IEA Podcast

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Director General Lord Hannan is joined by Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director and Head of Political Economy, and Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics.
This week, the proposal to replace the state pension with a system of compulsory private saving is up for discussion. Also on the agenda are the debate over the “strange death of libertarianism” and a House of Lords committee’s call to ban gambling advertising.
Could a funded pension system on the Australian or Chilean model ever survive the politics of “scrapping the state pension”? Reformers from Peter Lilley to Chile’s architects tried to reassure voters that existing entitlements were safe. The discussion then turns to Daniel McCarthy’s argument that libertarianism has run out of steam, weighing up whether free marketeers have really won the battles of the past, what has happened to the word “libertarian”, and why the fusionist alliance between free marketeers and conservatives is holding in Britain even as it breaks down in America. The discussion closes with the Lords’ case for banning gambling adverts despite the absence of any evidence of harm, and what the precautionary principle means for evidence-based policymaking.
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 economicaffairs.co.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Lord Hannan is joined by Christopher Snowdon, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics, and Kristian Niemietz, IEA Head of Political Economy, for their regular economics and politics round-up. This episode covers the Bank of England’s decision to hold interest rates amid rising inflation, the case for and against scrapping inheritance tax and stamp duty, new government rules dictating what schools can serve for lunch, and the resurgence of Just Stop Oil protests against a backdrop of shifting public opinion on net zero.
On interest rates, the panel debate whether the Bank is right to hold steady given inflation driven largely by oil and petrol prices, and whether expectations of future rises are justified. They then turn to tax, weighing up the practical costs of inheritance tax collection against the principle of taxing unearned wealth, before broadly agreeing that stamp duty is one of the more damaging taxes to scrap first. On school food, they question the evidence behind new rules limiting pastry, breadcrumbs and processed meat, and argue the policy should be a matter for individual schools rather than national government. The conversation closes with a look at why Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protests have returned, and why net zero, once an unchallenged cross-party consensus, is now facing a growing electoral backlash as energy costs rise.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support to 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 economicaffairs.co.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs briefing, IEA managing editor Daniel Freeman is joined by his colleague Dr Christopher Snowdon to discuss his new paper, The Capitalist Command Economy, out today. They examine how the Government increasingly directs private companies to meet political targets, on heat pumps, electric vehicles, and food reformulation, while leaving them nominally in private hands.
Snowdon explains how so-called “voluntary agreements” with industry are backed by the implicit threat of regulation, pointing to the ZEV mandate’s fines on car manufacturers and the food reformulation scheme’s sugar and calorie targets. He discusses the Government’s growing suspicion of the price mechanism, from energy bills to rent controls, and cites IEA polling showing the public wildly overestimates supermarket profit margins. The conversation also compares this system to Nazi Germany’s economic model and the FDR-era United States, before turning to post-Brexit farm subsidies and closing on why consumers, not politicians, ultimately decide what succeeds.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support to 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 economicaffairs.co.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Maeve Halligan is joined by Managing Editor Daniel Freeman and Head of Lifestyle Economics Christopher Snowdon to discuss the new Chancellor’s first major speech as well as its emphasis on fiscal devolution, deregulation and “public control”. They unpack how and why nearly a million young people are now classed as not in education, employment or training, and examine new international test results showing England’s pupils holding steady while Scotland and Wales fall behind.
The conversation opens with an assessment of the Chancellor’s speech, questioning whether its talk of devolved spending pots and light-touch regulation marks a genuine shift from the previous Treasury approach or simply a change in presentation, and examining what the pledge for “public control” over industries such as water and buses would actually mean in practice given the state of the public finances. Daniel Freeman and Christopher Snowdon then turn to the findings of the ongoing review into youth unemployment, discussing why so many young people are being signed off with mental health conditions, how sickness benefit assessments have changed since the pandemic, and what reform might look like. The episode closes with a look at the 2025 PISA results, in which English pupils held their position against a backdrop of declining outcomes across most of the OECD, while Scottish and Welsh results fell sharply, and what that divergence suggests about curriculum reform and its link, or lack of one, to economic 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.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit economicaffairs.co.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs interview, IEA Managing Editor Daniel Freeman is joined by Julian Jessop, Economics Fellow at the IEA, to discuss his chapter in the new IEA book The Great Stagnation: Why Britain Stopped Growing. The conversation covers the impact of austerity and Brexit on Britain’s economic growth since the 2008 financial crisis, and asks how much either can really explain the slowdown.
On austerity, Julian argues that the “savage cuts” of the 2010s are largely a myth: headline public spending continued to grow in real terms through the decade, even as it fell as a share of national income. He makes the case that controlling the deficit after 2008 was necessary to avoid a bigger crisis, while acknowledging that capital spending, including on prisons, was cut further than it should have been. He also connects the tighter borrowing conditions the UK faces today, sometimes called the “idiot premium”, to concerns that the Government is not as serious about the public finances as the coalition was in the early 2010s.
On Brexit, Julian argues the overall economic data shows it was largely a non-event, with UK growth tracking similarly to France and Germany since 2016. He points instead to high energy costs as a better explanation for the UK’s underperformance, and sets out benefits from Brexit including new trade deals, lower tariffs, smarter regulation and reduced budget contributions to the EU. Asked to score austerity and Brexit out of ten for their role in Britain’s growth slowdown, Julian gives both a zero.
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 economicaffairs.co.uk/subscribe