Tim Ambler: Reform the regulators before reforming the banks

Tim Ambler is Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.

The Tame Tigers Association promised good behaviour so the zoo-keepers removed the bars and let the tigers mingle with the visitors.  Unfortunately a number of visitors were then eaten.  The media blamed the tigers and MPs summoned them to appear before a select committee.  The public were all agreed on how bad tigers were and tiger-bashing became everyone’s new sport.

But perhaps it was the zookeepers who should have been blamed. After all, it seems pretty inept not to maintain adequate security around a tiger.

In discussions on the causes of the financial crisis and wrongdoing by bankers, the view that the zoo-keepers, namely the Financial Services and other authorities, should have kept a better eye on their charges gets scant attention. Yes, the banks need to be put back into a more contained structure but first we need at least to re-educate, and maybe replace, the bureaucrats.

Tim Ambler: The public overwhelmingly rejects taxpayer funding for political parties

Tim Ambler is Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.

Last week, Sir Christopher Kelly's committee on political funding claimed that it was essential for democracy that taxpayers collectively should fund our political parties. Predictably, the committee came up with this conclusion without asking the general public whether they agreed, and nor did they propose any referendum or polling to see whether this major change to the constitution is in fact one that the public feel happy with.

Well, the Adam Smith Institute has done it for them. We commissioned ICM Research to poll taxpayers on the issue, asking them:

"Do you think that political party funding should come mainly from taxes or do you think it should remain as it is now, with funds from party members, businesses, trade unions and wealthy individuals."

You might think that dropping into the question those widely-hated groups – businesses, trade unions and wealthy individuals – would have had the public fleeing into the arms of government funding. Not a bit of it. The results were as follows (with the answers to the same question in 2002 in brackets):

• Party funding should remain as it is now 71% (58%)
• Party funding should come mainly from taxes 16% (26%)
• Don't know 13% (16%)

In other words, the public were against the proposals in 2002 and are even more against them now.