In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."

Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)

What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.

Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)

Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.

 

Rent

In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."

Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."

"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.

Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.

When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."

I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.

Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."

This one belonged in the trash.

 

Sports Betting

In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."

I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.

The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.

If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.

Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.

 

Homelessness

In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.

"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."

The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.

In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.

Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.

Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.

 

Ethanol

Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.

"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."

What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.

The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.

Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.

 

SWAT Raids

In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.

So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.

The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.

Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."

Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.

When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.

I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.

 

Tipping

In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."

Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.

It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.

Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.

To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.

The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

MPs on Thursday called for tighter controls on property purchases by foreign nationals, warning that legislation restricting individual buyers could prove ineffective unless companies and other corporate structures were also covered.

The House interior committee continued examining proposed amendments to legislation governing the acquisition of property by foreigners, with discussions expected to resume in a fortnight.

The committee is awaiting the government’s next steps towards drafting a comprehensive legislative proposal regulating property acquisitions by foreign nationals.

Committee chairman and Akel MP Aristos Damianou said efforts to introduce the legislation were gathering pace, expressing hope that the process could be concluded by the end of the year.

He said consolidated drafts had been prepared in April, but the process was interrupted by the parliamentary elections in May.

Damianou described the issue as “particularly serious”, saying it concerned national security, the economy and the country’s future.

“We are a partially occupied state, part of whose territory is occupied by Turkey, whilst part of its territory is under the control of British bases,” he said, stressing the need to establish clear criteria and restrictions on property acquisitions.

He also raised concerns about property transactions conducted through contracts that, he said, were often not made public, allowing foreign interests to acquire property through companies and other intermediary arrangements.

Damianou warned that legislation focusing exclusively on individuals would be insufficient.

“If issues concerning natural persons, companies, funds and all those who purchase property in Cyprus in a concealed manner are not also regulated, then regulating natural persons alone will be insufficient,” he said.

Disy MP Nikoletta Konstantinou also called for a comprehensive approach, saying the proposed legislation concerned the Republic’s strategic interests and national security.

She expressed concern that restrictions applying only to individuals could undermine the effectiveness of the legislation, arguing that both natural and legal persons should be covered.

“There is little point in discussing whether a natural person will be unable to purchase a property, be it 1,000, 2,000 or 4,000 square metres, if the beneficial owner themselves will ultimately be able to acquire property through a corporate structure,” she said.

Konstantinou argued that the government should have presented a comprehensive proposal taking into account European law, the property market and Cyprus’ investment policy.

“Our aim must be a framework that genuinely protects national security and the Republic’s strategic interests, without creating unjustified or disproportionate restrictions that ultimately cause problems for the country’s economic and investment activity,” she said.

Meanwhile, Diko MP Panikos Leonidou called for immediate action to regulate land purchases by third-country nationals.

He said the situation had reached “uncontrolled proportions” and was causing concern among citizens.

Leonidou urged Interior Minister Constantinos Ioannou and his ministry to take the initiative and introduce comprehensive legislation.

“The ministry of the interior must immediately table a bill covering all aspects of this problem,” he said.

As anger boiled over in Spain about the death of Maricarmen Abascal two weeks after the 87-year-old pensioner was evicted from her Madrid home, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez had no doubt who was to blame for the mounting housing crisis.

Emergency housing legislation passed after he dissolved parliament and called a snap election for November 29 would “stand up to vulture funds,” Sanchez said on October 6, adding that the measures would “target only those who regard housing as just another commodity to be speculated on.”

With rents rising 44% and house prices 58% over five years, protesters clamoured for a halt to speculation by so-called “fondos buitre” (vulture funds) that many blame for a raft of evictions such as Abascal’s.

But many in Spain are struggling to pin down exactly who these supposed predators are.

In the case of Abascal’s eviction, her landlord was not a big name private equity firm but rather a small consultancy called Urbagestión. Owned by two brothers, it has eight staff, a net profit of 2,990 euros ($3,350) last year and two properties to its name, according to the Association of Spanish Registrars.

After buying Abascal’s apartment eight years ago, Urbagestión increased her monthly rent to 1,650 euros from 570 euros, more than her monthly pension, according to the tenants’ union that represented her. The company took Abascal to court after discovering that her regulated rent contract had expired, court documents show.

“Urbagestión may not have been a ‘fund,’ but it is a ‘vulture SME (Small and Medium-sized Enterprise),’” Housing Minister Isabel Rodríguez said.

Who are Spain’s ‘vulture funds’?

Vulture funds first entered the Spanish lexicon after the 2008-2014 financial crisis to describe private equity funds or investment banks that bought rent-controlled flats and jacked up rents.

But companies including investment funds account for just 8% of Spain’s rental market, according to the Bank of Spain. The government has now widened the net to include anyone that makes a profit in the market, enmeshing small landlords who make up the majority of Spain’s rental market, said Fernando Rodriguez de Acuña, general director ‌of Madrid-based real estate analysis firm Acuña.

“It’s only natural that anyone should make a profit in the market. Otherwise, you wouldn’t get involved in the first place,” he said.

The government first attempted to define and regulate vulture funds in a 2023 housing law that limited the activities of “large holders” – people or companies who own 10 or more properties.

In the decrees issued this month, the parameters were tweaked so that those who own five or more properties in areas deemed to have housing shortages must also be included. They are now banned from buying property for less than 70% of its market value.

The legislation goes further by banning owners of more than two properties from evicting tenants until 2030, while all landlords will be subject to automatic contract extensions and rent freezes.

The increasingly nebulous definition of a vulture fund last week ensnared Montse Minguez, a parliamentary spokesperson in the Socialist party, who stepped down after Spanish website Articulo 14 reported that her husband owned a property company that rented out 30 apartments and had evicted several tenants.

When Antena 3 asked her why Urbagestión was considered predatory and her husband’s company was not, she said it was a family company that abided by the law and paid its taxes while vulture funds were “foreign money that buys up entire blocks of flats to drive people out of their neighbourhoods to turn them into holiday lets.”

“All we’re saying is that you can’t go for the jugular, nor can you turn to speculation or vulture funds,” she said.

Evictions surge as tenant protections expire

Spain has seen a surge in evictions since March when a pandemic-era law to protect vulnerable tenants expired.

Orders for about 70,000 evictions were reinstated after the law was not extended, according to the Tenants Union.

Olga Matute took her own life on September 7 after she was evicted in April. Her case had been pending since 2020 after a bank sold her apartment to a fund which would not accept a reduced rent.

The new measures give protection to nearly 5 million people, including 122,683 at risk of eviction, social groups including the Tenants Union said in a statement.

Landlords warn of shrinking rental supply

The decrees “are still a long way from what is needed, but they represent victories in guaranteeing the right to housing,” said Enric Aragonès, a spokesperson for the Catalonia Tenants’ Union.

But the measures will only serve to exacerbate the shortage of rental homes in the long term, said Jorge Galindo, director of Esade Center for Economic Policy (EsadeEcPo). “These are policies that protect those who have a rental at the expense of those who don’t yet have one,” said Galindo.

The National Federation of Estate Agents’ Associations (FAI) said some 600 estate agents had reported the withdrawal of some 2,067 properties for long-term let in the days after the decree. A further 1,523 letting agreements have been put on hold.

Nearly half of Spain’s housing rental stock is owned by single-property landlords, while large landlords account for just 3.6% of the market in the hands of individuals, according to EsadeEcPo research.

Investors shift towards student housing

Foreign private equity has been cutting its exposure to residential real estate in Spain for some time. Blackstone has reduced its portfolio of residential properties in Spain to 12,000 from a peak of 40,000 in 2017.

Funds are investing instead in projects such as student housing and shared, short-term rents often inclusive of amenities like gym membership known as flexible living, which are not governed by the same regulations.

More than 40% of the nearly 24,000 Spanish homes bought by investment firms over the past 12 months were student flats, according to MSCI data company.

CPP and Greystar, two of the top four cross-border investors in Spanish homes over the past two years, said their investments were entirely or mostly in student housing and flexible living.

“The fact is that the market isn’t controlled by large funds; it’s in the hands of small investors. So now it’s all the small investors who have to bear the entire burden,” Rodriguez de Acuña said. ($1 = 0.8923 euros)

Whatever you call it, we can all agree this doesn’t feel good.

Students and teachers in Athens and Thessaloniki demand affordable housing, higher wages and increased funding for public education.

---

Students and teachers in Greece have mobilized in Athens and Thessaloniki to demand affordable housing, higher wages and greater investment in public education, joining a wave of youth-led protests over rising living costs and housing insecurity across Europe.

RELATED: Meloni Announces Decree Targeting Juvenile Gangs and Violent Street Demonstrations

Tents have been erected in Athens’ Syntagma Square and in Thessaloniki as demonstrators call for fair rents, more university housing and increased funding for public education.

Authorities deployed more than 3,000 police officers in Athens to monitor a demonstration scheduled for Wednesday, organized by students and teachers. The protests come amid similar mobilizations in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Albania, where young people are challenging housing costs that they say make it increasingly difficult to combine work or study with securing a home.

Students pitch tents near Greek parliament over rising costs

📍 Students set up tents in Athens’ Syntagma Square, near the Greek parliament

➡️ The protest highlights rising living costs and soaring rents in Greece https://t.co/oWWMU3xUax pic.twitter.com/N8YzeW9lZa

— Anadolu English (@anadoluagency) October 20, 2026

The Greek primary school teachers’ union, DOE, called a 24-hour strike to demand a 20% pay rise, housing assistance for teachers assigned to work in other cities and improvements to school facilities.

Around 20 student associations in Athens joined the mobilization, planning to march alongside teachers. Their demands include decent housing for all university students, particularly those from low-income families who move to other cities to pursue their studies, higher student allowances and more places in public university residences.

Students are also calling for lower electricity and heating fuel costs, highlighting the pressure of energy expenses alongside the cost of accommodation.

The demonstrations reflect broader grievances among young Europeans over housing affordability. Protesters across several countries have pointed to property speculation, tourism-driven pressures on housing and austerity policies imposed by the European Union as factors affecting their ability to secure a home.

Athens Mayor Haris Dukas, a social democrat, expressed support for students and teachers while making clear his opposition to violent protests.

The demonstrations add Greece to a broader wave of Generation Z mobilizations across Europe over housing costs, economic pressures and access to public services, with students and educators pressing for changes to living and working conditions.

European Union ministers have adopted a new recommendation calling for stronger measures to prevent homelessness and housing exclusion, as governments face increasing pressure over housing shortages and the cost of accommodation.

The recommendation was approved at a meeting of employment and social affairs ministers in Luxembourg on Monday, 19 October, and forms part of the European Commission’s wider efforts to address Europe’s housing crisis.

It proposes measures ranging from early intervention for households facing eviction to increased investment in affordable housing, improved access to social services and more coordinated support for people without permanent accommodation.

However, the recommendation is not legally binding. Member States will retain responsibility for deciding which measures to introduce, how they should be financed and the extent to which existing national housing policies should be changed.

More than one million people affected

According to the Council’s announcement, more than one million people are estimated to experience homelessness across the European Union.

The problem extends beyond people sleeping on streets or using emergency shelters.

The term housing exclusion also encompasses households living in inadequate accommodation, people facing imminent eviction and those unable to secure stable housing because of financial or personal circumstances.

The Council identifies poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, disability, poor health and insufficient affordable housing among the factors contributing to the problem.

Housing costs have also risen considerably faster than incomes in several European countries.

Between 2013 and 2024, nominal house prices increased by more than 60 per cent across the EU. In some Member States, average increases exceeded 220 per cent during the same period.

These developments have placed additional pressure on households with lower incomes, particularly in cities where rental accommodation is increasingly expensive and social housing is limited.

The shortage affects not only unemployed people but also individuals in paid employment whose earnings are insufficient to cover market rents.

Prevention before eviction

A central element of the new recommendation is the introduction or strengthening of national strategies intended to prevent homelessness before people lose their accommodation.

The Council encourages Member States to establish early-warning mechanisms capable of identifying households experiencing serious financial or housing difficulties.

Proposed interventions include debt counselling, emergency rental assistance, mediation between landlords and tenants, and appropriate safeguards against forced eviction.

The emphasis on prevention reflects the potentially substantial social and financial consequences of losing stable accommodation.

Once a person becomes homeless, obtaining employment, maintaining healthcare arrangements and securing permanent accommodation can become considerably more difficult.

The Council also calls for particular attention to children, young people leaving care and people facing domestic abuse.

Member States are encouraged to ensure that children have access to adequate housing and that young people leaving institutional or foster care are not placed at risk of homelessness because appropriate support arrangements are unavailable.

Greater emphasis on permanent housing

The recommendation promotes a housing-led approach, under which securing suitable and stable accommodation becomes a central element of the response to homelessness.

This differs from policies relying primarily on emergency shelters or temporary accommodation, although such facilities remain necessary for people facing immediate housing difficulties.

Housing-led programmes can include permanent accommodation accompanied by individual support services, depending on the person’s circumstances.

The Council also proposes simplifying access to social and healthcare services through integrated arrangements that allow people to obtain assistance without repeatedly approaching different public authorities.

One suggested model involves providing access to relevant services through a single contact point, with support from social workers, healthcare professionals and other organisations.

However, access to permanent housing ultimately depends on the availability of suitable properties.

The recommendation therefore calls for increased public and private investment in affordable and social housing, renovation of existing accommodation and support for non-profit housing models.

Questions over implementation and funding

The non-binding character of the recommendation remains one of its principal limitations.

European institutions can coordinate policies, provide guidance and support investment, but national governments and local authorities retain substantial responsibility for housing provision and social welfare arrangements.

The recommendation does not automatically establish a new EU housing entitlement or provide dedicated funding to every Member State.

Its effectiveness will depend on whether governments introduce measures capable of increasing housing supply and reducing the number of people entering homelessness.

The European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless, known as FEANTSA, previously welcomed the Commission’s proposal while identifying shortcomings.

In its assessment of the original proposal, the organisation argued that EU policy should place greater emphasis on permanently ending homelessness rather than primarily managing housing exclusion.

It also questioned the adequacy of funding arrangements and the proposed five-year interval for national progress reporting.

Five-year assessment planned

Under the adopted recommendation, Member States are encouraged to provide the European Commission with information on the effectiveness of their national strategies every five years.

The Commission is expected to evaluate national progress and report to the Council five years after the recommendation’s adoption.

The policy follows the European Affordable Housing Plan, presented in December 2025, and the EU’s Anti-Poverty Strategy, introduced in May 2026.

Together, these initiatives seek to expand the Union’s role in coordinating housing policy without transferring national housing responsibilities to Brussels.

The first indication of whether the recommendation will produce measurable results will come from national decisions on social housing investment, eviction prevention and access to permanent accommodation. Without changes to those practical arrangements, the Council’s commitments will remain principally a framework for voluntary cooperation.

Tenants apply for an apartment listed at one price, only to find that they owe their landlords even more.

Tens of thousands of people have demonstrated across Spain after parliament rejected two government housing decrees, bringing the country’s dispute over rents, evictions and housing supply back onto the streets.

Tens of thousands of people marched across Spain on Saturday, 3rd October, demanding action over rising rents, evictions and access to housing, a day after parliament rejected two government measures intended to strengthen protections for tenants.

In Madrid, the government delegation estimated attendance at around 70,000, while organisers put the figure considerably higher. Demonstrations were organised in more than 50 cities. In Valencia, clashes broke out near a property investment conference at the City of Arts and Sciences, while protests elsewhere were largely peaceful. The nationwide demonstrations followed several days of mobilisation by Spanish tenants’ organisations.

The immediate political trigger came on Friday, when the Congress of Deputies rejected two housing decrees proposed by Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s minority government.

The government had approved a package of emergency housing measures including stronger protection against evictions for vulnerable households, changes affecting property investment companies and measures intended to increase the availability of affordable rental accommodation. A second decree included provisions for the automatic renewal of some rental contracts.

The measures were defeated after the Popular Party, Vox and Junts opposed them. Junts argued that the proposals would not resolve the underlying shortage of housing and risked discouraging property owners from putting homes onto the market.

Housing has become one of Spain’s most politically sensitive domestic issues, particularly in Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia and other cities where rising demand has coincided with limited supply, strong tourism and a large short-term rental market.

The protests have also been shaped by the eviction of 87-year-old Maricarmen Abascal from the Madrid flat where she had lived for decades. The case attracted national attention and became a focal point for campaigners demanding stronger protection for tenants.

Spain has already taken measures against short-term tourist accommodation. EU Today reported last year on Spain’s move to block more than 65,000 Airbnb listings that the authorities said did not comply with regulatory requirements.

Barcelona has gone further, announcing plans to end approximately 10,000 tourist-apartment licences by 2028 as the city seeks to return properties to the long-term residential market.

The argument, however, extends beyond holiday rentals.

Spain faces a structural shortage of housing in areas experiencing strong population and employment growth. Tenant organisations favour stronger rent controls, longer contracts and greater restrictions on institutional investors. Property organisations and political opponents of tighter controls argue that excessive intervention can reduce rental supply and discourage construction.

The same debate is increasingly visible across Europe.

Figures published by Eurostat on 1 October showed EU house prices rising by 4.7 per cent in the second quarter of 2026 compared with the same period last year. Rents increased by 3 per cent. Compared with the first quarter, house prices rose by 1.2 per cent and rents by 0.7 per cent.

EU Today recently examined how Berlin’s housing shortage and rapidly rising rents became a central issue in the city’s election campaign, illustrating how affordability has moved up the political agenda across several European capitals.

Brussels has also become more involved. The European Commission’s first European Affordable Housing Plan, presented in December 2025, focuses on increasing supply, mobilising investment, accelerating construction and giving authorities additional scope to address short-term rentals in areas experiencing housing pressure.

EU Today reported when the plan was launched that it included proposals for new action on short-term rentals and housing investment. The Commission has since begun building a European Housing Alliance bringing together governments, cities, regions and housing organisations.

The Commission estimates that house prices across the EU have risen by more than 60 per cent since 2013, while average rents have increased by around 20 per cent. It has nevertheless stressed that most housing policy remains under national, regional and local authority.

Spain therefore represents one of the more acute versions of a wider European problem: how to increase supply while deciding how far governments should regulate rents, tourist accommodation and investment in residential property.

Saturday’s demonstrations show that the issue is no longer confined to housing policy.

For Sánchez, the defeat of the two decrees has exposed once again the difficulty of securing parliamentary majorities for major legislation. For Spain’s opposition parties, the dispute centres increasingly on whether government intervention is helping to expand housing supply or restricting it.

For tenants facing higher rents, the immediate question is whether any new legislation can materially increase the number of homes they can afford.