IEA Podcast

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by Managing Editor Daniel Freeman and Economics Fellow Julian Jessop to discuss Trump’s recent criticism of Europe, the renewed customs union debate in Parliament, and Kemi Badenoch’s welfare speech. The conversation examines Trump’s characterization of Europe as “a decaying group of nations with weak leaders” and his criticism of European energy policy and defense spending, questioning whether European politicians are still acting as if growth happens automatically while relying on the US for security.The discussion then shifts to the tied parliamentary vote on rejoining the customs union. Julian explains why the economic benefits would be limited given the UK’s existing trade agreement with the EU, while the costs include losing independence on trade policy and disrupting new deals with countries like the US and India. The panel analyzes polling showing support for rejoining the EU, arguing it reflects general economic dissatisfaction rather than genuine support once people understand what EU membership actually entails.The podcast concludes with Kemi Badenoch’s welfare reform speech and her “Benefits Street” framing of Labour’s budget. Julian and Daniel welcome her challenge to relative poverty measures and her emphasis on getting people into work rather than simply redistributing income, though they note the glaring omission of any discussion about pension spending, which represents the largest and fastest-growing component of the welfare budget. 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, IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz speaks with Professor Peter Boettke, professor of economics at George Mason University. The conversation explores artificial intelligence and what it means for both capitalism and socialism, starting with a deep dive into the original socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 1930s between Ludwig von Mises and socialist economists.Professor Boettke explains how Mises demonstrated that without private property and market prices, socialist planners cannot make rational economic calculations to distinguish between technologically feasible and economically viable projects. This fundamental inability to “produce more with less” meant socialism could never achieve its promised burst of productivity, instead leading to economic deprivation and political tyranny. The discussion covers the historical figures involved, from Marx’s critique of capitalism to Bukharin’s New Economic Policy, and why the economic calculation problem wasn’t about bad leaders but inherent systemic flaws.The conversation then turns to modern concerns about “techno-socialism” and whether AI changes the calculation debate. Professor Boettke argues that while AI improves data processing, it doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of needing market-generated prices to guide resource allocation. He contrasts invention with innovation, emphasising that innovation requires the creative powers of a free society rather than committee-based planning. The interview concludes with thoughts on AI in education, the difference between human capital building and signalling, and why technological advancement depends on allowing dissenters and outsiders to innovate freely. 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, IEA Head of Media Reem Ibrahim is joined by Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz and Managing Editor Daniel Freeman. The conversation covers Labour’s recent budget announcements, particularly the decision to spend £48 million over three years hiring 350 additional town and country planners. They examine whether throwing more money and more bureaucrats at the planning system will actually solve Britain’s housing crisis, or whether the fundamental problem lies with the regulatory framework itself.Kristian discusses research by Mark Pennington showing that between 1960 and 1990, spending on planning officers increased sevenfold while housing applications only increased by 28%, with a striking correlation showing that every 1% increase in planning expenditure resulted in a 1% decrease in housing output. The panel argues that Labour has become a last-minute convert to YIMByism without understanding the underlying issues, comparing their approach to Gorbachev’s attempts to fix the Soviet system by hiring more bureaucrats rather than addressing the fundamental regulatory problems.The discussion then shifts to Kristian’s recent debate experience on wealth inequality, where he challenged the prevailing narrative that inequality is dramatically increasing. The panel examines the flawed methodology behind wealth inequality statistics, discusses Britain’s flat income inequality since the early 1990s despite having one of the most progressive tax systems in the OECD, and argues that what matters for the poor is economic growth and employment opportunities rather than the size of the gap between rich and poor. They also debunk myths about second home ownership in Britain, noting that only 3% of the population owns a second home compared to much higher rates in France and even the former Soviet Union.Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 0:47 Labour’s Planning Budget: Hiring 350 More Planners 4:07 Mark Pennington’s Research: 600% Cost Increase, 28% Housing Output 7:19 The 1930s Built Faster: When Planning Took 3 Days 8:04 The Gorbachev Approach: Why More Bureaucrats Won’t Work 10:34 Absurd Planning Cases: Disabled Child’s Bedroom Rejected 13:26 The Employment Rights Bill: Ditching the £118,000 Cap 16:29 European vs British Labour Markets: Flexibility Matters 17:21 700,000 Vacancies Disappeared: The Impact of Labour’s Policies 27:49 The Wealth Tax Debate: Conflicting Visions for Spending 31:01 Gary Stevenson’s Data Problem: Lived Experience vs Statistics 33:30 Why Wealth Inequality Data Isn’t Useless (The Weather Forecast Analogy) 35:00 Debunking Wealth Inequality: The Data Problems36:17 Britain’s Progressive Tax System & Flat Inequality 37:23 China’s Billionaires & Poverty Decline: Growth vs Gaps 39:38 The Second Homes Myth: Britain vs France & Russia 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, IEA Head of Media Reem Ibrahim interviews Dominic Frisby, comedian and financial commentator. The conversation explores Frisby’s recent book “The Secret History of Gold” and examines why gold is becoming increasingly important as a strategic reserve, particularly with China’s growing economic influence. They discuss how Frisby’s investigation into gold and commodities led him to understand modern monetary systems, including how most money is created through debt issuance and why housing has become so unaffordable.The discussion covers the connection between fiat currencies and government power, with Frisby arguing that state control of money enables broader state control across society. He explains how the 19th century gold standard era saw consumer prices halve over decades, contrasting sharply with today’s persistent inflation. The conversation examines Bitcoin as an alternative monetary system and explores whether decentralised money could limit government overreach. Frisby shares his experience writing about controversial topics and the challenges he’s faced with venue cancellations.The interview concludes with Frisby’s unique approach to political satire through music, including songs like “Govern Me Harder” that blend comedy with economic commentary. He discusses how fiat money enables institutions to operate outside normal market rules and how this affects everything from education to media. Frisby explains his work across multiple platforms, from financial commentary through his Flying Frisby newsletter to comedy performances, and why he believes humour remains one of the most effective tools for communicating free market ideas. 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, IEA Executive Director Tom Clougherty interviews Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform. The conversation covers the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which has transformed American politics over the past 40 years, how the Republican Party became the party that will not raise taxes, and the future direction of the conservative movement in the United States.Norquist explains how the pledge system works and its impact on both federal and state politics. He discusses the dramatic shift since 1994, when 96% of Republicans signed the pledge, ending 62 years of Democratic congressional dominance. The conversation explores state-level tax reforms, with multiple states abolishing income taxes and cutting rates, and how population migration from high-tax to low-tax states is reshaping American electoral politics. Norquist also addresses the Republican coalition strategy, explaining why unified opposition to tax increases has been more electorally successful than competing with Democrats in bidding wars for government spending.The interview concludes with analysis of conservative coalition building, contrasting the Republican “leave us alone” coalition with the Democratic spending coalition. Norquist discusses how limiting government revenue forces the left’s coalition to fracture, and explains the long-term demographic and political trends that favour limited government policies. He also critiques recent proposals from some conservatives to abandon anti-tax principles, arguing this would destroy the Republican electoral majority without winning new voters. 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

Dr. Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs known for his insights on fiscal policy, and Daniel Freeman, the Managing Editor who provides detailed budget analyses, dive deep into the latest budget by Rachel Reeves. They discuss the staggering £70 billion tax rise and its implications for the UK's highest-ever tax-to-GDP ratio. Notably, they critique the lack of real growth actions, the impact of progressive taxes on productivity, and the political oddity of new taxes with impending elections, painting a complex picture of Britain’s fiscal landscape.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs video, Lord Frost, incoming IEA Director General, delivers his immediate reaction to Rachel Reeves’ first budget as Chancellor. Lord Frost examines how the budget pushes Britain’s tax burden to its highest level in history - 38.2% by the end of this Parliament - surpassing even World War Two levels. He breaks down how the government achieved this through freezing income tax thresholds and what he calls a “smorgasbord” of small taxes that collectively raise significant revenue, from the extension of sugar taxes to milkshakes and lattes to Britain’s first national hotel tax.Lord Frost criticises the budget’s approach to sin taxes, pointing out that tobacco tax revenue has fallen by 40% between 2022 and 2024 as people find ways to evade the duties. He challenges the government’s spending priorities, questioning the effectiveness of ending the two-child benefit cap despite its multi-billion pound cost, and warns about the dangers of Britain now having one of the highest minimum wages in the OECD. He argues that while young workers may earn more, the real cost is felt in jobs that never materialise because employment becomes too expensive.The interview concludes with Lord Frost’s assessment that the budget continues Britain’s decade-long trajectory in the wrong direction. He argues that increasing tax, spending and regulation will not deliver prosperity, and calls for a fundamental reversal - cutting spending, reducing the tax burden, and deregulating to allow people to spend their own money. Lord Frost delivers a stark verdict: “What the country needed was the state’s boot off the neck of the country - instead, it’s given it a kick in the teeth.” 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

Read the full paper here: https://iea.org.uk/publications/2025-budget-briefing-tax-policy-preview-options-and-possible-impacts/With Chancellor Rachel Reeves set to deliver her Autumn Budget on Wednesday 26th November, IEA Economics Fellow Julian Jessop joins Managing Editor Daniel Freeman to discuss his new budget briefing paper. Jessop warns that the Chancellor faces a financial hole of up to £30 billion and will likely attempt to fill it through a combination of extending the freeze on personal tax thresholds and what he describes as a “dog’s breakfast” of smaller tax measures. While the largest component of the hole – around £20 billion – stems from a long-overdue downgrade to the OBR’s productivity forecasts, the remainder results from Labour’s own policy decisions, including abandoned welfare reforms and increased spending commitments.The discussion explores why attempting to raise £20 billion from numerous small tax changes is economically risky and likely to prove unreliable. Jessop argues that such a patchwork approach – potentially including higher Council Tax on expensive properties, closing Capital Gains Tax loopholes, imposing National Insurance on rental income, and increased sin taxes – creates greater uncertainty and unintended consequences than a simpler rise in broad-based taxes like income tax or VAT. He reveals that the government reportedly abandoned a “two up, two down” plan to raise income tax rates by 2p while cutting employee National Insurance by 2p, likely due to political concerns about breaching manifesto commitments rather than improved economic forecasts.Jessop makes the case that the root problem is spiralling public spending, which is forecast to rise by £200 billion over the next five years from £1,150 billion to £1,350 billion. He argues that simply restoring productivity in public services to pre-COVID levels could provide the same services for 4% less money, eliminating the need for tax rises altogether. The conversation also covers broader tax reform possibilities, including abolishing stamp duty and National Insurance, and why successive governments have failed to rationalise the VAT system despite cross-party agreement among economists that it’s deeply flawed. 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

We would like to apologise for the video quality issues that take place throughout the recording. This will be fixed for upcoming recordings.In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Managing Editor Daniel Freeman speaks with Kristian Niemietz and Julian Jessop about the upcoming autumn budget and Britain’s fiscal challenges. The conversation examines how bond market participants have become increasingly attuned to political instability, tracking everything from cabinet relationships to policy U-turns as indicators of fiscal risk. They discuss how competitive bond markets operate not on ideology but on risk assessment, and why claims of “bond market dictatorship” fundamentally misunderstand how financial markets work.The panel analyses Labour’s constrained position heading into the budget, caught between promises not to raise taxes on working people and the inability to cut spending due to backbench resistance despite a massive parliamentary majority. They examine various wealth tax proposals being floated, from mansion taxes to exit taxes on unrealised capital gains, explaining why international evidence suggests such measures consistently fall short of revenue expectations. The discussion covers the practical problems with revaluing council tax bands and the political toxicity of measures that would hit asset-rich but cash-poor homeowners.The conversation concludes with budget predictions, including the possibility that Labour might not just freeze tax thresholds but actually decrease them, potentially lowering the higher rate threshold to £46,000 and the additional rate to £100,000. This would create marginal tax rates exceeding 70% and hit millions more workers including senior nurses with higher rate tax for the first time. The panel debates whether the economic arguments can overcome the political toxicity of such moves as the Chancellor prepares for what they characterise as an economically and politically toxic budget. 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

n this episode of the IEA Podcast, host Daniel Freeman sits down with Jacob Mchangama to explore the fascinating history of free speech, from ancient Athens to modern social media. Jacob reveals how Socrates became a martyr for ideas he didn’t even believe in, why the Romans feared giving ordinary citizens a voice, and how medieval Islamic scholars championed free inquiry while Europe burned heretics. The conversation traces free speech through the Enlightenment, examining John Stuart Mill’s warnings about the tyranny of the majority and how these debates remain strikingly relevant today.Jacob explains why free speech has become increasingly polarised along political lines, with both left and right abandoning the principle when it becomes inconvenient. From Palestine Action protesters arrested in London to Trump administration pressures on media critics, the discussion reveals how quickly the targets of censorship can shift. He argues that legal protections for speech are ultimately downstream from culture, pointing to how American free speech exceptionalism is surprisingly recent, noting that people could be jailed for Communist Party membership in the 1950s or opposing World War I.The conversation concludes with Jacob’s call for a cross-partisan coalition committed to robust free speech protections, regardless of who’s wielding power. As he emphasises, abandoning free speech because people you disagree with invoke it is a shortsighted strategy that inevitably backfires when you’re on the receiving end. 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