A strong public housing sector keeps rents affordable, protects workers and families, and gives the state greater control over housing without abolishing private property.
| Law | Previous | Proposed | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Social Housing |
Small stock for the most vulnerable; right-to-buy for tenants
|
The state is the majority landlord; rents set to income
|
Party
The Saxenheim Workers’ Movement (SWM) is a nationalist political movement focused on strengthening Saxenheim’s industry, protecting national interests, and promoting unity between workers, businesses, and the state. The movement emphasizes economic self-sufficiency, social order, and the belief that
Core pillars
Activist · Age 45
A former tabloid journalist turned firebrand activist, Wolfgang Weber wields media savvy like a weapon, crafting narratives that rally the base while his relentless ambition ensures he’s always angling for the next rung on the political ladder.
Live tally across each chamber. Weighted by seats held.
For: 20 / 69 seats (29.0%)
Against: 39 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 10
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 31 | No | We support an expansion of social housing, and it's the reason why we allocated, together with Left Forward, a substantial amount of funds in all of the budgets we've approved towards that end. However, having the State as the sole landlord is a breach of the constitutionally-protected right to property: a democratic State needs to regulate, not expropriate, especially considering the effects on average families. |
| Alliance23 | 8 | No | The state should not need to own the majority of housing, it should only hold a large amount for households who cannot afford their own. |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union Proposer | 20 | Yes | No reason given |
| Empty seats | 5 | Not voted |
For: 187 / 650 seats (28.8%)
Against: 361 · Abstained: 0 · Not voted: 102
| Party | Seats | Vote | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance For Digital Freedom And Rights | 286 | No | We support an expansion of social housing, and it's the reason why we allocated, together with Left Forward, a substantial amount of funds in all of the budgets we've approved towards that end. However, having the State as the sole landlord is a breach of the constitutionally-protected right to property: a democratic State needs to regulate, not expropriate, especially considering the effects on average families. |
| Alliance23 | 75 | No | The state should not need to own the majority of housing, it should only hold a large amount for households who cannot afford their own. |
| Saxenheim Workers’ Union Proposer | 187 | Yes | No reason given |
| Empty seats | 52 | Not voted |
Every vote must state a public reason. Most recent first.
“The state should not need to own the majority of housing, it should only hold a large amount for households who cannot afford their own.”
“We support an expansion of social housing, and it's the reason why we allocated, together with Left Forward, a substantial amount of funds in all of the budgets we've approved towards that end. However, having the State as the sole landlord is a breach of the constitutionally-protected right to property: a democratic State needs to regulate, not expropriate, especially considering the effects on average families.”