This bill seeks to loosen regulations on the planning system and rent control in order to encourage more decentralized investment and reduce state overreach.
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Housing Supply & Planning |
Strong national housing targets
|
Balanced planning system
|
|
| 2 | Rent Control |
Rent increases capped to inflation
|
Light stabilisation, mostly market rents
|
Party
Competence and Freedom (C&F) is a centrist, technocratic party. We advocate for competent government, individual rights, a free market with sensible guardrails, accessible, high-quality education, and principled opposition to extremism and populism on both the far-right and the far-left.
Core pillars
Activist · Age 61
A once-successful small-business owner who entered politics after a personal scandal exposed the hypocrisy of the establishment, Werner Müller’s charisma and street-smart instincts have made him a magnetic figure among disillusioned voters.
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
For: 8 / 69 seats (11.6%)
Against: 29 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 32
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 16 | No | As polls show, most citizens are opposed to this reform, even the wealthier ones: this is something all parties should take into account. For what concerns us, we agree that increasing housing supply is essential, as well as safeguarding free market, but we're skeptical about this bill's purported effects. A predictable planning framework and reasonable protections for tenants provide stability for both families and investors. Public opinion also clearly favours retaining these safeguards. We support market reform where needed, and agree that the current inflation cap is not perfect, although it strikes a reasonable balance (surely a better one than hard caps, which we've always opposed), but not deregulation for its own sake. |
| Competence And Freedom Proposer | 8 | Yes | No reason given |
| Left Forward | 13 | No | Everyone agrees that we need more homes. The question is how we get there. Loosening rent controls while hoping the market sorts things out puts too much of the burden on tenants. People who are already struggling with rising rents cannot simply wait for new housing to appear. We should build more homes, yes. But that has to go hand in hand with strong protections for renters, not fewer. |
| Monarchist Of Saxenheim | 0 | No | we stand with peoples as they oppose this |
| Saxenheim Republic | 0 | Abstain | No reason given |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union | 0 | Yes | A balanced planning system allows the nation to expand housing supply while reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Encouraging responsible investment and development strengthens the economy, supports families, and ensures Saxenheim can meet its long-term needs. |
| Empty seats | 5 | Not voted |
For: 77 / 650 seats (11.8%)
Against: 277 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 296
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 151 | No | As polls show, most citizens are opposed to this reform, even the wealthier ones: this is something all parties should take into account. For what concerns us, we agree that increasing housing supply is essential, as well as safeguarding free market, but we're skeptical about this bill's purported effects. A predictable planning framework and reasonable protections for tenants provide stability for both families and investors. Public opinion also clearly favours retaining these safeguards. We support market reform where needed, and agree that the current inflation cap is not perfect, although it strikes a reasonable balance (surely a better one than hard caps, which we've always opposed), but not deregulation for its own sake. |
| Competence And Freedom Proposer | 77 | Yes | No reason given |
| Left Forward | 126 | No | Everyone agrees that we need more homes. The question is how we get there. Loosening rent controls while hoping the market sorts things out puts too much of the burden on tenants. People who are already struggling with rising rents cannot simply wait for new housing to appear. We should build more homes, yes. But that has to go hand in hand with strong protections for renters, not fewer. |
| Monarchist Of Saxenheim | 0 | No | we stand with peoples as they oppose this |
| Saxenheim Republic | 0 | Abstain | No reason given |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union | 0 | Yes | A balanced planning system allows the nation to expand housing supply while reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Encouraging responsible investment and development strengthens the economy, supports families, and ensures Saxenheim can meet its long-term needs. |
| Empty seats | 52 | Not voted |
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“we stand with peoples as they oppose this”
“A balanced planning system allows the nation to expand housing supply while reducing unnecessary bureaucracy. Encouraging responsible investment and development strengthens the economy, supports families, and ensures Saxenheim can meet its long-term needs.”
“As polls show, most citizens are opposed to this reform, even the wealthier ones: this is something all parties should take into account. For what concerns us, we agree that increasing housing supply is essential, as well as safeguarding free market, but we're skeptical about this bill's purported effects. A predictable planning framework and reasonable protections for tenants provide stability for both families and investors. Public opinion also clearly favours retaining these safeguards. We support market reform where needed, and agree that the current inflation cap is not perfect, although it strikes a reasonable balance (surely a better one than hard caps, which we've always opposed), but not deregulation for its own sake.”
“Everyone agrees that we need more homes. The question is how we get there. Loosening rent controls while hoping the market sorts things out puts too much of the burden on tenants. People who are already struggling with rising rents cannot simply wait for new housing to appear. We should build more homes, yes. But that has to go hand in hand with strong protections for renters, not fewer.”