Almost since the UK's EU Referendum in June 2016 and particularly after the June 2017 General Election, the UK was in political stasis, which appears to have ended as a result of the December 2019 election.

Proper democracy is wonderful (as opposed to rigged democracy) and the UK is a good example of proper democracy; although this is arguable in the period from June 2017 to December 2019.  More on this later.

The Conservative Party’s win, on the 12 December 2019, was emphatic.  This gives rise to two opposing issues; firstly the Government can proceed to govern plus, perhaps more concerningly, the Opposition was decimated, meaning scrutiny of the Government will probably be insufficient.

What does the result tell us?

1)  It’s difficult to disagree with the conclusion that the result gives the Government a mandate to enact the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.  I’d be surprised if any politicians think another referendum on EU membership is likely.  The parliamentary Anti-Brexit programme, which gained steam after the 2017 Election, has run its course and many of its supporting Members of Parliament (MPs) have been voted out of their constituencies.  The Anti-Brexit programme was essentially undemocratic in that MPs worked actively to delay and ultimately try to prevent the enactment of the result of a nationwide democratic vote.  Some of the reasons given for their behaviour actually annoyed people who had voted to remain in the EU.  It appears that quite a lot of voters correctly identified the undemocratic behaviour and used the election to cast out these politicians.

Politicians are not the smartest people in the World so, for future reference:  The result of a nationwide referendum, once accepted by the Government, is not something any MP should try to prevent or hinder.  If an MP voted for the losing proposition and cannot support the winning result; they should resign.  If they actively work against the winning result they should have the Whip removed and be de-selected from their party, irrespective of whether they are in Government, or not.

2)  The Election result was also an emphatic rejection of the Labour Party’s leadership and manifesto.  Just imagine what could have happened if the Labour Party, actually going into the December 2019 election, was the one lead by Tony Blair in the run up to the 1997 election.  The short answer is that the Conservatives would not have a large majority, if any.  So, Labour’s personnel and policies handed the Conservatives a windfall.  The actual result doesn’t mean the Conservatives are in any way superior, let-alone more competent politicians!  I do have some sympathy for Labour supporters who know that long outdated Marxist, Socialist ideologies failed in the UK in the 1960s and 70s (and then largely in the rest of the World, after this).  Mr Corbyn’s & Mr McDonnell’s ideologies simply don’t fit, or work, in the modern world.  If enacted, policies such as punitively taxing the rich, nationalise industries or grab company shares, would ensure companies and entrepreneurs avoid the UK thereby reducing employment, tax revenue and GDP.  In short, a disastrous economic approach.

It’s worth remembering that a Government needs tax revenue, which comes from businesses, consumers and workers.  When politicians say that rich people should pay more tax, a lot of people readily agree.  However, a person with a salary of £1 million per annum, would pay nearly £459,000 in total payroll tax (47% of Gross Salary), compared with £8,656 tax for the Median Disposable Income case (23% of Gross Salary).  For more detail, see the table of salaries and tax contributions at the end of this Blog.  As a Government, would you rather have the £459,000 tax revenue, or not?  If your tax policy causes one person with a salary of £1 million per annum to leave the country, you would need approximately 53 new workers earning a gross salary of £38,100 per annum, to make up the shortfall.

So, the old socialist ideology of taxing the rich simply doesn’t work; the rich leave and the rest have to pick up the tax bill and/or suffer reduced services, as the Government has less tax revenue.  It doesn’t need any rocket science to see that, the more very highly paid workers there are, the greater the tax revenue, potentially leading to reduced tax rates on the lower paid and more money for services such as the NHS, social care or pensions.  The Labour Party don’t appear to understand this.

3)  The Liberal Democrats failed to make a significant impact, largely due to pinning their fortune to being Anti-Brexit.  In The Economist issue ahead of the election (see the web-link for the article at the end of the Blog), their leader-writer couldn’t support the Conservatives or Labour; preferring the Lib-Dems because of their Anti-Brexit plus economic policies.  It appears voters weren’t enamoured with either and the Party Leader lost her seat and has resigned.  I find it quite ironic that a party called Liberal Democrats stood on an anti-democratic platform, albeit with some pragmatic ideas on tax, spending plus the environment.  Will the Lib-Dems understand their anti-democratic naivety and re-build in time for the next election?

4)  Lastly, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP).  I am certain their increase in MPs will be taken by the party leadership to mean there is even stronger support for independence; that’s the easy logic.  But, context is key.  Scots who voted to remain in the EU may feel betrayed by the result of the Referendum (no democratic closure here), which the SNP consistently keeps at the front of the mind.  This mind-set is unable to accept or get behind the country-wide EU Referendum result and move forward as the United Kingdom.  Nationalism is a potentially dangerous characteristic.  In terms of Scotland, the SNP are in effect saying that they would be better at setting-up and running an independent Scotland than previous and current Scottish MPs have done within the United Kingdom.  You can look at the SNP’s record on running the devolved government as an indication of their ability to run an independent Scotland.  Are the SNP any better?  Probably not.

With a population of around 5.5 million, the only comparable-size modern countries are Denmark, Finland, Slovakia, Ireland, Norway and New Zealand.  The small, established EU countries are effectively locked-in and unlikely to change.  Norway is unique in terms of resources and New Zealand is long established in the Australasian, west-Pacific and wider global economy.  So, it’s unlikely Scotland could improve economically as a totally independent country, outside the EU.  Even within the EU, it’s likely that personal and business taxes would rise above what they are now, plus services decline, as tax revenues drop.  Scots should (and probably do) realise the pros and cons of independence; it’s extremely risky to extricate yourself from the 1707 Act of Union, let-alone set up a new country and then start the process of joining the EU.

All for what?

The Undemocratic Democracy

You can argue that democracy in the UK is well-established, functions well and has little corruption.  You could also argue that in the period between the EU Referendum and the December 2019 election that democracy was high-jacked by MPs who disagreed with the result of the EU Referendum.  This was actually facilitated by the Conservatives dismal election campaign in June 2017, giving rise to their minority Government.

The fact that the previous Government relied on an arrangement with MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party, plus its own internal discontent, allowed EU “Remainer” MPs to mount an undemocratic assault on the Government.  Coupled with the Government’s own internal issues, the enactment of the referendum result was stalled.  With the emphatic win for the Conservatives in December 2019, the “Remainer” tail is no longer wagging the dog; democracy has been restored.  Whether MPs properly understand what their democratic duty, towards a national referendum, should be; remains an open question.

The good news for the UK is that there is a Government that can now govern.  The bad news is that the size of the majority and the decimation of the Labour Party means the Government is able to implement policies which could be poorly constructed.  Ideally the UK would have benefitted from a majority of approximately 25; comfortable, but not too comfortable for the Government.

Is the new Government any better than the previous one?  Almost certainly not; however, you can be sure they think they are; simply because of the size of the win.

Prepare to be disappointed.

Salaries & Taxes

Below is a table showing what Pay As You Earn tax amounts to, in the 2019-20 tax year, for tax-payers in England, Wales & Northern Ireland, on a range of gross salaries.

Scotland has different payroll taxes.

The Net Salary numbers were derived from: https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php

Case	Gross Salary	Income Tax & National Insurance	Net Salary	Tax Percentage of Gross Salary	Additional Tax Over & Above a £38K Gross Salary
	£20,000	£2,864	£17,136	14%
	£30,000	£6,064	£23,936	20%
Median Disposable Income in 2019 (£29,400)	£38,100	£8,656	£29,444	23%	£0
	£50,000	£12,464	£37,536	25%	£3,808
Approx. Mean MP Salary	£80,000	£25,064	£54,936	31%	£16,408
	£100,000	£33,464	£66,536	33%	£24,808
Approx. Prime Minister Salary	£150,000	£59,464	£90,536	40%	£50,808
	£500,000	£223,964	£276,036	45%	£215,308
FTSE100 CEO	£1,000,000	£458,964	£541,036	46%	£450,308
	£5,000,000	£2,338,964	£2,661,036	47%	£2,330,308

The Economist’s 5^th December 2019, UK edition has a leader entitled:

“Our Election Endorsement

Britain’s nightmare before Christmas

A divided country faces an election that will tear it further apart.”

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/05/britains-nightmare-before-christmas

Have a read and enjoy the benefit of hindsight.