According to recent research, high energy bills are the top concern for British families, causing stress, anxiety, and harming mental health and quality of life.

Nearly half of Britons believe the Government has no plan to address the problem or has a plan that is making things worse. 

“The level of concern about energy bills, coupled with the perceived lack of action, is leading to a collapse in confidence in political institutions,” David Turver writes. 

Things have got so bad that the high energy bills are fuelling a revolutionary mood: 43% of people think that political and social institutions should just be left to burn.

High Energy Bills Fuelling Revolutionary Mood

By David Turver, 26 October 2025

Introduction

New research out from More in Common shows that the cost of living is the top concern of British families and high energy bills are the dominant driver of this concern. High energy bills are having a profound impact, seriously harming mental health and quality of life. Nearly half of people believe the Government has no plan, or a plan that is making things actively worse.

Let’s dig into the details of the findings and consider what immediate actions the Government could take to alleviate the pain.

Headline Findings

The report finds that three years of high energy bills have scarred the national mood, making nearly all income groups feel stressed and anxious. High energy bills mean many people feel that no matter how hard they work, they will never be able to get ahead and enjoy a comfortable life.

In a stunning indictment of Ed Miliband’s Net Zero policies and his Clean Power 2030 plan, 60% of people do not believe that energy bills will ever be affordable again. More in Common says that the sense that the Government is standing idly by as people are exploited is feeding anti-system attitudes that are driving voters away from the established parties.

The level of concern is high among people earning just enough to be ineligible for government support. These people will react negatively to policy approaches that focus the burden of high energy bills away from the most vulnerable onto the “just about managing.”

Widespread Concern and Stress

As shown in Figure 1, 73% of households are somewhat or very concerned about energy bills this winter.

The level of concern is most acute in low-income groups, but 57% of households with over income over £100,000 are also concerned about high energy bills. This is leading to increased stress and anxiety, with many having trouble sleeping and putting up with living in a home that is uncomfortably cold.

Many people are also making the connection between high energy bills and the broader economic malaise. High energy bills impact businesses directly, forcing them to push up prices. They also reduce consumer demand because customers have less disposable income to spend.

As shown in Figure 2, concern about energy bills also cuts across party lines.

Reform voters are most worried about energy bills, with 80% somewhat or very concerned. In a superbly ironic twist, nearly three-quarters of Labour and Green voters are concerned about high energy bills this winter. The voters for the parties that have been pushing the “cheap renewables” line most actively are concerned about the impact of their policies.

Britons Resigned to High Energy Prices

As shown in Figure 3, except for Labour voters, people are not sure that energy bills will ever become affordable.

Around two-thirds of Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Reform voters are not sure energy bills will ever become more affordable. Emphasising the earlier point, 62% of green voters also appear to have lost faith in the “cheap renewables” mantra. Even 40% of Labour voters no longer believe Ed Miliband’s promise to reduce bills by £300.

Who is to Blame for High Energy Prices

In a worrying sign for Labour, 75% of people believe the actions of the UK government are somewhat or entirely to blame for high energy bills, as shown in Figure 4.

Energy suppliers and generators also come in for their share of the blame. Many people no longer believe that high energy bills can continue to be blamed on the war in Ukraine.

Many people believe that the Government could take action to reduce energy bills but is actively choosing not to do so. Some Britons were also concerned that the Government is actively making things worse by prioritising the need to decarbonise our energy system.

No Plan to Bring Down Bills Eroding Trust

Figure 5 shows that most people believe the Government is doing too little to bring down energy bills for consumers and businesses. They also have little faith that the Government will bring down the cost of food, water or housing.

In a worrying development, many people believe that the Government could just step in and cap prices, rather than tackle the root causes of high energy bills.

The level of concern about energy bills, coupled with the perceived lack of action, is leading to a collapse in confidence in political institutions.

While 57% believe our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving, a worrying 43% cannot help thinking “just let them all burn.”

Focus on Cost Reduction

In focus groups run by More in Common, a clear consensus emerged that the Government should focus on bringing down costs for all rather than subsidising the fuel bills of the vulnerable.

This is interesting because most of the evidence given to the recent Parliamentary inquiry into the cost of energy was displacement activity focused on peripheral issues and on the kind of pocket-shifting solutions rejected by the participants in this research.

The research did not cover specific policies that people would favour to bring down costs. However, the Government needs to take drastic action if it is to head off the growing revolutionary mood. We have long covered ideas to cut energy bills and reiterate them here:

If the Government wants to follow the clear wish of the people consulted in the More in Common research, it really needs to tackle the root causes of high energy bills by implementing the following measures.

1. Remove Carbon Costs

As shown in Figure 7, Ember has produced an interesting chart breaking down the fuel costs and carbon costs of gas-fired electricity.

In August, fuel costs were £54.67/MWh and carbon taxes were £25.77/MWh, or 32% of the total wholesale cost. Eliminating carbon costs from the Emissions Trading Scheme (“ETS”) and the Carbon Price Support mechanism would immediately reduce energy bills for both consumers and businesses. It would also have the welcome knock-on effect of reducing the total revenue received by generators funded by Renewables Obligation Certificates (“ROCs”) and might also reduce grid balancing costs.

2. Cut VAT

VAT of 5% is currently added to energy bills. Cutting VAT to zero would immediately reduce energy bills for everyone.

3. Cut Renewables Subsidies

There should be no new subsidies for renewables. This will render most of them uneconomic, and mean we no longer need to fund the planned expansion of the grid.

We should also consider cutting existing subsidies by setting the Renewables Obligation to zero, immediately removing ~£7.5 billion of costs from energy bills. It is probably also time to consider reducing the £2 billion cost of Feed-in-Tariffs (“FiT”) by stopping the annual indexation in line with inflation. FiT payments could be stopped for those who have already received payments in excess of the initial capital cost.

4. Knock on Effects

The reductions in energy bills from the measures outlined above will have important knock-on effects. The Warm Home Discount can be reduced or eliminated for all but the most vulnerable because there will be less need for it. Moreover, the Energy Company Obligation that forces companies to install insulation measures could also be cut because it is of dubious value and there will be less need if energy is cheaper. These measures will cut energy bills for everyone.

Moreover, fewer renewables on the grid means we will not need as much backup from the capacity market and grid balancing costs will stop rising and may even fall.

5. Fix Energy Supply

The Government must also look forward and fix the energy supply. They should lift the ban on North Sea drilling and end the moratorium on fracking so that we can develop more of our own gas resources. Simple supply and demand economics will ensure that an increased gas supply will reduce prices. This will improve our balance of payments, create good, unsubsidised jobs, improve energy security and have a smaller impact on the environment than importing LNG from the US or Qatar.

Conclusions

High energy prices are having a pernicious effect on people, businesses and the wider economy. Voters do not believe the government has a plan to bring down prices, and many believe that plans are actively making things worse. This is breeding a revolutionary mood, with 43% believing that our political institutions should be left to burn.

The Tony Blair Institute now seems aware of the problem and is recommending cutting carbon taxes and slowing down the Clean Power 2030 plan. Even Keir Starmer is rumoured to be considering ditching Miliband’s plans.

They are recognising that we are approaching an extremely dangerous time. They should be implementing the easy measures that would cut energy bills overnight. The Government should eliminate carbon taxes, cut VAT and slash renewables subsidies to bring down energy bills, calm the electorate and set us back on the path to growth and prosperity.

Source: https://expose-news.com/2025/10/30/high-energy-bills-in-the-uk-are-leading-to-a-collapse/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post High energy bills in the UK are leading to a collapse of confidence in political institutions appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

With the murder of Brian Thompson the CEO of UnitedHealthCare in Manhattan the question must now be asked, is systemic corruption leading to its inevitable end where vigilante justice is seen as a last resort remedy by those who have been ruthlessly victimized by corporate greed? Retired MMA champion Pat Miletich returns to SGT Report to discuss corporate greed AND the Great Awakening. Thanks for tuning in.

Source:  https://rumble.com/v5wue4z-is-systemic-corruption-leading-to-vigilante-justice-pat-miletich.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post IS SYSTEMIC CORRUPTION LEADING TO VIGILANTE JUSTICE? — Pat Miletich appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bankrolled the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to the tune of $11 million to promote COVID-19 vaccination as “safe and effective” for pregnant women, according to an investigation published this week by attorney Maggie Thorp.

Documents obtained by Thorp through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that the CDC and ACOG entered into multiple “cooperative agreements” to carry out work largely designed and controlled by the CDC and contingent on ACOG’s adherence to the CDC’s policies on COVID-19 infection and control.

ACOG is the “premier” professional membership organization for obstetricians and gynecologists with more than 60,000 members across the Americas, its website reports.

Broadly, the grants supported the development of social media communications strategies, toolkits supporting “effective COVID-19 vaccination conversations” between doctors and patients, and the hiring of a global public health communications firm, APCO Worldwide, to produce various communications materials.

According to Thorp, from December 2020, when the vaccines came on the market, through July 21, 2021, ACOG held a neutral position on vaccination during pregnancy, recommending that pregnant women “be free to make their own decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination.”

But that recommendation “abruptly changed on July 30, 2020,” Thorp said, to recommend vaccination for pregnant women.

Today, ACOG “recommends that all eligible persons aged 6 months and older, including pregnant and lactating individuals, receive a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccine series,” and a booster.

The money for the grants comes from COVID-19-related federal funding opportunities, such as the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act and the CARES Act, according to the grant documents.

Grant recipients, and any “flow-down” organizations they may award money from these grants to, must comply with “existing and future directives and guidance” from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent organization, regarding the control and spread of COVID-19.

That also includes sharing any data collected in grant-funded activities, including COVID-19 testing data, with the CDC.

‘Vast, covert government operation unleashed … at the height of our fear and isolation’

This CDC-ACOG collaboration forms part of the CDC’s and HHS’ strategic approach to COVID-19 vaccination encapsulated in its “We Can Do This” public education campaign.

Through the campaign, HHS and CDC sought in their own words to “motivate behavior change,” through strategic messaging, often developed by public relations firms, using “market research, key messages, partnerships and outreach, paid and earned media, and sample creative,” across all areas of people’s lives.

With $3 billion in federal funding from the Biden White House for states to distribute to local agencies and nonprofits and hundreds of millions of dollars in direct grants to medical associations and nonprofits, the HHS and CDC sought to train and fund “trusted messengers” such as teachers, religious leaders, social media influencers, community leaders and members and others, who would deliver the CDC’s message, but without the CDC’s brand.

This also included, Thorp wrote, creating the COVID-19 Community Corps — reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps work relief program that put millions to work during the Great Depression — described as “a nationwide, grassroots network of local voices people know and trust to encourage Americans to get vaccinated.”

The COVID-19 Community Corps targeted “vaccine-hesitant” populations, including pregnant women, Thorp’s investigation revealed.

Thorp called the “trusted messengers” the CDC’s “Trojan horses” that used interpersonal relations of trust to enter into people’s personal lives and communicate the CDC’s message.

She told The Defender:

“I think what is most disturbing is that the government was targeting these interpersonal relationships by using people who were in our inner circles at a time when everyone felt isolated and fearful.

“Interpersonal relationships were exploited in a way that I personally felt was very unethical because it exploited and capitalized on people’s vulnerabilities. Many felt isolated from so many people and their normal activities and routines.

“It was essentially a vast, covert government operation unleashed on us when we were at our most vulnerable, at the height of our fear and isolation.”

CDC, ACOG had data showing risks to pregnant women but pushed vaccines anyway

Dr. James Thorp, board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine physician who also contributed to the research, told The Defender he thought it was particularly troubling that regulatory agencies and medical associations were aware of risks to pregnant women and yet pushed the vaccines.

Red flags in Pfizer’s data regarding the possible adverse effects of the vaccines for pregnant women were leaked in 2021, according to James Thorp. He said:

“They had the data. So they must have said, ‘Okay, we’re not going to be transparent with the data. We’re going to denigrate their data and our own data (VAERS and Pfizer 5.3.6), and suggest that — all the morbidity and danger signals and mortality, we’re just gonna brush it off.

‘And we’re going to spend $13 billion on psychological operations, fifth-generation war, to convince everybody in the world that it is safe and effective and necessary in the most vulnerable populations: pregnant women, pre-born and newborn babies, and the next most vulnerable population, children.’”

“It’s one thing when you’re trying to pull off this mass marketing campaign using marketing tactics that companies have been using for years to sell regular products such as candies, foods or clothing,” James Thorp said, “But they’re doing this with untested gene therapy products in pregnancy.

He added:

“The Department of Defense, HHS, CDC, ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and others are unequivocally attempting to abolish a highly-revered, God-ordained, gold standard doctrine that has been memorialized and honored and has withstood the scientific test of time over millennia: Never give novel substances in pregnancy without short-term and long-term outcome studies in the offspring.

“I will not allow this charade to continue. The reproductive toxicology studies are damning as evidenced by Alexandra Latypova, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry demonstrating major problems — miscarriages, birth defects and many other concerns.

“Did not these governmental agencies and medical organizations learn their lessons from the thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol [DES] disasters of the last century? The COVID-19 gene therapies make thalidomide and DES look like prenatal vitamins.

“If one does not understand history they will be destined to repeat it on an even grander scale.”

Maggie Thorp added that if the HHS and CDC were directing people’s behavior as they explicitly sought to through these grants, “Then there is no informed consent happening.”

CDC participated in ‘all aspects of carrying out’ ACOG grants

The cooperative agreements stipulated by the CDC would have “substantial programmatic involvement” after the grant is awarded. Above and beyond the monitoring and review typical of CDC grants, in these cases, CDC program staff would also “assist, coordinate, or participate in all aspects of carrying out the awards.”

Maggie Thorp identified the grants on USAspending.gov and got the details through a FOIA request, but the response was heavily redacted.

One grant set an April 30, 2021, deadline — which she noted was prior to when ACOG publicly recommended vaccination for pregnant women — to create an “Emergency Resource Request Tool (ERR)” to target OB-GYNs “and the women they serve.”

The purpose of the ERR tools changed over time. By March 2022, they were focused on “developing, maintaining, and promoting tools to combat misinformation on COVID-19, which has emerged as a significant barrier to the uptake of vaccination during pregnancy,” Maggie Thorp quoted from the FOIA documents.

Another ERR tool involved developing some type of communications tool — it is unclear from the redacted FOIA specifically what it entailed — that would be piloted by ACOG and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is another COVID-19 Community Corps member.

Another $300,000 went to a contract with APCO Worldwide, “a global public health communication vendor” to develop a COVID-19 Social Media Communications toolkit to provide “key messaging and talking points around COVID-19 for dissemination,” to create virtual training sessions for ACOG members, and to develop a podcast series for members to keep them up-to-date on CDC recommendations.

In October 2021, a multi-year grant addressing breast cancer and other maternal health issues was revised to direct $3,000,000 toward “Engaging Women’s Health Care Providers for Effective COVID-19 Vaccine Conversations” and $300,000 toward “Improving Ob/Gyn’s Ability to support COVID-19 Vaccination, Mental Health, Social Support.”

That grant was renewed in 2022, with $2 million toward the “Vaccines Conversations” effort.

Rather than coordinate plans and messages with its membership, ACOG, in exchange for this grant money, committed to working closely with the CDC, sharing information and efforts, discussing recommendations and meeting frequently to “ensure that recommendations are aligned between the two organizations.”

Clinicians told to document vaccine refusal in medical records

Specific details of the grants were heavily redacted in the FOIA documents Maggie Thorp received. But she pointed to ACOG’s website for evidence of the grant work. On one page, the organization offers a “Conversation Guide” with messaging language on the vaccine for physicians.

The key advice to clinicians is that all pregnant women should be vaccinated and boosted at any time in their pregnancy, that those who refuse should have it documented in their record, and that follow-up visits should focus on continuing to try to convince them to accept vaccination.

Or, in Maggie Thorp’s words, clinicians were to “urgently push the COVID-19 shots in pregnant patients blindly and repeatedly, without the need for offering informed consent. If you cannot convince the patient to take the COVID-19 ‘vaccine, document this discussion in the patient’s electronic medical record’ for what is likely reporting to the CDC.”

The website also lists “key messages” that should be communicated to pregnant women, including that COVID-19 is quite dangerous for pregnant women, and that there “may be” increased risk of stillbirth. But, the “messaging list” says, there are no “maternal or fetal” effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccines, proven by a “growing body of evidence.”

These recommended talking points remain on ACOG’s website today.

The CDC promoted and continues to promote, the COVID-19 vaccines as safe for pregnant women despite recent revelations that as early as January 2021, the U.S. regulatory agencies were aware of indications in Pfizer’s own data that the vaccines pose serious risks for pregnant women.

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

Source Link: https://www.villagenews.com/story/2023/05/11/news/leading-ob-gyn-group-took-11-million-from-cdc-to-push-covid-shotspregnant-women-according-to-an-investigation-on-pregnant-women-documents-reveal-the-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-bankrolled-the-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists-to-the-tune-of-11-million-to-promote-covid-19-vaccination-as-safe-and-effective-for/73037.html

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Leading OB-GYN Group Took $11 Million From CDC to Push COVID Shots pregnant women, according to an investigation appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.