>Why would a party whose voters are younger and disproportionately likely to rent propose policies that could see rents increase on average by another $83 per week, as well as seeing as many as 450,000 homes disappearing from the rental market?

Becase the stupidity of the orthodoxy has broght us a world of greed and consumption, that has misidentified housing as an ivestment instead of homes. Those that aren't as greedy and sociopathetic are then identified as leaners and pilloried.

They vote Green, for the same reaon I do. Policy based on evidence and fact when the orthdoxy has us on the brink, doing thier all to make it worse. Eg housibg policy like Austria for example

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-social-housing-secret-how-vienna-became-the-worlds-most-livable-city

Nuremberg Dan,

I was being somewhat flippant with my "churches" comment, maybe it went over your head. I do believe we need much more social affordable housing, which isn't being provided at the moment. The Greens policy on negative gearing and capital gains tax should also be taken seriously.

"Independent analysis shows that Greens proposed changes to NG and CGT would allow more than 850,000 people to live in a home they own - allowing many of the 31% of households who rent to move into home ownership. Independent data also shows that renter households would have paid an average of $6,318 less if a rent freeze had been implemented in August 2022, when the Greens first called for it. Nationally, this is an extra $13 billion taken by property investors from the third of the country who rents."

A smart conservative leader, not a pillock like dutton, would see the value in a comprehensive public housing policy. Like Menzies for instance. But then their developer mates wouldnt be able to gouge Australians by restricting supply and we cant have that can we.

Must be hard being a lieberal. Deciding if its more important to keep the backhanders coming or win the election.