Almost every reply here has at least some hard truth in it. Among these is that no meter is going to change the amount of energy an electrical item consumes - the only way to reduce one's bill is to consume less: Self-rationing. Condemning an item and replacing it with a more efficient one is an increase in costs, not a reduction (the upgrade result) except perhaps the cost is partially/wholly recovered over many years.
One aspect not so far mentioned is that for a short-termism-sighted government there are distinct gains. The extra induced supply/work installing the meters generates employment which has all the usual effects such as reduced outlays in supporting under-/unemployed people, increased tax revenue (income tax and VAT), etc. This is not a surprise effect of new regulations but a very well known one (a strong incentive ?). That the smart meter programme was botched (single supplier meters, absurd mis-selling, etc.) is no huge surprise, we have seen this sort of thing before in the UK. Added to a strong culture of aversion to change, the history of change within markets has left the UK public very sceptical, reinforcing the aversion with some justification but this is as much as anything else the result of chaotic and obscure conduct by the authorities. There are benefits to be gained from smart meters but most of those are collective ones such as higher overall transparency (regulation potential), better overview and pricing/collection efficiency (better planning/management)nationally, etc.
To suggest/expect anyone other than the public in some way paying for change is at best insincere/naive. To rule out change is to rule out improvement. Finding an acceptable solution to any moan has to start with better decision making leading to improvement - I see no sign of that on the horizon for the UK, better is different but being different does not inevitably mean that is being better.