Shelter and Provision

The party holds that a right stated without a quantity is a right that cannot be claimed, and that the whole of social provision should therefore be expressed in figures that a person can hold an authority to. It is a single-subject party by origin.

Its direct democracy is procedural and follows from its origin in tenant organisation. It holds that decisions about a dwelling, a street or a block belong to the people who live there, and that an administrative decision taken elsewhere should be capable of being replaced by a decision of the assembly of residents.

The party supported the draft. Its reservation is that Article 65 states a right whose content is left to organic law, and that until the quantities are fixed the right is enforceable in principle and unmeasurable in practice.

It proposes no amendment to the Constitution and has proposed none since its foundation.

The housing minimum core, in quantities

Article 65(1) gives every person a right to housing that is adequate, secure, habitable, accessible and affordable, of a size and quality fixed as the minimum core, and situated within reach of work, care, education and transport. Article 41(5) leaves those quantities to organic law, and Article 333(1) makes the level furnished in the year before commencement operate as the core until they are fixed.

The party wants the quantities adopted before the first plan takes effect: floor area per person, habitability standards, and a maximum travel time to each of the four things Article 65(1) names.

"The article says within reach of work, care, education and transport. Within reach is not a measurable outcome. Give us minutes and we will hold the institutions to them."

Shelter and Provision, Programme for the first Assembly, section 1

Article 65(1)Article 41(5)Article 333(1)

The two open periods

Article 65(4) makes homelessness a violation of the minimum core, remediable within a period that organic law fixes. Article 65(5) makes occupation of a long-vacant dwelling a defence to any proceeding for possession, over a period that organic law fixes. Neither period has been fixed.

The party proposes thirty days for the first and ninety days for the second, and holds that a long period in either place would leave the article without effect.

Article 65(4)Article 65(5)

Allocation and the waiting lists

Where provision falls short of the need registered, Article 113 requires published rules applying urgency, duration of wait and the drawing of lots, anonymised public lists, and each applicant told their own position. The party wants that machinery operating before the next shortage.

It also wants the Audit Office to examine, on its own initiative under Article 250(1), whether Article 113(3) is being observed, that paragraph voiding any preference given by office, function, contribution or acquaintance.

Article 113Article 63Article 43

Decisions taken where people live

The party wants communal assemblies of residents used wherever Article 169 permits them, neighbourhood assemblies convened on the schedule Article 172 allows, and the reallocation protections of Article 185 applied by a decision of the assembly of residents in each case.

Article 169Article 172Article 185

The party seeks no affiliation with a European party family and takes no position on the party politics of the Union, holding that these are matters for states within it. It supports Ukraine and takes no position favourable to Russia.

Forty-four per cent of respondents describe the party favourably and 31 per cent unfavourably. Its support is strongest in Lindoma, Merrisoma and Thurioma, among respondents under thirty-five, and among households that have applied for a reallocation within the last three years.

The same survey records the mean wait for a reallocation falling from fourteen months in 2025 to seven in 2026. The projection reduces the party's share for that reason, and keeps the greater part of it because 58 per cent of respondents say the housing quantities should have been fixed by now.