First things first, apologies for seeming to neglect you all and leaving the previous blog up for so long. I was engaged in interminable discourses in Brussels, on matters which are of interest only to people interested in the subject being discussed (and certainly not to normal human beings) and in the intervals between hot air being expended and chunks of meat being ingested (Brussels seems to have an inordinate number of places where you can eat well) I took my ease

Remiss of me, I know, but such is life.

Another apology is called for – it seems my gentle teasing of Dr Owen Bonnici was taken a bit more seriously than was warranted by some (not including himself) and I was upbraided for picking on him and trying to give the impression that he was talking through his head-gear because he was a callow youth

That’s not the case – I would have poked a bit of harmless fun at him if he had been a doddering old fool. The fact that he’s a mere strip of a lad comes into the equation not at all, though fun is to be had by us grey-beards in baiting the young pups. Age and guile outsmart youthful enthusiasm any day.

While on the subject of apologies, which I’m not, really, but whatever, people who enjoy my passages of arms with the various interlocutors who write in below to gainsay me, sometimes with comment wrapped in insult and thinly-veiled dislike, are often disappointed that I don’t answer them or, sometimes, that my answers are bereft of the same level of insult as is chucked at me.

Well, folks, the thing is, I am as subject to the web-master’s blue mouse-stroke (like the blue pencil an editor wields, but electronic) as all of you, and for some reason, I am held to a higher level of accountability and censure (and censorship) than anyone else.

Thus, when someone writes in and calls me names, if I respond in kind, I’m virtually inked out (in the same way the censors used to daub black ink over the ladies’ interesting bits in Oggi when I was a kid)

There’s also the little problem that I’m studiously ignoring many of the Lil’Elves who write in and try to provoke me into arguing with them. Truth be told, I’m sometimes tempted to revoke the rule and demonstrate to these poor deluded souls that the worst thing to do is argue with a columnist who has thousands of words at his disposal (not to mention, in many cases, a slightly less haphazard grasp of grammar and syntax) but some of these guys are too malevolent to engage.

On the flight back from Brussels via Amsterdam (the only consolation is that it’s so good to be leaving Boring Europolis that even flying for an extra hour isn’t so bad) I leafed through the papers, to be rewarded with being able to look through an interview with Dr Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, President of the MLP (sorry, PL – mustn’t confuse it with PN)

It was a masterly performance by my young(er) friend, though if I were looking at it with the critical eye that must be adopted by examiners, I would have had to have scrawled “seems not to want to answer the question” in red in the margin, before giving him a scraped-through grade.

Let me give you a few fr’instances.

He was being asked about the changes afoot in the MLP to become PL and he responded, to the question put as to whether “The reform is clearly intended to make the party younger at its core... “ with “I think it's better to say that we're better represented across all ages.”

The follow-up was “Do you fear alienating the elderly in the process, which, let's face it, are the group that have stood by the party for years?”, to which the reply was “The party needs to better reflect the ages all across society.”

Moving along, there were other exchanges. Asked whether “If you carried out the reforms a year or two ago, do you believe you would have stood a better chance of winning the election?” the answer was “You can't make comparisons that way.”

What other ways are to make comparisons, pray?

The interview went on: “The report drawn up after the election defeat confirmed the internal problems weighing down the Labour Party. As President, were you aware of these cracks? Did you try to patch things up?” to which the answer was “The most important thing in a political party is to put forward the party's agenda and not the individual's. The success of a party depends on how united it is.”

Question: “What about the fact that a prominent MP like Michael Falzon says he cannot work with Jason Micallef?” Answer: Michael Falzon is making a strong contribution in the sector he's shadowing. The important thing is to extract the best qualities of the individual for the benefit of the party.

Let’s cut to the bottom line, so all the Lil’Elves can jump in and berate me for taking Stefan’s words out of context and leaving out the q&as which were not so evasive.

That’s as may be, but check this one out for a truly masterly piece of sticking to the script, oblivious to what the question is asking: Question: Is Dr Muscat more open to ideas [than his predecessor]?” Answer: “I think he expresses them better than Dr Sant.”

More than this I need not report.