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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.