What should be top of the ‘to do’ list for our new prime minister?

So, now we have a Labour government and if Sir Keir Starmer is to be believed, one that is pro-growth and pro-business. Well, we will soon know, but there is no doubt that the Conservatives had justifiably lost the support of the business community, so change became inevitable. The question is: where should Starmer focus his attention? My view is that there should be four clear priorities for the new Labour government: planning and infrastructure, business rates reform, boosting tourism and stamp duty on shares.

Planning

In terms of planning and infrastructure, there must be a change in approach, in that at all times, we must consider what is in the national interest and not just focus on local issues. Nimbyism must be outlawed.

Euro Disney was all set to be built in Rainham, Essex, and what a boost to the economy that would have been. However, the French government was determined to secure it, overcoming any potential obstacle, while we prevaricated. The rest is history.

London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games in 2005. Under the Blair government, The Olympic Delivery Authority was formed to oversee the acquisition of all properties and to complete all the necessary development and infrastructure in good time. It was, and the Olympic Games were a phenomenal success, contributing significantly to the economy. This is how planning can work, if as citizens of the UK, we forget self-interest and look at the national interest.

As I write this article, we are in the middle of the Wimbledon Tennis Championships, viewed by many as the number one Grand Slam tournament. Proposals to extend the All England Club, with an 8,000-seat stadium, 38 tennis courts and a new park are currently with the Mayor’s office, having been rejected by Wandsworth Council but approved by Merton Council. This is a world-famous global sporting venue that needs to expand. What are we waiting for?

Many local people are objecting, but I say to them: “When you bought your property, you knew that the All England Club was there and might expand one day. Keeping Wimbledon as the number one Grand Slam is in the national interest.”

It is not dissimilar to residents objecting to a new runway at Heathrow. When they bought their properties, the price took into account that there was an airport nearby. You cannot prevent expansion, because this is in the national interest with air travel expected to grow significantly in the next 10 years. People might not realise that the public enquiry for Terminal 5 took nearly four years. There was only ever going to be one outcome. Can you imagine if it had been rejected? It would have been a global economy looking inward.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure-wise, cancelling HS2 was a colossal mistake, one of many by the previous government, but the Elizabeth Line, although over budget and late, has been a huge success. We have the talent and expertise to carry these projects out, but the new government must speed up decisions by public bodies or we will be in the same position at the time of the next election.

Business rates

In the late 80s and early 90s, I had a listed chartered surveying practice called Sinclair Goldsmith. Our largest and most profitable division was rating appeals. We acted for major occupiers to reduce their rate liability. On the retail side, our biggest client was Superdrug and I remember our firm receiving an award from them when we saved them £2m in rates – and this was over 30 years ago. Business rates was a problem then and it is a problem now. It is unfair, and what is even worse is the levying of rates on empty property.

The problem is that rates are the easiest to collect and the most difficult to evade., contributing over £25bn to the Treasury coffers. Starmer needs to appoint a leading accountant with a solid business background to look urgently at possible alternatives and to amend the current system to make it fairer. The last time it was amended, the uniform business rate and multiplier were introduced to stop profligate councils milking local occupiers. This certainly made it fairer, but with the rise of online shopping, it now needs to be looked at again, urgently.

Tourist tax

London is one of the world’s greatest cities, but it is often held back by crass stupidity in government. When he was chancellor, our former PM removed the right of overseas tourists to reclaim VAT on retail shopping. This is the hated tourist tax, which is not levied in Paris, Madrid or Rome. Thus, high-end shoppers, particularly from the Far East, either do not come to the UK or if they do, their stay is cut short, hitting retailers, hotels, restaurants, etc. The excuse the previous government gave was that it only benefited a few wealthy people and that the Office of Budget Responsibility stated it was a revenue earner. These people never take into account the other hidden benefits, but just look at spreadsheets.

Last year, Mulberry closed its Bond Street store due to the ending of tax-free shopping, while retailers around the UK selling high end goods lose out to their European counterparts. A colossal own goal in my view.

Stamp duty on shares

Finally, this may not appear to be property related but it is. The London Stock Exchange has been going through a challenging time of late with a number of companies moving their listings to New York and some IPOs taking place in Amsterdam. There are new regulations afoot to make it easier to list in London. Yet except for Paris where a levy of 0.1% is made, no other major stock exchange levies stamp duty on shares, except London where 0.5% stamp duty is levied. This a dampener on listing in London and is a further encouragement to change jurisdictions. My view is that if companies move their listings, the jobs ultimately go with it, affecting the real estate market. HSBC earns most of its profits in the Far East. If its listing moved to Hong Kong, there is always the danger that ultimately many jobs will go there as well. The City contributes circa 10% of GDP, so if this Labour government is pro-business, it should shake off its socialist façade and scrap stamp duty.

The first 100 days will show us whether Labour’s election campaign was empty rhetoric or not, but the new government has the mandate to do what is needed. We will see whether Starmer and chancellor Rachel Reeves are tough enough to stand up to vested interests.