No, don’t think rationally for a moment, just think like the public rhetoric for a bit. We’re told that the ghastly profiteers in these times of expensive energy must be hit with a windfall tax. We’re also told that wind and solar power are much cheaper than that horrible fossil fuel derived stuff.

Add in the manner in which prices are determined by the marginal supply and demand and we get the obvious implication that those suppliers of the cheaper to produce power - the renewables - must be coining even more money than those providers of the more expensive to produce - the fossil fuel folks.

Therefore, if a windfall tax must be imposed in order to alleviate consumer pain there’s much, much, more money to be had by imposing that tax upon the renewables sector than there is upon the fossil fuel one.

So, why isn’t such a windfall tax upon the greedy windmill owners being suggested?

One reason could be an outbreak of common sense, for taxing supply to subsidise demand really isn’t the way to deal with a dearth. But this is the Labour Party we’re talking about here so economic rationality is not something we’ve got great hopes for.

It’s also possible that those proposing a windfall tax simply do not understand the point - that could be true of Burgon, even be likely, but we’ve higher hopes of the likes of Sir Keir.

The third, and we assume gripping, answer is that such a suggestion would be regarded as insane. Too much even for the economically illiterate to swallow. But then that’s just proof that taxing supply to subsidise demand isn’t a sensible thing to be doing in a time of dearth, is it?

An answer we can entirely reject is that the windmills aren’t making massive profits at present. For if that were true then they’d not be cheaper and absolutely no one would be gaslighting us all that badly, would they?