"Will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth?" inquired the fretful Dud. "No. It will not be quite as mighty as that," Pete replied. "That is why we have come up on the mountain, you stupid nit - to be safe from it."

As it turned out, the wind failed to show up - a recurrent theme that Ofgem reprised yesterday as it highlighted the "variability" of such an energy supply. So variable in fact that the energy regulator is currently assuming that, in the future, windfarms are available for just 15pc of the time.

Ofgem is not a political animal. But there was plenty of ammo in Friday's report for critics of Labour energy policy.

Realising fish can't vote, the Government's major contribution has been to approve pricey, unreliable offshore windfarms - while refusing, for far too long, to address the nuclear option.

The upshot is that cash-strapped Britain is now facing a looming energy gap, priced yesterday by Ofgem at up to £200bn. This is the sum that may be required to build new energy infrastructure while meeting environmental targets.

Who pays, you wonder. Well, you do, with the pain intensifying around 2015 when Britain shuts down its most polluting coal-fired power plants and our old nukes. Then, household bills could jump by 60pc - enough to make anyone's hair stand on end.

There are two main reasons for this little shocker. First, that Britain has signed up to emission targets that call for 40pc of our electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2020.

And second, that because we've been so slow in replacing our dwindling North Sea reserves with other forms of energy, we've become increasingly reliant on gas from Russia and Qatar - with all the attendant political risks.

It's enough to put the wind up any incoming Government.

BA crew have been living high on the hog

Let's face it, compared to the striking Leeds binmen or Royal Mail posties, this doesn't sound such a bad way to make a living: fly round the world while you're working and then, when it comes to holidays, pick up a fare for 10pc of the ticket price. Not to mention a special deal on hotels. Say seven nights for the price of five at £53 a go at Coconut Bay, St Lucia, as advertised in BA News.

When you think of the lifestyle of British Airways' 14,000 cabin crew, you do wonder what their strike threat is all about. It's not job numbers they're in a sweat over - as 1,000 have applied for voluntary redundancy and another 3,000 want to work part time. Neither is it pay, given that the wage freeze was their own idea.

The thing that's got them all turbo-charged is what most people would regard as perks. BA has allowed a situation to evolve where the crew rely on flights to glamour long-haul destinations to top up average basic pay of around £20,000.

Land the five-day trip to Hong Kong, for example, and you get put up in a hotel for two nights plus around £700 in overtime and food allowances. By contrast India trips pull in only £50-£80 and Cairo less than £40.

The crew claim that once BA starts hiring again, chief executive Willie Walsh will bring in new recruits and give them all the plum trips - only with lower pay and allowances. In this way, all pay will be driven down.

It's tough luck on the crew, but Walsh would be mad not to. Striking won't achieve anything. Even on worse terms, BA knows there'll be a planeload of wannabe recruits.