If you're not right-wing, who do you vote for? (Gorka Maneiro in Vozpópuli)

The question Gorka Maneiro poses in Vozpópuli is who that segment of the left will vote for — the one that despises Sánchez but can't picture itself putting a PP ballot in the box. His thesis: those voters are torn between staying home and voting for the right to end the Sánchez era.

There's a question doing the rounds over lunch tables, and Gorka Maneiro put it in writing in Vozpópuli: if you're not right-wing, who do you vote for? It's not a rhetorical question. Behind it is a specific electorate — the one that historically voted PSOE, that today can't stomach Sánchez and yet still feels its heart is on the left. People who can't see themselves putting a PP ballot in the box. And who, meanwhile, stay home, cast a blank vote or back minor parties with no representation.

Maneiro's article comes out with a date circled on the calendar: **November 29**. That day, those who have always voted for the right will have no doubts, because there are only two options, the **PP** or **Vox**, the breakaway party to its right that also draws votes from working-class voters hit by the left's policies — or by their absence. That's not where the problem lies. It lies with the left-wing voter who knows Sánchez is the worst thing for Spain but won't get their hands dirty.

## The squeamishness about voting for the PP

Maneiro describes that voter with uncomfortable precision. He isn't talking only about the PSOE partisan jolted awake by a slap, but about someone who, while on the left, still has red blood and a heart on the left. For that person, voting for **Feijóo** means an unbearable discomfort, almost a betrayal of their deepest convictions. And if the PP goes into coalition with Vox on top of that, the ordeal becomes even harder.

The paradox the article points to is a subtle one: these are people who want the PP to govern so the page can be turned, but would rather stay spotless than get stained. They hope others, less pure, will do the dirty work. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Maneiro writes. Purity in politics has a price, and sometimes others pay it.

## What this left that doesn't vote left stands for

The article goes through the catalogue of convictions held by that electorate. They defend the unity of Spain out of sentimental and, above all, practical conviction: without a state there is no shared citizenship and no welfare state guaranteeing basic services to those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. They find it reactionary that Spanish cannot be studied anywhere in Spain, and argue that this absurdity hurts the vulnerable most, such as newly arrived immigrants or low-income families.

They demand investment in public **Healthcare** and **Education** close to the levels of the most advanced countries in their environment, and for that, they say, it is essential not to make deals with those who want to break Spain apart. They reject waste on advertising and propaganda and on unnecessary bodies, but call for a robust and pogre tax system to sustain a decent welfare state. They loathe corruption, cronyism, hand-picked contract awards and the advisers living off the public teat. And yet they still believe politics is one of the most honourable activities a citizen can devote themselves to.

They also defend entrepreneurship, equality of opportunity, free will and meritocracy, without falling into the dog-eat-dog individualism of every man for himself. They know that in housing it's supply and demand that rule and that more homes, public and private, are needed, but concede that the state can set limits on endless enrichment and unjust evictions. They see the unions turned into a government transmission belt and, at the same time, defend labour rights and decent jobs. They don't want backsliding on abortion, equality between men and women, the fight against climate change or against gender violence, even while knowing the official left talks far more than it acts.

## Eight years of Sánchez and the November 29 date

Maneiro's conclusion is that those voters should remember the **eight years** of Sánchez's rule and realise that this is no ordinary election. According to his thesis, what's at stake is the advance of authoritarianism toward which Sánchez has already taken steps, or the preservation of the **Spanish Constitution** and democracy. That's why he suggests that, without giving anything up, those voters should vote for what they don't like because what they want doesn't yet exist, and do so before it's too late for it to exist later.

His final argument rests on two pillars. One, that a democratic right is preferable to an autocratic left. The other, that voting is not handing over a blank cheque: as soon as a government is formed, one can keep being critical of those in power. Not voting now, he argues, would be a betrayal of oneself. The question is left on the table, and each person decides whether the answer makes them uncomfortable.