IEA Podcast

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