Rishi Sunak calls for national unity as energy prices rise again across the UK.

Table of Contents

What’s driving renewed pressure on energy

Price cap increase
- In August 2025, Ofgem raised the energy price cap by about 2 %, increasing the average household bill to £1,755/year (an increase of ~£35) for typical gas + electricity usage. (Reuters)
- The rise is attributed to inflation plus “policy costs” (including charges to fund energy transition programs) which feed into bills. (Reuters)
- Although energy costs have come down from their peaks in 2023, they remain roughly 50 % higher than in summer 2021. (Reuters)
Household pressure & cost of living squeeze
- Many households are still under strain: food, rent, heating and other essentials have been rising faster than wages or benefits. (New Statesman)
- Consumer groups are warning energy costs remain “unmanageable for many.” (Reuters)
Political / narrative vulnerability
- Because energy bills affect almost everyone directly, this is a politically sensitive issue. The government faces pressure to show tangible relief rather than rhetorical support.

What “national unity” means in Sunak’s framing

When Sunak calls for “national unity” in this context, he’s aiming to project a few signals:

Shared sacrifice & common cause — that the energy challenge is not partisan but national, requiring collective endurance and shared responsibility.
A long-term transition narrative — he positions the rise in bills as a symptom of the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and global energy markets, arguing the solution lies in shifting to “home-grown, clean energy.” (Reuters)
Political shielding — by invoking unity, Sunak seeks to deflect blame (or at least spread it) and reduce the optics of government vs public conflict: “we’re all in this together.”
Moral legitimacy for harder choices — when you ask citizens to accept higher costs or reforms, invoking unity can lend moral cover (e.g. for infrastructure costs, levies, energy transition payments).

The government has already indicated it will expand the Warm Home Discount scheme (i.e. support for vulnerable households) to cover more people this winter. (Reuters)

Political and economic constraints / tradeoffs

Sunak’s call for unity doesn’t come in a vacuum — he must navigate multiple risks and constraints:

Limited fiscal space & public expectations
- Voters expect visible relief, not just rhetoric. If the government fails to deliver meaningful relief, unity messaging may be seen as empty.
- There’s a tension between short-term support (which costs money) and long-term credibility (fiscal discipline).
Policy costs & green transition burden
- Some of the components pushing up bills are policy costs or levies tied to climate and energy transition (e.g. infrastructure, renewables, nuclear).
- Asking citizens to foot some of that cost via their bills can generate resistance, especially among lower-income households.
Volatility in energy markets
- Wholesale energy prices, geopolitical events (e.g. supply disruptions, gas markets), and exchange rate shifts can quickly alter cost forecasts.
- If a new shock hits, the narrative of unity may break under pressure to deliver immediate relief.
Political opposition & blame narratives
- Opposition parties (e.g. Labour) can argue that the government had more control or should have better prepared (e.g. via energy policy, energy security).
- If unity is framed as “government asking citizens to accept pain,” opposition may exploit discontent.
Credibility & trust
- For unity rhetoric to work, the government must be seen as doing its fair share — not merely asking the public to absorb cost but showing leadership, investment, and mitigations.
- Missteps (e.g. perceived hypocrisy, uneven burden, failing promises) can erode the appeal of unity.

What Sunak can do (and what he’s signaling)

Here are the levers and actions the government is or might use to back up the unity appeal:

Policy / Tool	What’s being done or promised	Risks / limits
Targeted support / rebates	Expanding the Warm Home Discount scheme (6 million vulnerable households) (Reuters)	Only helps specific groups; may not assuage broader discontent
Energy transition investment	Emphasizing shift to clean power, home-grown energy to reduce dependence on volatile fossil markets (Reuters)	Transition takes time; bills may still rise because of transition costs
Control policy cost impacts	Adjusting how levies or policy charges are spread, possibly smoothing increases	Risks fiscal strain or budget deficits if subsidized heavily
Communication & framing	Messaging unity, shared journey, long-term vision	Messaging is fragile if outcomes don’t match expectations
Regulation & price oversight	Through Ofgem, possibly reviewing how network & distribution costs are passed on	Constraints on regulatory tools; legal / market limits

Risks to Sunak’s “unity” appeal

If rising energy prices persist or accelerate, public patience may run out, turning unity into division.
If relief is seen as insufficient, inconsistent, or unfair (unequal burden), the unity narrative may backfire.
Opposition will press to show that the government had stronger or alternative options (e.g. earlier investment, supply diversification).
External shocks (e.g. sharp gas price jump) could force sudden interventions, disrupting the narrative of gradual shared sacrifice.
Credibility is at stake: if the government is perceived as prioritizing investment or business over households, the “we’re all in this together” framing loses traction.

Here are several case studies and historical parallels where political leaders invoked national unity (or solidarity) during energy, cost-of-living, or crises involving public utilities. Each offers lessons (positive and negative) relevant to Sunak’s current “unity in rising energy prices” framing.

After presenting the cases, I’ll draw out what they imply for Sunak’s situation.

Case Studies & Historical Parallels

1. The UK Energy Crisis & “Don’t Pay” campaign (2022)

What happened

In 2022, as energy prices sharply escalated (in part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), the UK faced a severe “energy and cost-of-living” crisis. (IMF)
A grassroots movement, Don’t Pay UK, emerged, calling on households to withhold payment on energy bills above a certain threshold as a protest. (Wikipedia)
The campaign gained media attention, though it didn’t succeed in mass nonpayment. There were threats of disconnections, legal penalties, and government/already high levels of vulnerability among households. (Wikipedia)

Invocation of “unity / shared sacrifice”

The government attempted to frame its relief packages (e.g. energy subsidies, price caps) as protecting the vulnerable and sharing the burden—though much of the discourse was oppositional (citizens vs government, protest vs compliance). (IMF)
The unity argument was harder to sustain when many saw the burden as unfairly distributed: some households or firms benefited more, some barely got support.

Lessons

When costs escalate sharply and visibly (like energy), calls for unity run into challenges of fairness, visibility of burden, and perceived legitimacy of who is asked to bear costs.
Solidarity narratives are fragile: they are more resilient if the government’s relief is well targeted, transparent, and perceived as just.
If a protest or refusal movement gains traction, it can erode norms of compliance and complicate governance.

2. UK Fuel Protests & Tax Rises (~2000s)

What happened

In the early 2000s, the UK saw public protests against high fuel (petrol/diesel) prices and related tax rises. (Wikipedia)
Drivers, haulage associations, and some public groups mobilised to protest increases in costs which they argued were heavily driven by tax burdens rather than just oil price changes. (Wikipedia)

Unity framing vs fracture

Governments often tried to justify tax policy as necessary (environmental, fiscal, transport strategy), appealing to shared goals (e.g. reducing emissions, financing roads).
But when citizens saw fuel cost as central to their livelihoods (commuting, goods transport), the unity narrative was contested—the burden was too palpable and differential.
Some protests framed the narrative as “ordinary people vs policy elites,” undermining unity.

Lessons

Unity appeals in energy/fuel crises must overcome the problem that the costs are directly felt and highly visible.
If the framing slips into “elitist sacrifice” (asking people to live with higher prices), protests or backlash can erode the unity narrative.
Redistribution or compensatory policy is often necessary to sustain unity in practice, not just rhetoric.

3. UK Miners’ Strikes (1984–85) & National Solidarity

What happened

During the 1984–85 miners’ strikes, the UK was deeply politically divided. The National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) carried out a prolonged nationwide strike challenging pit closures. (Wikipedia)
The Conservative government, under Margaret Thatcher, framed coal/energy policy, national industrial strategy, and the role of unions in terms of modernization vs overpaid sectors.

Calls for national interest / unity

The government’s narratives often cast miners’ refusal as threatening national energy security, industrial modernization, or economic stability.
They tried to rally parts of the public and other working sectors by saying: “We must not let small interest groups derail national progress.”
However, many communities deeply identified with the miners’ cause; solidarity was strong in many local areas, resulting in polarization.

Lessons

Even with heavy government control over media and public messaging, unity narratives can fail when a substantial portion of the population feels deeply aggrieved.
A “national interest” framing can be seen as dismissive or coercive if not matched by substantive concessions or dialogue.
Political cleavages can be deeply entrenched and cannot always be bridged by rhetoric alone.

4. The 1976 Sterling / Economic Crisis & National Unity Appeals

What happened

In the mid-1970s, the UK faced high inflation, currency weakness, fiscal deficits, and a balance-of-payments crisis. The government eventually sought IMF assistance. (Wikipedia)
The situation was framed by some political discourse as requiring “shared austerity” — that citizens, public sector, government all had to tighten.

Unity / solidarity narratives

Leaders attempted to appeal to collective sacrifice, fiscal prudence, and restoring confidence.
But the public’s patience was limited; strikes, industrial action, and social unrest were frequent.

Lessons

In macro crises, unity narratives must contend with painful tradeoffs (spending cuts, wage squeeze) and the fact that many will bear visible costs.
Without credible institutions, transparent policy, and relatively fair burden sharing, calls for unity risk breeding resentment or noncompliance.

5. European / EU Energy Solidarity (Cross-National Cases)

While not UK-specific, EU and broader European cases offer instructive parallels where national solidarity or cross-national unity has been invoked in energy or crisis settings:

European energy solidarity in face of Russian gas cuts: Some EU states attempted to promote “energy solidarity,” shared gas purchasing, mutual supply guarantees, and cost sharing among member states. Over time, the concept of solidarity faced limits when national interests (e.g. supply security) diverged. (Taylor & Francis Online)
Crisis narratives in EU law / energy policy: scholars note that invoking “solidarity” (for common burdens or resource sharing) in EU energy policy has both creative and destructive impacts — it can strengthen cooperation or exacerbate divisions when not backed by enforceable mechanisms. (Carnegie Endowment)

Lessons: solidarity or unity narratives are more sustainable if backed by credible institutions, enforceable arrangements, and perceived fairness.

What These Case Studies Suggest for Sunak’s “National Unity” in Rising Energy Prices

From these historical and contemporary parallels, we can extract several implications, risks, and strategic considerations for Rishi Sunak’s invocation of unity in light of renewed energy price rises.

Insight / Risk	Application to Sunak’s Situation
Fairness & burden distribution is central	Unity appeals are likely to succeed only if economic relief or compensation is seen as fairly distributed. If support is too narrow (only vulnerable households) or unfair (some sectors get relief, others don’t), unity can fracture.
Visibility of cost is a liability	Energy prices are tangible and visible: people see their bills, their heating, their calculation of daily expenses. That means discontent can easily mobilize.
Trust & legitimacy matter	If citizens don’t trust that government is doing its share (e.g. being fiscally responsible, regulating fairly, not profiteering), the unity narrative will be weakened.
Messaging must align with material policy	Rhetoric is fragile without follow-through: if unity is asked but not matched by tangible subsidy, regulation, or protection, people will see it as empty.
Risk of protest or resistance movements	As seen with “Don’t Pay UK,” when burden becomes too heavy, citizens or groups may resist norms of compliance. Unity narratives must anticipate or preempt such dynamics.
Polarization and identity fractures	Different regions, income groups, or political identities may feel unequally burdened. Unity across such divides is especially hard.
Need for durable institutional backing	Invoking unity over the short term is easier; sustaining it over a protracted energy transition or prolonged cost escalation is harder unless institutional frameworks (e.g. regulatory protections, energy subsidies, guaranteed support) back it up.