In a sense, Sharon Storer's harangue was just what the spin doctor ordered, because the Prime Minister had been criticised during the first week of the campaign for failing to meet members of the public unless they had been screened and primed. And Mr Blair handled the situation reasonably well; it would have been worse if he had too obviously tried to feel Ms Storer's pain.The problem is that the politicians' world of words simply does not connect with most people's experiences. The aggregate spending totals are impressive, yet Mr Blair has damagingly underestimated the gap between money being poured in at the top and care improving at the bottom.But there is a common theme in all the expressions of anger towards politicians in the campaign so far. There was the egg landed on Mr Prescott, the diatribe launched against Mr Blair, the jeering, heckling and slow handclapping which greeted Jack Straw's speech to the police and the chants and placards of anti-racist demonstrators hounding William Hague. People are angry because they expect politicians to change things They have not given up on politics altogether.

This week the campaign, which was in danger of being suffocatingly controlled and boring, suddenly came to life.As Sir Paddy Ashdown said yesterday, it is better that voters should be antipathetic towards politicians than apathetic. The challenge for aspiring MPs of all parties over the next three weeks is to find ways of connecting with people's concerns that are non-violent and constructive.. The energy plan that President Bush announced in Minnesota yesterday is billed as momentous action for momentous times. America "faces the most serious energy crisis since the oil embargoes of the 1970s", intones the White House, warning of a "fundamental imbalance" between supply and demand.

The energy plan that President Bush announced in Minnesota yesterday is billed as momentous action for momentous times. America "faces the most serious energy crisis since the oil embargoes of the 1970s", intones the White House, warning of a "fundamental imbalance" between supply and demand.That premise itself is dubious, given that the two most visible manifestations of the "crisis" ­ California's rolling blackouts and the high (by American standards) price of petrol ­ relate to specific and eminently soluble problems: in the first case, a botched state deregulation programme; in the second, a lack of refining capacity.Even if there were a fundamental imbalance, increasing the supply of energy is absolutely the wrong response. In practice, that means increasing the supply of oil and therefore increasing America's contribution to global warming. The measures to encourage the use of renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, and organic waste or biomass for burning in power stations, are welcome, but will make a marginal difference at best. The same goes for the tax breaks in favour of more fuel-efficient vehicles.The most obvious proposal in Mr Bush's plan, the establishment of a national electricity grid, might have spared California some of its present discomfort. But the plan must be judged by what it does to reduce America's voracious demand for energy.