* I’M delighted the government appears to be questioning the orthodoxy that onshore wind turbines are self-evidently a good thing. I particularly object to large amounts of scarce public money going to subsidise these horrible things. They may make a few lucky businessmen very rich but at the cost of blighting what remains of our open countryside, so the public dips out twice over.

Sadly, we were without an intelligible energy policy for many years and have had to work quickly to make up for lost ground. Now, I’m pleased to say, we’re looking closely at clean burn technologies and nuclear in collaboration with the market leaders, the French. In the event we do not embrace nuclear, I suspect we will end up importing nuclear derived electricity from France in any case, when the lights start going off in a decade or so.

That is not to say there are no windy opportunities. I’m perfectly happy for companies to put their money into offshore wind and turbines in already spoiled locations onshore.

And I’ll fully support the export of technology in this area, as in others, to countries with vast open spaces which might not be traduced by giant windmills. However, I do think alternatives such as tidal and solar power are at risk of being neglected through an obsession with turbines.

* I despair at the Argentine government’s continued sabre rattling. Charitably, I hope it’s simply to deflect attention from its government’s domestic problems. Let’s recall that it’s not just the UK which has been discommoded by a country that seems intent on turning itself into a pariah. Defaulting on its debts in 2001, it still goes cap in hand to the World Bank so, inter alia, we’re propping it up.

* The European Council has been debating the accession of states to the EU. Serbia is in the frame. While, I suppose, the expansion of the EU is broadly a good thing for strengthening and entrenching democracy, we do have to be careful about admitting countries either not economically up to it or whose attitude to human rights and the rule of law are a work in progress. In my view, Serbia must be given every encouragement but should not yet be admitted.

* I wish we could do more in Syria. But any further intervention really means military force, and ground troops at that. Where’s the mandate, would more muscular intervention actually work and what would be the human cost?