Policy comparison matrices

One matrix per policy area, comparing what each party running in the election proposes — and what they did when they had the chance — against our proposal.

File format

<policy-area>.md, matching the policy/<area>/ slug. Frontmatter:

---
policy-area: rental-market
election: 2026
last-verified: 2026-07-23
sources-cutoff: 2026-07-23   # party platforms published after this date are not reflected
---

Required sections

1. Scope — the specific questions the matrix compares on (the rows). Chosen before filling in the columns, so the rows are not gerrymandered to favour a predetermined winner.

2. Rating scale — if cells are rated, the scale defined explicitly. Suggested default:

   Symbol	Meaning
   ●●	Concrete commitment with a named mechanism (bill, regulation, budget line)
   ●	Commitment stated, mechanism unspecified
   ○	Mentioned as an aspiration only
   —	No stated position
   ✗	Actively opposes

   The distinction that does the work is ●● vs ●: “we will protect tenants” is ●; “we will amend §X of law Y to do Z” is ●●. Most manifesto text is ● or ○, and the matrix should show that plainly rather than inflating it.

3. The matrix — rows are the scope questions, columns are the parties plus a final column for this project. Cells carry the rating and a short quoted or closely-paraphrased position, with a footnote to the source document.

4. Record vs platform — a second, smaller matrix for parties that have held the relevant ministry or coalition position: what they actually advanced (bills passed, regulations issued, budgets allocated) versus what they now promise.

5. Gap analysis — the payoff section. Which of our proposals are:

   • Already law or already funded → drop or reframe as enforcement
   • Already promised by others → not distinctive; either adopt their framing and credit it, or explain what ours adds
   • Genuinely unaddressed → the core of the paper
   • Actively opposed by a bloc → costed politically; the paper needs to answer their objection specifically

   Also the inverse: proposals other parties make that we have not considered and should.

6. Sources — every party position traced to a document (platform PDF, party website, Knesset bill, ministerial statement) with URL and access date. Where a party has published no housing platform, say so explicitly — absence of policy is a finding, not a blank cell.

Honesty constraints

• Fill in every party’s column from its own published material first. Journalistic characterisation of a party’s position is a fallback, flagged as such.
• Read the Hebrew original where one exists; English party materials are frequently softened for foreign audiences.
• A party you disagree with on everything else may have the best instrument in one row. Record it.