The leader of the Labour Party came on the scene, what, just over two and a half years ago, now like a breath of fresh air. Well, that was the idea, of course, he was young, fresh faced, married with a coupla'kids - he could have been produced by a design studio, much in the manner of producing a new logo.

While on the subject of new logos, am I the only one who is moderately perplexed at the manner in which the Labour Party came up with the final version of theirs? I know I'm not, as number of points have been made, such as since when does a professional design studio qualify as a member of the public and was this just a ploy to bump up membership numbers and boost the coffers a tiny bit but hey, it's no skin off my nose, I didn't fall for it. And I'm pretty un-moved by the logo itself, which is slick enough but not thought through fully, leaving itself open to wise-cracks as it does.

But to get back to the fresh-faced new leader, even more fresh-faced now that along with one of his side-kicks he's obeyed the style guru's dictum to remove the facial fuzz. I, for one, am not entirely clear on why this was ordained, since to my mind a goatee adds gravitas, virility and general "wow-factor" to one's physog, but then I'm not a style-guru.

More a style pig-pen, according to SheWhoMustBeObeyed.

What, pray, has the lad come up with since he's been anointed? A lot of talk about progressive precociously proposed proposals, to be sure, but when you come down to the nuts and bolts and screwdrivers and spanners, there's not much there, is there? I mean, even on divorce, about which he appeared to be about to take an almost courageous stand, he let himself down on BondiPlus when he eschewed he opportunity to make it clear that he would be voting yes.

Instead, we got that god-awful playing-for-time that politicians the world over seem to have fallen deeply, madly in love with, "one will have to wait and see and then think about the possibility of at some point in the future, at the appropriate juncture, making up one's mind".

And with that unctuous tone, too, just to make sure he irritates me.

And then what about the environment? Fine, we get a lot of tree-huggery and positioning, but we come down to it, it's a question of "policy, what policy?". And in the meantime, up we get, astride the fence between hunters and the rest of us, to devalue the Labour Party's credentials on greenery almost fatally.

On the economy, apart from general slagging-off of the Government (fair enough, that's what Governments are for) we've had precious little, apart from the usual hunting with the hounds and running with the hares, indicators as to what concrete policies Labour will be adopting if they get the keys to Castille.

No, wait, they've made an all-fired fuss about utility prices, so presumably they will be doing their darndest to bring down the price of mobile phone costs. After all, it seems that your average family spends more on its mobiles than on water and electricity and I suppose if you chuck the cost of watching telly into the mix, that'll be quite a bit for Muscat and his lads to get their teeth into in their first hundred days.

Come on guys, give us an idea what you'll actually be doing, why don't you? Are you going to be doing a Gordon Brown and zoom out to save the world, an economic theory or six to the fore?

Or are you going to wake up the morning after the result is announced, pleased as Punch and with an enormous grin on your faces, but with an equally enormous void where ideas are supposed to reside?

I started this blog on Friday afternoon but was distracted, so I'm finishing it on Satruday morning, having just seen a short news-item online about the PM's father's grave being vandalised. It goes without saying that they Neanderthal who did this is nothing more than a bottom-feeding piece of slime. Equally despicable, though, is the person under the name of "Joe Cassar" who thought it would be intelligent to comment that this was nothing but a diversionary tactic following the Budget.

I don't know who this person is and but he is nothing more than contemptible.