The Prime Minister has made it clear that the country cannot wait for the opposition to make up its mind.

Speaking to journalists following a Cabinet meeting on Monday, Dr Lawrence Gonzi said that a decision on who will be the new Speaker of the House of Representatives must be taken before Parliament convenes for the first time in this legislature on 10 May.

As a result, the government is seeking a discussion with the opposition on this and other matters that are considered to be of urgency.

The Prime Minister’s statement was, in a way, corroborated by the MLP acting leader Charles Mangion who, in comments given to this newspaper, said that the discussion on the Speaker would involve both himself and outgoing MLP leader Alfred Sant, who is constitutionally still considered to be the Opposition Leader.

In fact, a few hours after Dr Gonzi’s press conference, Dr Sant and Dr Mangion held a meeting with the PM in Castille.

The government had until 11 May to call for the first parliamentary sitting, and has in fact opted to wait until the last available Saturday (10 May) to open Parliament.

By that time, however, the opposition will still be without a new leader, as the MLP has chosen to take three full months before finding a replacement for Dr Sant, who resigned after the election.

It must however be said that on Monday night the MLP – following the meeting Dr Sant and Dr Mangion had with the Prime Minister – took a number of decisions with regard to how it will operate in Parliament, at least on a temporary basis, until a permanent decision is taken presumably after the election of the new leader.

The reason behind the MLP’s idea to wait three whole months to elect a new leader may have been stemmed from the fact that the party wanted things to cool down after its election defeat, and to give prospective candidates the opportunity to present themselves in the best way possible in the race for the leadership. This line of reasoning could, in part, be justified in that the party did not want to take a rash decision, and possibly face the consequences later.

The party wanted to make sure that all those who had an interest in the party leadership had enough time to come up with proposals for a new beginning for the Labour Party, and be judged accordingly.

Yet, at the same time, it must be observed that the three-month lull seems to be a rather prolonged time for a political party to remain rudderless, and considering that right now we are still in the middle of the campaign for the new MLP leader, such a decision, which was taken a few days after the election defeat, is preventing the party from turning over a new chapter.

The three-month gap in between the election and the appointment of the new leader has also allowed for too much speculation to go on, in particular about the candidates who are contesting for the leadership. Stories and counter-stories about Labour’s past are emerging practically every week, and this is not conducive to the positive image that Labour would like to project.

Some of these stories have exposed the party to some criticism, while others were intended to cause rifts and division among the candidates. We are still midway through the MLP leadership campaign, and the remaining six weeks could potentially be a volatile time for a party in transition as more “revelations” are made.

What is important is that the party continues to take the remaining six weeks of the campaign seriously in order to elect the right leader.