And They Call This Governing (Ignacio Camacho, ABC)

The criticism does not focus on each housing measure, but on the method: two decrees pushed through in haste, with no guaranteed parliamentary agreement and, according to the column, with advantages for existing tenants that shrink the supply for those looking for a home to rent.

## The method: two decrees and pressure from the streets

The piece published in **ABC** on September 30, 2026 does not scrutinise the articles line by line. It questions the form. It speaks of **two decrees** on housing, one tough and one light, and of a government legislating under pressure from street protests. The question it raises is uncomfortable: if that is governing, someone should say so.

The text argues that there is no certainty that **Parliament** will ratify the decrees. A decree-law is not a law passed calmly; it is born provisional and depends on a later vote. The column presents it as an improvised patch, not an agreement. And it concludes: the authors themselves know it is a con. It does not get into whether the freeze is more or less fair; it gets into how it is passed.

## Frozen rents, shrinking supply

Here comes the economic part. According to the column, after **eight years** of failure through inaction on housing promotion, the government responds to protests by benefiting those who already have a rental. Those inside the market stay in. Those outside, who are more numerous, will have to fend for themselves. The thesis is that insiders win and outsiders lose.

The mechanism it describes is simple: if rents are forced to freeze, some landlords will put their apartments up for sale. The column claims this has already been happening since **non-payment of rent** was shielded under pressure from forces to its left. Fewer rentals offered, more competition for the few that come up. There are no figures in the text on how many apartments will be sold or how many tenants will be left out. Nor does it quantify the savings for current tenants. It is a debatable thesis, not official data.

## A negotiable decree no one wants to negotiate

The piece imagines another scene. A normal government would negotiate a long-term legal framework with the opposition. It would not be so difficult: in the same decree there are elements open to agreement with broad parliamentary support. That would allow the rule to survive changes in leadership. The column does not detail which elements are negotiable or which groups would support them.

But that path has a political cost. The narrative of sides, of good guys and bad guys, would collapse. The column suspects it is more useful to leave behind a useless device for the alternative to be stuck with. A pretext to fill the squares again against a right presented as inhumane. The text notes that on **Friday**, before the **Congreso** (Spain's lower house), there could be a preview. There are no documents or concrete votes in the piece; it is a political reading.

For anyone looking for a place to rent, all this translates into a practical question: will there be more or fewer rentals available, and at what price. The column argues that the measure benefits insiders and hurts outsiders. If that holds true, the market tightens. If not, the criticism remains opinion. Housing, rent and decrees are matters with legal and economic effects: any decision should be checked with a professional and official sources.