IEA Podcast

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.

In this episode of Free the Power, IEA climate and energy analyst Andy Mayer sits down with Henry Hill, deputy editor of Conservative Home, to dissect the failures and future of Britain’s net zero strategy. Hill argues that whilst net zero emissions remains an exciting prospect in theory, the government’s approach has been fundamentally flawed through ‘legacy by fiat’ legislation that sets distant targets without front-loading the necessary infrastructure investment. The conversation explores why politicians like Theresa May and Rishi Sunak preferred symbolic targets over the difficult upfront decisions required for nuclear power, tidal energy and the 400,000 kilometres of onshore cabling that experts say Britain needs.

The discussion reveals how affordability concerns have become central to the net zero debate, particularly during cost of living crises. Hill contends that no government can win re-election if people feel poorer at the end of its term, and that environmentalists must prioritise reconciling green policies with economic growth and rising living standards. Drawing on his 2023 Telegraph piece arguing the Tories needed to U-turn on how they were implementing net zero, Hill advocates for a nuclear-focused, technology-neutral approach that treats energy generation as a consumer good rather than a rationing exercise. He warns against mandates like the zero emissions vehicle requirement that drive up costs and remove consumer choice.

Looking ahead to the next election, Hill maps out starkly different scenarios depending on whether Britain gets a Conservative government, a Labour continuation, or a Reform-Conservative coalition. Whilst a single-party Conservative government would likely maintain modified net zero commitments with stricter cost-of-living protections, a Reform-led coalition might scrap the entire agenda to find budget savings for their working-class electorate. Throughout, Hill emphasises that green initiatives must focus on technological innovation and R&D investment rather than demand suppression, arguing that Britain’s over-complicated government processes and ‘everything bagel liberalism’ have crowded out practical solutions in favour of politically correct box-ticking.

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.

John Cochrane, fellow of the Hoover Institution and author of “The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level”, joins us to discuss the West’s economic stagnation and what it would take to restore robust growth. From America’s slowdown to Britain and Europe’s near-zero growth since 2010, Cochrane diagnoses the fundamental supply-side challenges holding back prosperity and explains why the UK’s GDP per capita of £52,000 lags so far behind America’s £80,000 and Singapore’s £90,000.

The conversation explores what Cochrane calls the “Marie Kondo approach” to economic policy, where growth requires systematic institutional reform rather than stimulus spending. He analyses everything from California’s failing £100 billion high-speed rail project to Britain’s planning system, arguing that cost disease and regulatory sclerosis have made it impossibly expensive to build anything. Cochrane also examines why the 2021 inflation proved secular stagnation theory wrong and what “frontier growth” versus “catch-up growth” means for different economies.

In the final section, Cochrane turns to fiscal crises and financial reform, warning that sovereign default is now a realistic possibility for major economies including the United States. He makes the case for narrow banking to prevent future financial crises, explains why there is no such thing as “maturity transformation”, and offers a surprisingly optimistic view that political change can happen faster than anyone expects, pointing to Trump’s election and Argentina’s libertarian president as examples of rapid shifts in the politically possible.

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, IEA Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz and former Brexit Minister Lord Frost to discuss Andy Burnham’s ‘Manchesterism’ speech, industrial strategy and Britain’s misplaced sense of affluence. The conversation examines whether Burnham’s vision for regional economic policy represents genuine innovation or rebranded central planning, and why Britain’s political class consistently overestimates the country’s wealth.

Kristian Niemietz critiques Burnham’s rhetoric as ‘straight out of the Mariana Mazzucato playbook’, noting that whilst some proposals like releasing greenbelt land are sensible, the speech presents a false dichotomy where free market advocates supposedly ‘lean back and do nothing’. Lord Frost questions the underlying logic of designating growth clusters and directing where businesses should locate, arguing this approach lacks the ability to sustain prosperity over the medium term. The discussion highlights how Burnham attempts to rebrand the original ‘Manchester School’ tradition of free trade and laissez-faire economics into something closer to ‘city bossism’ and public sector-led activity.

The conversation shifts to examining why Britain behaves like a wealthy country when GDP per capita figures tell a different story. Niemietz argues Britain is around 7% poorer than the Western European average yet makes policy decisions as if it were Luxembourg. Lord Frost reflects on how Britain’s decline isn’t immediately visible because the capital stock deteriorates slowly, leaving people surrounded by ‘the wealth of the past’ whilst the economy falls behind North America and East Asia. The panel explores how this disconnect fuels both NIMBYism amongst affluent groups and left-wing populism from figures like Zack Goldsmith, who promise redistribution without growth.

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, IEA Head of Media Reem Ibrahim interviews Elena Panisset, an institutional economist, former World Bank advisor, and founder of Thought for Action. The conversation explores why Latin American economies struggle despite having intelligent leaders and educated populations, examining the critical role of property rights, trust, and institutional reform in economic development. Elena draws on her extensive experience working with Peru, Brazil, Venezuela, and Panama to explain how bureaucratic complexity drives people into the informal economy.

Elena explains how excessive regulation and bureaucratic bottlenecks create impossible barriers for ordinary citizens trying to participate in the formal economy. From taking a year to buy a second-hand car to over two years to get a divorce, she illustrates how government complexity forces 70% of populations into informal markets where they cannot prove ownership, access credit, or reach their entrepreneurial potential. The discussion examines why capable individuals thrive abroad but struggle in their home countries, identifying the absence of secure property rights and continuous trust as the fundamental problem holding back development.

The interview concludes with Elena’s vision for formalising informal economies through simplified regulations and clear property rights frameworks. She argues that without the ability to prove ownership and existence, free markets cannot function properly and entrepreneurship remains stifled. Elena emphasises that reducing bureaucracy and establishing transparent property rights systems are essential for countries to unlock their economic potential and allow citizens the freedom to flourish.

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, Christopher Snowdon and Lord Frost join Callum Price to dissect the ‘stakeholder state’ – the coalition of NGOs, activist judges, commissioners and endless judicial reviews that has paralysed government action in Britain. Sparked by recent complaints from Keir Starmer’s former director of strategy, the discussion examines how decades of poorly drafted legislation, gold-plated by activist judges, has created a system where the state simultaneously grows bigger whilst systematically emasculating itself.

Snowdon and Frost explore why governments of all stripes have found themselves unable to implement even manifesto commitments, from planning reform to welfare changes. Rather than blaming celebrities writing letters or legitimate lobbying, they argue the real problem lies in accumulated legislation that needs urgent amendment or repeal. Lord Frost draws on his experience in government to highlight how Labour mobilised these very stakeholders when in opposition, only to discover them blocking their own agenda in power.

The conversation reveals a fundamental tension between democratic control and the proliferation of ‘independent’ bodies and commissioners, all vying for relevance and expanded budgets. From the Food Standards Agency’s mission creep to civil servants becoming guardians of process rather than delivery, the episode makes a compelling case that Britain’s next reforming government must prioritise legislative reform. As Snowdon puts it: anything from the last 20 years is fair game – Britain functioned perfectly well, if not better, without most of it.

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.

Is Britain sleepwalking into economic stagnation whilst authoritarian policies threaten our civil liberties? In this essential episode, IEA Director General David Frost and Energy Analyst Andy Mayer join host Reem Ibrahim to dissect November’s disappointing GDP figures, which show the UK economy growing at just 0.3%. Whilst a temporary bump in tax consultancy services ahead of the budget masked deeper problems, the reality is stark: Britain is falling further behind the United States and other major economies, with cumulative growth to 2030 forecast at barely 12% compared to nearly 60% for the BRIC nations. David and Andy expose how regulatory burdens, government interference, and disastrous energy policies have strangled British productivity and entrepreneurialism.

The discussion then turns to offshore wind contracts and the government’s net zero agenda, revealing how taxpayers are being forced to subsidise increasingly expensive renewable energy through contracts that lock in inflated prices. Andy explains how these arrangements guarantee profits for developers regardless of market conditions, whilst the government’s renewable energy targets drive up costs across the economy. The panel examines why Britain’s approach to energy policy has become so counterproductive, comparing our self-imposed constraints with more pragmatic approaches elsewhere that balance environmental goals with economic reality.

In a powerful conclusion, the conversation tackles the government’s troubling assault on digital freedoms. From proposals to ban X (formerly Twitter) in response to concerns about Grok AI to the recent U-turn on mandatory digital ID schemes, the panel exposes how Labour’s authoritarian instincts threaten fundamental civil liberties. David, who resigned as a minister over vaccine certification, draws parallels between digital ID systems and instruments of state control, whilst Reem highlights the dangers of centralised government databases tracking citizens’ every movement. This wide-ranging discussion reveals how technology is reshaping the relationship between state and individual, and why classical liberals must remain vigilant against creeping authoritarianism disguised as convenience or safety.

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.