And titular appeared on Friday in the newspaper El Mundo, plunging the Popular Party into a perfect storm, while at the same time plunging many of its voters into stupefaction. “The PP tries to attract the CEOE to the four-day week and asks for “generosity.”” The news was signed by Juanma Lameta journalist who in his day played a certain role in the great crisis of the party that led to the beheading of Pablo Casado and the arrival at Génova Street Alberto Núñez Feijóo. Lamet was accused (illustrative of what Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo wrote about it in “Politically undesirable”, Ediciones B, 2021) by people from the party of having become a mere transmission belt of the then general secretary and trusted man of Casado, Teodoro García Egeathe man from Murcia who led the attempted political “assassination” of the president of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Diaz Ayusofor a matter of political jealousy. The journalist, who subtitled his piece with “Feijóo called on Tuesday Garamendi to notify him of his turn and to coordinate positions”, came to relate the existence of a change between doctrinal and ideological of the PP of great proportions, which would have been forged in recent weeks and that would come to establish the idea extended for a long time in no few sectors of the country that the PP is not really a party of the classic right, certainly not the party of a liberal right, but a vulgar imitation of that social democracy, today more discredited than exhausted, which has taken Spain and Europe where Spain and Europe find themselves today: at a dead end.
The piece was an absolute nonsense from the point of view of a supposedly center-right formation that aspires to govern not to inherit the spoils of a certain Pedro Sánchez, but to straighten the course with an authentic democratic revolution that, on the basis of a clear country project, it is necessary to rescue Spain for democracy, freedom and progress. Here are the most outstanding parts of the text: “The PP is acting as a driving force and a link between social policies and employers. We are telling the CEOE to go here, like us. Let them analyze it with a certain generosity” (…) At the top of Genoa they are aware that this ideological turn – still timid, but which will develop over time – will scare many popular leaders with a more steely ideological profile (… .) But in the hard core of Feijóo they are willing to take the risk because they believe that there is a social “cry” in that sense. “We are proposing a different socio-labor model, it is a very brave step internally” (…) “This is waging a cultural battle. It is bringing the center-right to social issues that no longer scare us and do not bother us. That the Spanish right talking about this is not minor, it is a very profound political change,” they say. “It’s like playing away from home,” ideologically speaking.
From an ideological point of view, that a supposedly right-wing party like the PP embraces positions typical of a populist and reactionary left is, to say the least, surprising.
It seems evident that the journalist’s sources have to do with the remains of that “casadismo” that Feijóo has not shaken from Genoa and that, from what can be seen, is still alive and well, which is why the piece must be taken with a grain of salt. due precautions. Which does not prevent the text from revealing an alarming level of destitution in the triple aspect of economic, ideological and political aspects. Regarding the first. An article published last July by economists Rafael Doménech e Íñigo Sagardoy (“How to reduce the working day”) stated that a measure of this type “only makes sense if it does not affect employment, responds to productivity gains and serves to improve people’s quality of life.” Productivity gains allow employers and workers to negotiate with an advantage in the triple range of salary increase, reduction of working hours or a combination of both. The improvement in salaries translates into an increase in demand for goods and services and an explosion in the leisure industry, that is, in economic activity, in growth. With the understanding that we always talk about voluntary agreements between the company and workers. On the contrary, when the reduction in working hours is imposed by the Government of the day citing ideological or political reasons, as is the case, without an improvement in productivity or, where appropriate, without a proportional cut in salaries, this translates into an increase in labor costs (what economists call a “negative supply shock”) to which employers respond by hiring less or, worse still, cutting staff, laying off workers, in addition to directing production towards activities with higher added value that allow us to offset that increase in costs.
A study by BBVA Research calculates that reducing the working day from 40 to 37.5 hours per week would mean an increase in unit labor costs of 1.5%, and would subtract around 7 tenths from the average annual GDP growth for two years and 8 to employment growth. The Foundation for Applied Economics Studies (Fedea) reaches the same conclusion, for whom the reduction in working hours that the Sánchez Government intends to impose, “without compensatory measures to alleviate the estimated increase in labor costs”, would subtract 18,000 million from the Spanish GDP. , at a rate of 9,000 million for each of the two planned years of implementation of the measure. It goes without saying that the working day has not decreased throughout history by decision of governments or imposition by unions, but rather by the increases in productivity that have made it possible. In Spain, productivity has been stagnant for some time and is 25.4% lower than that of the eurozone. In a country in this situation and with an unemployment rate that continues to almost double the EU average, an additional increase in labor costs derived from this cut imposed by manu militari and without the corresponding salary adjustment is a nonsense that only fits in the head. of a lady like Yolanda Diaz and a president who doesn’t give a damn about anything except the occupation of power.
The task of an enlightened right-wing government is not to intervene in the economy, but to create the conditions of economic policy that allow the development of free initiative under conditions of equality before the law.
From an ideological point of view, that a supposedly right-wing party like the PP embraces positions typical of a populist and reactionary left is to say the least surprising, if not scandalous. You don’t beat the left by internalizing its theses, but by dismantling them. It has been liberal doctrine and the free market that have allowed billions of people to escape poverty and access that standard of living that allows the formation of a family and the enjoyment of security, freedom and leisure. The task of an enlightened right-wing government is not to intervene in the economy, much less to interfere in the sphere of decisions that are the responsibility of businessmen and workers, but to create the conditions of economic policy that allow the development of free initiative in conditions of equality before the law. “It’s like playing away from home, ideologically speaking,” they say in Genoa. No, that’s playing in Yolanda’s field, with Yolanda’s mental disorder and Yolanda’s damaged ideological merchandise. What the PP could do is announce that, if he governs, he will drastically reduce the scandalous number of union members in the company, he will likewise cut the no less scandalous 150 “union hours” available to them, he will put an end to the plague of absenteeism, the bleeding of sick leave, a real outcry, will force employers and unions to finance themselves with the contributions of their members, or, better yet, will reduce by one point, at least by one simple and sad point, business contributions to Social Security, that authentic tax on job creation that no one ever talks about in Spain. Those are tasks for a so-called liberal center-right party.
And from a political point of view, this supposed turn of the PP towards social democratic positions is a mistake, if not a horror. What has the PP lost with its “Our Conciliation Law” (sic) promising deductions, bonuses and various payments as in a baptism? They say that, in addition to winking at that disenchanted socialist voter who does not exist (Sánchez, undaunted, remains anchored in 30% of the vote and from there he does not move even if his wife is discovered murdering a Mercadona stockist), we must cater to the young vote. And that’s fine, the young vote may be fine, but it could well be that what you gain on one hand you lose on the other, you squander it by defrauding those who make up your traditional electoral ground, those noble people who have been stoically enduring the journey of the desert imposed by the scoundrel who governs us. The most serious thing, however, is the error of judgment that entails entering into these Conciliation Laws when it is not appropriate, because that is not appropriate now, we all know it, what is necessary is to fire Sánchez and to fire him we do not have to compete with the “ideological” of a clueless communist like Yolanda, but to give shape to a project for a solid, well-armed, powerful country, with which you can convince those who doubt your ability to get this country out of the hole and give it a future horizon for the next 50 years. Therefore, the misstep of a man like Núñez Feijóo, an intelligent guy who has lately been seen in top form on the Congress platform, and who, ill-advised, has just shot himself in the foot, is surprising. One of those shots that echo inside and cause concern outside. As the best Ansón would say, “since Friday, nothing else has been talked about in the European chancelleries”, those places where true power is brewed and where it is decided which candidates to support, who to support and who not to at the time of the handover in the presidency of the Government of a prominent member of NATO, as well as the fourth largest economy in the EU. A false step that could have consequences.
Source: www.vozpopuli.com
