Podemos demands Montero stay as Equality Minister for investiture

Montero blames Justice for releases; Podemos sets price for support

The investiture remains unresolved and Podemos has put a price on its support. The party has demanded that Irene Montero continue to lead the Ministry of Equality—with a portfolio equal or larger than previously managed, according to the circulated summary of the demand—as a condition to sustain the next government. Simultaneously, the minister has pointed to the Ministry of Justice, held by the PSOE, as responsible for the error that allowed downward revisions of sensual crime sentences under the "only yes is yes" law.

This episode reopens two distinct discussions: who bears political responsibility for a norm few publicly defend anymore, and how much a handful of seats are worth when the parliamentary margin is counted on one's fingers.

What Podemos demands to invest Sánchez

The challenge is explicit: keeping Montero in Equality is a requirement for voting in favor. It is not just any portfolio. Equality is the department the formation considers its own, and its continuity is read, in analysis, as proof of internal strength.

In the circulated summary of the demand, a portfolio equal or larger than the one occupied is requested, with the message that other programmatic demands are negotiable if this first one is met. Analysis suggests a double reading: it is a move for organizational survival—without a seat, there is no structure—and also a way to shift the cost of the legislature to another partner.

Why Montero points to the Ministry of Justice

The minister attributed to Justice the error that caused sentence reviews and releases. The problem with the argument, as several participants in the debate recall, is that the norm came out of a Council of Ministers with the PSOE at the table, and part of the analysis notes that the proposing department was Equality, not an innocent bystander.

Here the narrative gets tangled. If the law was approved in the Council of Ministers, responsibility cannot be assigned to a single ministry. It is maintained that the calculation error was carried by the entire Government and now it is time to distribute blame because no one wants to bear the wear and tear during negotiations.

Sentence reviews that disoriented the Government

The most cited case is the reduction of one year in the sentence of one member of La Manada, agreed by the Court of Navarre applying the law. Almost all the recent narrative has been built on this decision, with the government spokesperson distancing themselves from the text and describing it as a norm approved by our country.

Some argue that the law is correct and the fault lies in judicial interpretation. Others respond that the minister herself was the first to acknowledge the problem, even if to load it onto a cabinet colleague. And an uncomfortable coincidence appears: warnings were issued before processing the norm, according to several participants. Claiming today that no one saw it coming is like being surprised that a mortgage rate rises.

Five MPs: the most expensive seat of the legislature

According to the count cited in the debate, Podemos' parliamentary weight consists of five MPs, the same number as the PNV. With this margin, arithmetic rules and the seat becomes a bargaining chip. There is no majority without them, giving negotiating power to a group with minimal representation.

Hence, some analysis argues that the coalition cannot afford to break; others respond that those left without representation, funding, and hanging by a thread are precisely the party applying pressure. In between is the view that keeping the minister is a cheap price for the PSOE, because it changes little and serves as a lightning rod during the legislature's wear and tear.

The vote bought with European funds]

The focus shifts from Madrid to rural Spain. A thesis circulates attributing the electoral floor of the left to clientelist networks: subsidies and European funds landing in small municipalities, hand-picking a dozen people for a year, and then mobilizing the votes of entire families. It is an unverified hypothesis, but it orders much of the bewilderment about why numbers do not move.

Where does everything stand?

With five MPs on one side and rejection of repeating elections on the other, the challenge stands and the investiture remains unclosed. If the portfolio is paid, the wear and tear is distributed among partners. If not, one must explain a repeat election that no one wants to sign. No one has yet put the exact figure on what it costs to get here.