When the major parties that make up Westminster’s political class present a united front on a big subject that affects us all, I am often highly sceptical. My instincts tell me that a trick is being played on the electorate. The best recent example of this concerns Britain’s membership of the EU. In that instance, the various party leaders decided that belonging to that undemocratic bloc was best for us, and there was no need to worry our little heads about it. I now feel the same sense of groupthink exists when it comes to renewable energy.

For more than 20 years, a near-unanimous view has taken hold in Westminster that renewable energy will save the planet. Each political party seems to have fallen over itself in its quest to demonstrate its moral superiority regarding the green agenda. None of them brooks any dissent. You’re either with them or against them.

What has never been openly debated, however, let alone voted on by the people, is the extent to which everyday families should bankroll the costs linked to combatting climate change. A glance at the website of Ofgem, the regulatory body for the gas and electricity markets, reveals a shocking truth: more than 25 per cent of a standard electricity bill goes on what are called “environmental and social obligation costs”. And, as a further kick in the teeth, just under 5 per cent of the bill’s total is added for VAT.

Now let me translate what the “environmental obligations”, in particular, are in practice. In the name of saving the planet, billions of pounds – money, don’t forget, which comes out of the taxed income of ordinary people – is being used to subsidise the activities of large foreign multinational companies and rich landowners. Indeed, many of the wealthiest people in Britain who own huge estates have been paid for years simply to have wind turbines on their land. I cannot think of a comparable scheme in modern times that has transferred so much cash from the poor to the rich.

This is a rip-off of monumental proportions and it is time we had a public debate about it. When people’s energy bills for the second quarter of 2022 land on their doormats, they’re going to experience a profound shock. The increase in gas prices has already been heavily trailed, and they may be able to pay for that with a bit of belt-tightening, but electricity bills are going to hurt too. Talk about a sting in the tale.

Together with fellow Brexit campaigner Richard Tice, I have recently helped to launch the Vote Power Not Poverty campaign. Our motivation is specifically to provoke an open national discussion on green issues. We want to talk about energy security. We also want to examine the implications of the “net zero target”, the orthodoxy under which the UK is supposed to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Successive governments have run down Britain’s nuclear industry, reduced our natural gas storage capacity, and have seemed happy for us to rely on imports to keep the lights on. 

These misguided policies left our country in a very vulnerable position even before Russia invaded Ukraine. Since the war began last month, the need for the UK to be in charge of its own energy supply has arguably become the most pressing matter we face.

It is worth pointing out that our decisions on fracking, for instance, have worked in the interests of Vladimir Putin, who would have wanted to keep us and the rest of Europe hooked on Russian. In 2014, there were reports that Anders Fogh Rasmussen, then the secretary general of Nato, had grown concerned that Putin’s government was supporting campaigns to discredit fracking. I have no doubt we will get to the truth of this over the coming months.

At the moment, there is a wall of silence from Westminster. My best guess is that when people become aware of the extent of the rip-off to which they have been subjected for years, there will be considerable fury. At the very least, the true cost of green subsidies should be stated clearly on everybody’s electricity bill. Of course, the truth is that if renewable energy really is the wondrous transition to the brave new world that we are told it is, it should be able to stand on its own two feet.

Politicians should have nothing to fear from a healthy debate on net zero. But for any individual or entity wanting to stifle the urgent conversation that must be held, I have a warning: you will only be storing up trouble for yourselves. The truth will out.