Labour’s first term won’t be followed by a second if its first year is anything to go by

The most egregious failure of the current government as it survives its first year is its loss of control of the nation’s finances. The £20bn black hole allegedly inherited from the last government was, of course, a fiction, but the way the chancellor went about raising the funds she believed were necessary to fill that black hole was catastrophic.

She realised she was going to have to break the ironclad commitment she made before the election not to rise either income tax, VAT or national insurance. But even though she believed she had no choice, her decision to raise employers’ NI – clearly based on the belief that because she wasn’t actually raising employees’ NI, she could claim not to have broken her commitment – was an utter disaster.

Revealing her complete ignorance of how business works, she failed to see that every business in the country, large or small, was going to have to raise prices and cut staff to meet the new imposition, and so it has proved. Property businesses in every sector have been no exception. Whether you’re in construction, development or management, your costs are rising as markets contract.

Another obvious failing of this administration is the target of one and a half million new homes to be delivered in this first term. Setting aside that the current odds on a second term are miniscule, it is blindingly obvious that the changes needed to bring this about are far greater than the incoming government ever appreciated.

Some of what MHCLG under deputy PM Angela Rayner has delivered is welcome. There was a distinct whiff of nimbyism about Michael Gove’s decisions when he was in charge and the new proposals, which introduce the idea that a policy compliant application should not even go to members, may be anathema to planning authorities regardless of political party but is sending a big signal that NIMBY is now very firmly YIMBY.

However, while much of the recent Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently wending its way through parliament is helpful, there are one or two items that still should worry our industry.

The worst is the process of changing CPOs into what can only be described as government-inspired theft. It has always been accepted that compulsory purchase is a proposition only to be used in exceptional cases where there is an overriding public interest in the acquisition of land against the wish of the owner. But by proposing this in respect of farmland and, in the process, destroying the farmer’s hope of achieving the value they might reasonably have expected when they made the decision to dispose of their only serious asset, the government is intent on destroying value on a mammoth scale.

This idea that farmers are sitting on untold millions fails to recognise that the vast majority of farmers are in the business of growing crops where returns are frankly appalling. Ask Jeremy Clarkson. By all means change the taxation of land where it is clearly being used as a tax shelter, but turning a CPO into licensed government theft is not the right way to treat farmers.

It is also discouraging that Labour is not prepared to countenance lowering SDLT. What was once a tax to pay for documents is now, thanks to George Osborne’s appallingly misguided attempt to appeal to potential Labour voters, a huge disincentive to moving which in terms of mobility of labour is really important.  No wonder in large parts of the country the market has stalled. Lowering the rate would actually improve the yield. But don’t hold your breath. Rachel from accounts is clearly more attracted to a wealth tax than to the Laffer curve.