IEA Podcast

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Callum Price is joined by the IEA’s new Director General Lord Hannan and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz. The episode covers the OBR’s admission that it underestimated the fiscal damage from the Government’s employer National Insurance rise, the banning of American commentators Hasan Piker and Usman Khan from entering the UK, and Zach Polanski’s podcast discussion with French economist Gabriel Zucman on wealth taxes.
Lord Hannan argues that tax rises are always harmful to growth, pointing to the “triple whammy” facing employers from National Insurance hikes, the Employment Rights Bill, and minimum wage increases. The conversation turns to whether the OBR’s mandate should be reformed and whether a competitive market in economic forecasting would produce better results. On free speech, all three agree that banning the American commentators was petty authoritarianism, with Hannan and Niemietz both arguing that consistent application of free speech principles matters more than whether you agree with the speaker. Hannan raises the uncomfortable question of whether the liberal free speech consensus of recent decades was merely a temporary standoff between competing hegemonies.
The episode closes with Kristian Niemietz’s response to the Polanski/Zucman exchange on wealth taxes. Niemietz agrees that past wealth taxes have largely failed, but disputes Zucman’s claim that a broader, exemption-free version would succeed, arguing the valuation bureaucracy required would be enormous and the disincentive effects on business owners would be severe. Lord Hannan draws on his time in Brussels during Francois Hollande’s wealth tax to illustrate how quickly such policies drive wealth creators out, and argues that the true motive behind wealth tax proposals is egalitarian rather than fiscal.
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 IEA talk, Dr Stephen Davies, Head of Education at the Institute of Economic Affairs, delivers a lecture on the Industrial Revolution, the Great Enrichment, and what the long history of economic growth tells us about how the modern world came to be. The talk covers the extraordinary transformation in living standards since 1800 — from a world where one in four children died before their first birthday and 80–90% of the global population lived in absolute poverty, to one where that figure has fallen to under 10%.
Dr Davies examines the Engels Pause (roughly 1790–1850), the period when British GDP grew by 46% while real wages rose only 12%, and traces where the missing wealth went — captured primarily by landlords and asset owners rather than workers. He explains how this reversed after 1850, when real wages surged by 123% as deflation took hold, the Corn Laws were repealed, and the elastic labour supply from the countryside began to dry up. The talk also draws a direct parallel between 19th century rural-to-urban migration in Britain and modern global migration, examines the moralistic and romantic literary critiques of industrialisation against what working-class diaries of the period actually record, and closes with the question of why China — as technologically advanced as Europe in the 14th century — failed to industrialise, and what the Ming Dynasty’s deliberate suppression of innovation reveals about how elites throughout history have blocked economic progress.
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 is joined by Managing Editor Daniel Freeman and Senior Economist Dr Valentin Boboc to discuss three of the week's biggest policy stories. The conversation opens with Tony Blair's 5,000-word essay on what the Government is getting wrong, examining his ten-point plan for what he calls "radical centrism" and how much of it lines up with longstanding IEA positions on planning, energy and business regulation.The second topic is the rise in NEETs above one million for the first time, with the panel looking at the figures behind the headline. Hospitality vacancies down 50%, apprenticeships down 35%, and PIP recipients set to double again by 2031. The discussion covers how a combination of employer national insurance rises, minimum wage increases and the Employment Rights Act has made it significantly more expensive to hire young people in the exact sectors where they typically find work, and why the Government's response of youth hubs and apprenticeship levies has done little to address the underlying problem.The final segment turns to Reform's new tax cut pledge, scrapping income tax on hours worked above 40 per week for those earning under £75,000. Daniel Freeman sets out in detail why the policy is poorly designed, from its exclusion of the self-employed and those with second jobs, to the cliff edge it creates at the £75,000 threshold and how straightforwardly it could be gamed by employers restructuring pay.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 Free the Power podcast, IEA Energy Analyst and COO Andy Mayer speaks with David Turver, independent energy expert and author of the Eigenvalues Substack. David has been writing for the IEA on the costs of net zero and has a forthcoming essay examining whether opposition party energy policies could meaningfully address those costs. The conversation focuses on the real and growing financial burden of the Government’s Clean Power 2030 plan, using official figures from the National Energy System Operator, Ofgem, and the Office for Budget Responsibility.
David breaks down the two main cost drivers: subsidies and grid integration costs. Subsidies are forecast to rise by around £3 billion a year by 2031, while grid integration costs, covering the capacity market, grid balancing, and transmission network expansion, are set to triple from £8 billion to £25 billion over the same period. That adds roughly £20 billion to the annual cost of running the electricity system, against a backdrop where the UK already had the most expensive industrial electricity prices in the developed world in 2024. David contrasts this with Ed Miliband’s claim that Clean Power 2030 can bring bills down for good, describing it as stretching a point beyond credulity.
The discussion then turns to what the opposition parties are actually proposing. David assesses the Conservatives’ pledges to scrap the Renewables Obligation and remove carbon taxes, alongside Reform’s commitment to cancel contracts from Allocation Round 7. He finds both welcome but insufficient, with costs still set to be over £8 billion higher in 2030/31 than today even if a right-of-centre government takes power in 2028. The conversation covers the legal difficulties of unwinding offshore wind contracts, the ageing gas fleet, the risk of supply shortfalls, and what a future government would need to do to bring industrial electricity prices into the lowest quartile of the OECD.
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, Managing Editor Daniel Freeman speaks with Dr George Maher, Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, former partner at Tillinghast Towers Perrin, and author of Economic Success and Failure in the Roman Empire. The conversation centres on Dr Maher's new IEA Substack paper, Predicting the Unpredictable, which applies actuarial methods to forecast the results of the 2026 local elections using data from 240 council by-elections held in the preceding twelve months.
Dr Maher walks through the core findings of his analysis, explaining how the Conservatives held on to just 31% of their seats, Labour to 22%, while the Lib Dems retained eight in ten. Reform, meanwhile, drew its support roughly equally from Conservative and Labour voters. His model proved directionally accurate and in several cases outperformed prominent MRP polling, though the actual local election results saw both Labour and the Conservatives perform better than the by-election data predicted, with the migration to Reform falling short of expectations. The conversation explores why — with theories ranging from small-c conservative bias when the stakes are higher, to Labour voters pulling back from the brink when faced with genuine council losses.
The discussion closes with broader reflections on political fragmentation in Britain, the historical precedents of party realignment from the Whig-Tory era through to Labour's displacement of the Liberals in the 1920s, and whether prediction markets and AI are set to disrupt the actuarial profession.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