“The housing market is challenging enough as it is,”
Housing Market Deregulation Act of 2024
Rationale
These changes modernise housing policy, increasing supply and affordability by reducing distorting controls while freeing up capital for new social housing investment.
Proposed Changes
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rent Control |
Rent increases capped to inflation
|
Light stabilisation, mostly market rents
|
|
| 2 | Social Housing |
Small stock for the most vulnerable; right-to-buy for tenants
|
Sell off the remaining state housing stock
|
1
Rent Control2
Social HousingProposer
Party
National Conservative Movement
We forge strength from tradition and growth from freedom building a future as unyielding as our past.
Core pillars
Finn MacDonald
Activist · Age 36
Finn MacDonald parlayed years of high-stakes mergers into a political career, where he trades favors and insider knowledge like currency, always calculating the next move that will solidify his influence.
Timeline
-
Draft12 January 2024
-
Vote Open12 January 2024
-
Vote Closed12 March 2024
-
Did Not Become Law12 March 2024
Vote tally
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
Parliament
FailedFor: 35 / 100 seats (35.0%)
Against: 44 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 21
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cashmen | 14 | Yes | DC IS DUMBER THEN ROCKS FOR SAYING THIS IS A BAD IDEA. |
| Centrist Zone | 21 | Yes | We agree with National Conservative Movement |
| Democratic Group | 37 | No | We strongly oppose these measures. The housing market is challenging enough as it is, and there is no use removing existing protections on individuals for little perceptible economic gain. |
| National Conservative Movement Proposer | 0 | Yes | No reason given |
| Unionist Avalon | 7 | No | The housing market is challenging enough as it is, |
Voting record
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“We agree with National Conservative Movement”
“DC IS DUMBER THEN ROCKS FOR SAYING THIS IS A BAD IDEA.”
“We strongly oppose these measures. The housing market is challenging enough as it is, and there is no use removing existing protections on individuals for little perceptible economic gain.”