In an Opinion Piece just under my Beck column (the cheek), Ms Nikita Alamango let it be known that she is proud to be part of the Labour Party (not a Movement any more, apparently - or did she drift off-message?) for various reasons.

She wrote this because she believes that the Labour Party has solidly been "the support base and shelter to those who need it". She refers to its track record, of which more later, to which I, and many like me who were sentient in the Seventies and Eighties, which she was clearly not, may fairly retort "sure, sweetie, you keep believing that, we know better, we lived through Mintoff and KMB".

To the Lil'Elves, Peculiar Pundits and those who simper "Cool2BLabour” at the drop of a wooly hat, who will accuse me of bringing up the past, I can only point out that Ms Alamango brought it up, not me, for all that I strongly believe that the past, in politics unlike in financial matters, is a guarantee of the future.

Ms Alamango cites "the creation of a social safety net in 1950s, including children allowance and other programmes, credited to have relieved many families from poverty", neglecting to note that the Children's Allowance was introduced in the ’70s.

Echoing the true Labour "hand-outs for the plebs" mentality, she also ignores the fact that real relief from poverty comes from a strong economy, with which only Mintoff's most rabid supporters credit him: the rest of us remember the three-day week and the Labour Corps.

She trumpets the introduction of maternity and other health services "despite attacks by doctors and the Church", failing, as is the wont of re-scribblers of history everywhere, to give even the slightest indication that she is doing anything but parroting Labour mantras that have anything but the truth at their foundation.

Alamango mumbles about the "decriminalisation of homosexuality, allowing individuals, for the first time, equal liberties despite their sexual orientation", which is pure balderdash.

Homosexuality was never "criminalised" in the first place, only sodomy, and it was a "crime" that had long achieved fossil-status. No enactment by Mintoff, KMB or, latterly, Sant "allowed individuals equal liberties", because individuals always had equal liberties.

If anything, Mintoff and KMB did precisely the opposite, but that's another argument.

She talks about "free and mandatory education in the late 1970s", which is, again, crass revisionism: mandatory education was in place long before the 1970s, and it was free education, of which I was a beneficiary probably before Ms Alamango's parents had even met.

The young lady then resurrects the dead dodo, divorce legislation, telling us that, "despite being in opposition, the PL joined in coalition with disgruntled PN members to secure support for a legislation that now affords individuals a second chance at building a loving family."

Forgive me if, at this point, I stifle a bored yawn, while reminding Ms Alamango that I, and a number of others who are hardly definable as "disgruntled PN members", supported the introduction of divorce and, whether the revisionists like it or not, it was a PN Government that enacted the law, despite the fact that it was on neither party's manifesto.

It's sad when you see such unequivocal evidence of total obliviousness to the real history of this country. This young lady has had the opportunity of a getting a solid grounding in the facts, with the means to check things out, but she clearly has eschewed it, preferring to rely on myth and revisionism.