As you will see when you read my Saturday column, I didn't watch Dissett when Reno Bugeja was doing his thing with Joseph Muscat, third Labour Leader of the Opposition since 1987. I preferred a couple of glasses of wine.
I did, however, take a look at the report on the interview carried in timesofmalta.com and, completely not to my astonishment, Dr Muscat tried to be all things to all voters, which his advisers seem to have concluded is the best way to position Labour for an electoral victory, come the day. This day is rapidly receding into the middle-distance, more than three years into the future, now that even the Lil'elves are coming to realise that their much-desired backbench revolt is nothing more than a figment of their collective, fevered, imagination.
It is an almost eerie feeling that is engulfing me at the moment, because I am finding myself in agreement with Dr Muscat, on one thing, anyway. He seems (because you can never be categoric about politicians) to be in favour of divorce becoming part of the law of this here republic.
Yes, folks, you read it here first, Andrew Borg-Cardona, a.k.a. I.M. Beck, scourge of all things Labour, smiter of the Lil'elves and stern upholder of the values upheld by him (mainly facetiousness) in the face of elfin approbation, agrees with Joseph Muscat, Leader of the Labour Party.
It's only about this something in particular that I agree, of course - the rest of the stuff he was on about doesn't quite get my whole-hearted "attaboy", I have to say.
One such item was his declaration that if Labour is elected, the Government will abandon its defence of the case started about VAT on car registration. At an entirely superficial level, this would appear to make sense, but actually, it doesn't.
It is the function of Government to govern and to do this, it annoys everyone by imposing taxes. Contrary to the idiotic impression given by media that is pro-Labour, said taxes are not imposed out of spite or simply to rake in the loot for the senior members of the Nationalist Party and their cronies, but they are established, levied and collected by professionals who are doing their job to the best of their ability.
You might not like paying tax, you might not agree with the tax or the way it is set up (and if you are Alfred Sant, you might even go as far as to replace one tried and tested tax with another untried, ludicrous but effectively the same, tax) but like death, it's there to stay and the Government is obliged to collect it.
When there are different interpretations about whether taxes are due or the extent to which they are due, it becomes a function of the courts, that other branch of the state, to decide the matter.
It is not the function of a politician, angling for votes, to decide the matter, especially if he has a personal interest in the matter.
Let me be clear, I'm not implying that Joseph Muscat is saying what he's saying because he will personally be better off by a couple of thousand Euro or whatever, he's not that cheap, but there is that small thought that will nag at the minds of the less charitable, which is why he should either not have taken a personal interest in the case or not said that if he is PM, he'll make the Government roll over and play dead.
After all, if it was such a matter of principle and they were so convinced they were right, the Labour Party should have just declared that they will have the law changed if they get in to power and refund everyone.
But that wouldn't have given them the stunt-factor of starting a populist court case, now, would it?
I still agree with Joseph Muscat about the divorce thing, though. The more we get ludicrous ideas about linking divorce and abortion, the more the country lurches towards to anti-secular pandering to one belief system at the expense of all others, the more I'll support it, though perhaps not the extent of traipsing down Republic Street like I did last Wednesday.
Anyway, walking to the Palace chanting "what do we want? DIVORCE when do we want it? NOW" would be a bit daft, seeing as I don't.