV debate, had referred to the fact the Mr Galea had voted incorrectly after, as it happened, he was having a drink in the House bar with members of the opposition.

It was one of those occasions best forgotten. It was mitigated by the fact that opposition leader Joseph Muscat openly dissociated himself from Mr Mizzi's remark and that the Labour whip had apologised. Quite so: too many words are spoken in anger or without due reflection. There should be far, far fewer of them.

I suppose Mr Mizzi's self-imposed abstention in Mr Galea's absence last Wednesday was an additional gesture of regret for his drink remark. All the better for it, but I prefer to accept it as the gentlemanly thing to do. For, it is just that and should always be so.

The government and the opposition do not have a pairing arrangement. They started off with one but it was broken off by the Labour side after deep disagreement over the way it felt it was being treated. It ended up with a mish-mash of tactical arrangements on voting cunningly devised by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, whereby votes are taken on a Wednesday.

The government, with a one-seat majority, needs flexibility from the opposition. In the absence of that, Dr Gonzi acted draconically, just on the verge of democracy, if at all.

For, parliamentary life without, for instance, the ability to call a snap vote for the opposition to keep the government on its toes loses something of its quality.

As it is, despite the Never-Other-Than-On-Wednesday arrangement, the government still finds itself unable to fulfil all its obligations to attend important meetings abroad. I suggest it is time for the whole relationship in the House to be put on a new footing. It behoves the opposition to do that, with the political proviso that it does it on a quid pro quo basis. That is how politics works.

Yet Labour needs to realise that some of its recent actions have, to put it mildly, blunted the edge with which it wants to penetrate into the electorate and attract new voters to its side. The incident, whether cleverly or inadvertently, created by Leader of the House Tonio Borg when he said that Justyne Caruana, a Labour MP, has also mis-voted on the same vote when Galea unconsciously erred, did Labour no good in that context.

It whipped up those in the Labour grassroots who believe their side should not yield to the government an inch. But it did not go down well with the uncommitted. And it served as a scare for disgruntled Nationalist voters who may have been considering sitting it out at the next election.

Politics includes juggling with anticipated impact. Decisions made in the heat of the moment do not allow for that. Even outside the heat of the moment, deep reflection is essential. For example, I do not see what gain - in penetration terms - there is to the Labour opposition in baying for Dolores Cristina's blood over the maladministration which caused some 600 students to lose out, at least temporarily, on the efficacious use of EU funds.

In terms of strict political responsibility, the opposition is right in saying that the minister should at least have offered to resign. But the principle of strict political responsibility does not seem to apply in Malta, whoever is office. Also, there is considerable doubt as to whether its strictness is always justified in democratic terms, especially in a small parliament where good resources are scarce.

That aside, is Labour winning support among uncommitted or Nationalist students and parents hit by the EU funds gaffe through the clamour for Ms Cristina's resignation? I doubt it. Once again the parallel ruckus raised by the opposition as it hounds the education minister simply defocuses the issue.

That is not to suggest that Labour should go on holiday and let the government trample its way forward. Nor can one forget that the way Dr Gonzi is governing, with his less than half-a-quota majority, is wrong. Without compromising his right to govern as the victor in the 2008 general election, he should have reached out far more from his partisan coral, such as when appointing people to the multitude of government boards, and in his facing of the opposition.

But that is something Labour can exploit. When, instead or in addition, it does things which defocus its legitimate sharp criticism and political attack, or which put it in a bad light, it loses points in the political juggling game. Keeping supporters hot, as Dr Muscat indicated he realised from the word go, is not enough.