From Melbourne to Madrid, housing is shaping modern politics. But who benefits?

Spain is in the middle of a political reckoning over housing.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has called an early election for November 29, after parliament rejected his government’s emergency housing measures amid widespread anger over rising rents and housing insecurity.

In Australia, the day before the Spanish vote, Victorians will go to the polls in a state election, with housing affordability, rents and supply also high on the agenda.

The timing is pure coincidence.

The politics are not.

Across advanced economies, housing is reshaping political loyalties, particularly among younger voters and renters.

But what that reshaping looks like, and which political forces benefit from it, is unpredictable.

The politics of housing Political responses to the housing crisis fall into three broad camps: Build: increase housing supply by releasing land, allowing greater density, speeding up approvals and reducing barriers to construction.

Protect: shield renters from rising housing costs through rent caps or freezes, stronger tenancy protections and more social housing.

Restrict: reduce housing demand, most commonly by reducing immigration.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive.

But they tell voters very different stories about what has gone wrong: too few homes, an unfair market, or too many people competing for housing.

The story each party tells follows political rhetoric and what is perceived will win votes.

In Australia, home ownership among 25- to 29-year-olds fell from 50% in 1971 to 36% in 2021.