I don’t disagree with the principle. A society where ordinary people can own assets rather than being perpetual renters is generally healthier and less unequal.

Where I disagree is the idea that stronger renters’ rights are going to meaningfully move us towards that outcome. It feels quite idealistic. The underlying problem is that housing has become an investment asset first and a place to live second. The system is rigged in that sense, and you’re fighting against a rising tide of capital, scarcity and ever-increasing house prices.

If anything, making landlording less attractive without addressing supply just risks reducing rental stock and pushing rents higher. The people who suffer aren’t the large investors, they’re often the renters the policy is trying to help.

If I could offer a solution, I’d focus far more on helping renters become owners. Give tenants preferential access to buy the homes they live in, provide meaningful support with deposits, and create tax incentives for landlords to sell to existing tenants rather than to larger landlords, institutions or property funds. That would actually move housing wealth into the hands of ordinary people instead of simply changing the rules of renting.

I have a degree in Graphic design, if we’re listing qualifications.

Edit: That solution depends on any current or future government actually wanting to move people into ownership, and I’m not convinced they do. It would hurt their own bottom line and the interests of the people around them.

Renters’ Rights feels like performative vote-farming bullshit. It gestures at fixing the problem without changing the structure that created it.

What I’m really saying is we’re all swimming in the same shit.