IEA Podcast

Inheritance tax is one of Britain’s most hated taxes -- but is the outrage justified? Kristian Niemietz sits down with Rory Meakin, Research Fellow at the Taxpayers’ Alliance and author of a new IEA paper on inheritance tax, to examine what this tax actually does, how much it raises, and whether it makes any economic sense. From the farmer protests that pushed the issue back into the headlines, to the surprising fact that Britain sits in the global top five for inheritance tax rates, this conversation cuts through the politics to look at the hard numbers.Rory and Kristian explore the serious practical problems with inheritance tax -- from the near-impossible task of valuing a privately owned family business, to the compliance costs that fall squarely on grieving families rather than the state. They also tackle the ideological debate head-on, revealing that the case for a 100% inheritance tax has been made not just by left-wing commentators, but by figures like James Buchanan, the Nobel Prize-winning father of public choice economics -- and they explain why that argument ultimately fails in the British context.The conclusion is striking: inheritance tax doesn’t raise much revenue, likely damages savings and investment, and is the least popular tax in Britain -- yet the current system is more punitive than most comparable countries, particularly when it comes to passing wealth to your own children. Rory sets out what a reformed system could look like, including raising the threshold to £2 million -- which would remove 95% of estates from the tax altogether -- and explains why, even if full abolition is off the table, there are straightforward ways to make this tax far less damaging.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this episode of the IEA Podcast, Lord Frost is joined by Kristian Niemietz and Andy Mayer to discuss the growing “Dubai phenomenon” — why increasing numbers of Brits are leaving the UK to build a better life abroad, and why politicians like Ed Davey are wrong to criticise them for it. The panel argues that rather than attacking those who leave, Britain should be asking why it can no longer offer the living standards, low crime, and economic opportunity that draws people to places like Dubai in the first place.The conversation turns to energy policy, where Andy Mayer welcomes the Government’s moves to implement the Fingleton Review on nuclear energy, making the case that a nuclear-led decarbonisation strategy would cost around £400 billion less than the current renewables-heavy approach. The panel challenge the Committee on Climate Change’s claim that net zero will cost Britain almost nothing, arguing the assumptions behind it are implausible and that nuclear power — with a 90% capacity factor versus solar’s 10-12% — is simply a far more reliable and affordable path to decarbonisation.Finally, the panel examines a troubling free speech case in Germany, where an IEA author was accused of posting a Nazi symbol for sharing a satirical image comparing Putin to Hitler. Kristian and Andy argue this reflects a broader erosion of free speech culture across the West — where laws designed for a pre-internet world are being weaponised in bad faith to silence political opponents, and where the only real safeguard is a strong cultural commitment to free expression that is increasingly absent.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Callum Price is joined by Dr Lawrence Newport, co-founder of Looking for Growth, a grassroots movement pushing for meaningful economic reform across the UK. Lawrence explains how the movement was born out of frustration with the Government’s first budget, which he argues was indistinguishable from years of previous Treasury thinking, typified by managed decline and a lack of ambition from the political class.The conversation covers the deep structural problems holding Britain back, from the inability to build infrastructure at reasonable cost and speed, to a legal and planning system that actively subsidises frivolous objections. Lawrence draws on concrete examples, including the Thames Valley Crossing, HS2, and the extraordinary case of a 30-year charity kite festival being shut down over a rare flower, to illustrate how quangos and an ever-expanding regulatory regime are strangling the country’s capacity to get things done.The pair also discuss the student loans crisis and the campaign to release Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data so that parents and students can make genuinely informed decisions about university. Lawrence argues that universities have engaged in deeply misleading practices for years, and that publishing this data in full would shatter a number of sacred assumptions about the value of a degree, ultimately benefiting students, taxpayers, and universities alike in the long run.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

On the 250th anniversary of its publication, we revisit one of the most consequential books ever written: Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Published on 9th March 1776 — the same year as the American Declaration of Independence — Smith’s masterwork laid the intellectual foundations for modern economics, free trade, and the idea that individual freedom, properly channelled through law and competition, can transform entire nations from poverty to prosperity.Daniel Freeman is joined by Dr Mark Skousen, presidential fellow at Chapman University and author of The Making of Modern Economics and the new IEA paper The Genius of Adam Smith. Together they explore why Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher with no economics department to his name, produced ideas that still define debates about wealth, inequality, and the role of government today. From the invisible hand to the system of natural liberty, Skousen unpacks why Smith’s three grand principles — justice, freedom, and competition — remain as radical and relevant as ever.They also take stock of the state of the Adam Smith model in 2026, asking whether his vision of peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice is advancing or retreating in the face of rising protectionism, trade wars, and renewed enthusiasm for state intervention. With Smith’s ideas increasingly under pressure from all sides of the political spectrum, this conversation is a timely reminder of what is at stake — and why, 250 years on, the debate Smith started is far from over.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Australia made global headlines when it introduced a social media ban for under-16s, but does the evidence actually support such a drastic step? In this episode, Callum Price is joined by IEA Public Policy Fellow Matthew Lesh to examine the claims driving the push to restrict young people’s access to social media platforms. They explore what the research really says about social media and children’s mental health, drawing on the work of leading academic sceptics who find the link far weaker than campaigners often claim.The episode takes a close look at Australia’s ban in practice, finding that millions of accounts have been deleted whilst VPN usage has surged and teenagers are simply finding workarounds. Matthew argues that bans of this kind create a false sense of security for parents, undermine open conversations between families about online safety, and strip young people of the very safe, age-appropriate accounts that platforms have developed. The discussion also turns to the UK’s own consultation on a potential under-16s ban, including the alarming prospect of extending restrictions to AI chatbots.Matthew and Callum argue that well-intentioned as these policies may be, they risk doing more harm than good. Rather than reaching for prohibition, the answer lies in parental responsibility, digital education, and making better use of the child safety frameworks that already exist under the Online Safety Act. With the Government now openly consulting on measures that could dwarf what Australia has done, the stakes for British children’s access to the open internet have never been higher.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz and Director General Lord Frost to discuss the Spring Statement, the Middle East crisis and its economic repercussions, and shifting British attitudes towards national identity and the NHS.The trio assess Rachel Reeves’s Spring Statement, which delivered little in the way of new policy direction. They examine the OBR’s report and note a modest but meaningful shift in tone from official forecasters, who are increasingly acknowledging the distortionary effects of high taxation and the link between employment rights legislation and rising unemployment. With the tax burden at a historic high and youth unemployment worsening, the panel argues the conditions are ripening for a more serious public debate about economic reform. They also discuss the geopolitical fallout from the Middle East crisis, warning that Britain’s energy policy, its cancellation of North Sea licences, and its strained relationships with key energy suppliers leave the country exposed to a significant price shock.The conversation concludes with a look at a Pew Research survey on national pride, which finds British respondents unusually likely to cite things they are not proud of. The panel explores the collapse in NHS satisfaction, noting that only 12% of people now cite the health service as a source of national pride, a dramatic reversal from its near-unanimous approval during the pandemic. They discuss what this signals for the appetite for reform and whether a return to economic growth could restore the national mood more broadly.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs interview, IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz speaks with Jesús Armas, Venezuelan opposition activist and former IEA intern, about his imprisonment by the Maduro regime following the disputed July 2024 presidential election. Jesús describes being kidnapped by regime security forces, held in clandestine detention, subjected to torture, and kept in isolation for months, as well as the broader collapse of Venezuelan civil society under Chavismo.The conversation examines how Venezuela descended from a state with at least nominal civil liberties into a full dictatorship, drawing parallels with Soviet-era show trials and Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Jesús explains how the opposition won the 2024 election with 70% of the vote, collected the tallies to prove it, and were then systematically persecuted for doing so. He also discusses the current political situation under Delcy Rodriguez, the prospects for democratic transition, Venezuela’s economic collapse including salaries below $1 a month, the destruction of the oil industry through nationalisation, and why 9 million Venezuelans have fled the country.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

The latest event in the Entrepreneurial Minds series brought together entrepreneur and mentor Simon Krystman in conversation with Lord Kamall for a wide-ranging discussion on entrepreneurship, innovation and the realities of building businesses. Designed to give aspiring founders and those interested in enterprise an honest insight into entrepreneurial journeys, the event explored the motivations, risks and lessons that shape successful ventures. Through an informal interview format followed by audience questions, attendees heard first-hand reflections on decision-making, resilience and the importance of learning through both success and failure.Krystman reflected on his unconventional route into entrepreneurship, challenging the assumption that entrepreneurs are simply “born” with innate talent. Drawing on early experiences founding a technology business in the 1990s, he described the risks of leaving secure employment with little preparation, the setbacks encountered when initial ideas proved unworkable, and the rapid pivot that ultimately enabled growth. The discussion highlighted practical themes including idea validation, customer demand, scaling challenges and the distinction between enjoying entrepreneurial creation versus managing large organisations.The conversation broadened into wider policy and social questions, including regulation, access to investment, community entrepreneurship and the cultural attitudes that shape innovation ecosystems. Audience discussion touched on philanthropy, local enterprise initiatives and comparisons between British and American approaches to risk and failure. Krystman emphasised mentorship and evidence-based validation as critical tools for founders, arguing that understanding customer need, rather than pursuing investment alone, remains the central determinant of entrepreneurial success.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Lord Frost and energy analyst Andy Mayer join host Callum Price to dissect Reform UK’s latest economic pitch, weighing up Richard Tice’s proposals for a Great Repeal Act and a sovereign wealth fund built from public sector pension pots. While the panel finds much to welcome in Reform’s supply-side instincts, including scrapping the net zero legal target and reopening the North Sea, they warn that the plan contains a fundamental contradiction: you cannot credibly promise to burn red tape whilst simultaneously reaching for tariffs, protectionism, and “Buy British” mandates.The conversation turns to energy bills, where Andy Mayer delivers a forensic takedown of the Government’s claim that falling prices represent genuine progress. He argues that shifting green levies from household bills onto general taxation is an accounting trick, not a saving, and that forcing vast amounts of renewables onto an already strained grid is making energy both more expensive and less reliable. The panel agrees that without a serious commitment to nuclear power and a halt to the clean power drive, the UK risks sleepwalking into an energy crisis of its own making.The episode closes with a pointed debate on the Conservative Party’s push to ban social media for under-16s, with both guests pulling no punches. They argue that exploiting bereaved parents at a press conference to push poorly evidenced legislation is cynical and reckless, that hard cases make bad law, and that banning children from the internet does nothing to address the real causes of poor mental health. The broader concern, as Lord Frost puts it, is a political class that simply does not trust ordinary people to think for themselves.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Your student debt keeps growing even as you pay it off. Sound familiar? Callum Price breaks down why the student loan system is failing students, taxpayers, and universities alike, and why tinkering with interest rates will never be enough. The real problem is that universities are paid to recruit students, not educate them, creating a system with completely misaligned incentives.The solution requires genuine structural reform: make universities financially responsible for the degrees they offer. If universities had to fund degrees themselves, they would have a real incentive to ensure graduates land well-paying jobs. Lift the tuition fee cap, allow proper market competition, and let third-party funders into the space.But fixing universities alone is not enough. The Government’s Employment Rights Act, National Insurance hikes, and minimum wage increases are making it harder and more expensive for businesses to hire young people. Until that changes, even the best-educated graduates will struggle to find the jobs that make their degrees worthwhile.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Lord Frost, IEA Director General, joins energy analyst Kathryn Porter, author of the IEA’s landmark new report “Just Stop Oil?”, for a wide-ranging discussion on why oil and gas remain indispensable to modern life. Porter argues that the entire premise of the “just stop oil” movement is born from privilege, ignoring the fundamental role hydrocarbons play in medicine, agriculture, and technology. From hospitals built on petrochemicals to Sri Lanka’s fertiliser disaster, the case against abandoning fossil fuels is forensically made.The conversation shifts to Britain’s North Sea, where both speakers argue the Government is actively sabotaging a domestic resource. Porter warns that without domestic extraction, Britain will simply pay Norway to sell its own oil and gas back to it, while importing higher-carbon hydrocarbons from elsewhere at a net fiscal loss. Frost reflects on why this “collective madness” has gripped Western governments simultaneously, and what forces may finally be turning the tide.Rounding off the discussion, Porter outlines a looming gas supply crisis, the fragility of energy interconnectors with Europe, and why energy nationalism is not just predictable but legally and politically inevitable. Both speakers see signs of a shifting debate, with the IEA’s own research receiving greater media traction than ever before. The supertanker, they suggest, may finally be beginning to turn.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by IEA Director General Lord Frost and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz to discuss the week’s major economic and political developments. The conversation opens with Robert Jenrick’s debut economic policy speech as Reform’s Treasury spokesperson, examining whether it marks a serious shift towards credible fiscal conservatism or a watered-down pitch to reassure the bond markets.The panel then turns to two conflicting data releases: rising unemployment, with the rate hitting 5.2% and youth unemployment now above the European average, against a stronger-than-expected January public sector surplus of £30 billion. Lord Frost and Niemietz debate what these figures reveal about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill and the Government’s broader economic approach, including the possibility of a U-turn on the youth minimum wage. The discussion also covers whether Britain has quietly surrendered its long-standing advantage of a flexible, low-unemployment labour market.The episode closes on a data integrity scandal: child poverty figures have been found to be based on significantly under-reported benefit income, with a gap of up to £44 billion between what people said they received and what the DWP actually paid out. Niemietz argues this is a long-standing and predictable problem with self-reported income data, and that relative poverty measures are a fundamentally flawed basis for policy anyway.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Student loans are broken. Peter Ainsworth, author of the IEA’s “Shares in Students” paper, joins Callum Price to explain why the current system fails everyone involved. Graduates face ballooning debts that never shrink despite years of payments, whilst the Government estimates losses of £10 billion per year on current loans. Universities receive guaranteed funding regardless of whether students get good jobs, creating perverse incentives that harm outcomes.Peter argues that student loans are fundamentally mis-sold to young people, with websites obscuring the reality of £50,000 debts and compound interest. Middle earners are trapped in a psychological nightmare, whilst low earners carry “fantasy loans” and high earners pay theirs off quickly. The system subsidises universities rather than students, with humanities students cross-subsidising expensive STEM courses despite lower expected earnings.The solution? Abolish the Office for Students, allow universities to lend directly to students, and save taxpayers an estimated £200 billion. This is a broken system that needs radical reform.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Callum Price speaks with Lord Frost, Director General, and Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director. The conversation examines the latest GDP figures showing 0.1% growth in the final quarter of 2024, with GDP per capita falling for the second consecutive quarter. They discuss why Keir Starmer's celebration of these figures misses the point that people are not actually getting richer, and how Labour's Employment Rights Act and tax rises have contributed to economic stagnation.The discussion turns to whether any political party has a credible growth strategy, criticising the Liberal Democrats' proposal to split the Treasury and relocate part of it to Birmingham as "cargo cult economics". They examine Andy Burnham's economic thinking, including his views on electoral reform and nationalisation, questioning whether his prescriptions would actually lead to the stability and growth he promises. The conversation also covers why proportional representation might create less political stability rather than more, and the persistent problem of "rich country syndrome" where Britain maintains the political discourse of a prosperous nation despite 15 years of stagnation.The podcast concludes with debates on water nationalisation, examining why the sector lacks genuine competition and whether state ownership would solve fundamental problems of investment and infrastructure. They discuss the parallels with the NHS's short-term investment failures, the planning system's role in preventing reservoir construction despite Britain being one of the wettest countries in the world, and a bizarre Supreme Court ruling banning the use of the word "milk" for plant-based products.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

The IEA’s Kristian Niemietz joins Callum Price to dissect the Patriotic Millionaires campaign and their push for wealth taxes. Survey evidence shows millionaires support higher taxes on themselves, but is this genuine commitment or virtue signalling? Niemietz examines the gap between stated preferences and revealed preferences, exploring why talk is cheap when there’s no real cost to supporting a tax that may never happen.The conversation challenges the claim that millionaire support for wealth taxes proves they won’t have negative behavioural effects. Even if wealthy individuals approve of taxation in principle, Niemietz argues they still respond to tax incentives in practice, just as shoppers react to VAT without making philosophical statements. He dismantles Gary Stevenson’s appeal to authority and explains why making money from binary bets doesn’t validate broader economic theories.Whether progressive taxation advocate or free market sceptic, this episode offers a critical examination of wealth tax campaigns and the disconnect between what people say they support and how they actually behave when faced with real economic incentives.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

The Bank of England has held interest rates at 3.75%, but Lord Frost and Kristian Niemietz warn that the “psychology of inflation” remains unbroken in the UK economy. With wages rising by government fiat and consumers still expecting persistent price increases, they argue that rushing back to near-zero rates would be a mistake. The Bank has simultaneously downgraded GDP growth forecasts to just 0.9% for this year, down from 1.4% last year, revealing an economy trapped in stagnation. Frost argues that a decade of near-zero interest rates has fundamentally distorted Britain’s economic structure, keeping unprofitable companies alive and preventing investment from flowing to its most productive uses.On Brexit, the conversation turns to Labour’s proposed “reset” with the EU and whether Britain has genuinely diverged enough to make realignment difficult. Frost reveals that the final thing he did in Number 10 on Brexit night was argue about game bird regulations, symbolising how deeply EU rules constrained British sovereignty even in the smallest areas. Both guests contend that Britain has done just enough post-Brexit reform to compensate for the estimated 1% cost of leaving the single market, which is why growth patterns haven’t dramatically changed. However, the failure to diverge more substantially leaves the door open for future governments to drift back towards EU alignment.The discussion highlights a fundamental tension in British economic policy. Without meaningful regulatory divergence, the single market remains an attractive option for those prioritising frictionless trade over sovereignty. Yet as Frost warns, rejoining would mean accepting rules with no influence over their creation, from pesticide regulations to gene editing restrictions. With inflation expectations still elevated and growth forecasts dire, Britain faces a choice between the painful structural reforms needed for genuine recovery or the comfortable drift back towards European regulatory convergence.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Callum Price, IEA Director of Communications, interviews Len Shackleton, IEA Editorial and Research Fellow, and Annabel Denham, columnist at The Telegraph and former IEA policy analyst. The conversation examines a new IEA paper on the government’s expanded flexible working mandates introduced in the Employment Rights Act, which now makes it extremely difficult for employers to refuse requests for flexible working arrangements.Len and Annabel discuss the hidden costs and unintended consequences of these mandates, including how they may actually harm the workers they are designed to protect. They explore how protected characteristics combined with flexible working requests can expose employers to unlimited discrimination claims, potentially leading businesses to avoid hiring workers with protected characteristics such as working mothers. The conversation also examines how flexible working creates pay disparities between those who can work remotely (effectively receiving a 5 to 7% pay increase) and essential workers in hospitals, transport and other sectors who cannot, particularly affecting public sector pay structures.The discussion concludes with analysis of the Employment Rights Act’s broader impact on economic growth and productivity, particularly in the public sector where productivity remains below pre-COVID levels. Len and Annabel argue that whilst flexible working can benefit both employees and employers in certain circumstances, the government should step back and allow employers and employees to negotiate these arrangements directly rather than imposing top-down mandates that create regulatory burdens, slow wage growth and ultimately discourage employment.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights joins Christopher Snowden to discuss her new book ‘Energy Is Life’ and her remarkable transformation from environmental activist promoting energy scarcity to advocate for nuclear power and technological abundance. Lights reveals the shocking hostility she faced from the Green Party simply for asking questions about nuclear energy, despite not even being pro-nuclear at the time. She explains how the environmental movement’s anti-technology stance and refusal to tolerate questioning ultimately drove her to break from her activist tribe and rethink everything she believed about energy and environmental solutions.The conversation explores why modern environmentalism often opposes the very technologies that could solve climate challenges whilst reducing consumption and emissions. Lights argues that groups like Extinction Rebellion are fundamentally driven by a romanticised view of poverty and a desire to return humanity to pre-industrial simplicity, rooted in what she calls ‘immense privilege and abundance’. She discusses the practical potential of small modular reactors versus large-scale nuclear plants, the importance of building nuclear facilities in communities that already understand and support the technology, and why transparency in nuclear development is essential for public acceptance.This wide-ranging discussion touches on fusion energy, desalination, artificial intelligence applications, and the psychological underpinnings of degrowth ideology. Lights makes a compelling case for why her new book represents a complete reversal of her 2015 publication promoting low-carbon lifestyles, and why questioning environmental orthodoxy remains so difficult within activist circles even today.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this special briefing episode, IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz joins host Callum Price to discuss the latest instalment of the British Afuera series on Substack. Inspired by Javier Milei’s radical state reform in Argentina, the project examines which parts of the British state could be abolished entirely rather than simply cut back. Niemietz explains why this approach differs fundamentally from the Cameron-Osborne austerity years, which merely reduced spending across existing services rather than questioning whether the state should provide them at all.Niemietz makes a bold case for abolishing the universal state pension system and replacing it with an Australian-style model based on private savings. He argues that roughly 80% of the British population are perfectly capable of saving for their own retirement, and that the current system, which costs 7.5% of GDP, is economically unjustifiable for the vast majority. Drawing on international comparisons, Niemietz shows how countries like Australia manage to spend just 4.5% of GDP on old age benefits whilst maintaining adequate safety nets for those genuinely unable to save, demonstrating that a savings-based system can deliver better outcomes without leaving the vulnerable behind.The discussion covers the practical challenges of transitioning to such a system, including how to convert National Insurance into private pension savings, the risks of government interference in pension fund investment decisions, and how to design means-tested safety nets that don’t destroy savings incentives. Niemietz addresses common objections and explains why a capitalised pension system, where savings are invested in productive assets, delivers superior returns compared to the current pay-as-you-go model that depends on an ever-shrinking ratio of workers to retirees.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In her final IEA podcast before moving to Washington DC, Reem Ibrahim is joined by Director General Lord Frost and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz to examine two pressing economic questions: should we be optimistic about Britain’s economic future, and do we need a universal basic income because of artificial intelligence?The conversation begins with a critical analysis of recent claims that Britain stands on the verge of economic recovery, driven by stored-up capital and AI productivity gains. Lord Frost and Niemietz push back against this optimism, arguing that Britain’s structural problems, particularly around energy policy and net zero constraints, make such a recovery unlikely. They contrast Britain’s anaemic 0.1% growth with America’s 3.5%, pointing to affordable energy as a crucial differentiator that UK policy actively undermines.The discussion then turns to universal basic income, prompted by fears that AI will destroy jobs. Whilst acknowledging the theoretical free-market case for UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system, all three conclude it is a political fantasy. They argue that once introduced, UBI would prove impossible to reverse, would fail to meet the needs of specific groups requiring additional support, and would sever the essential link between work and market demand, creating what Niemietz calls a ‘self-indulgence economy’.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe