PP and Vox: the debate over whether they'd be worse than Spain's government

PP and Vox: worse than the current government?

A thesis is circulating with force in right-wing economic circles, and it makes people uncomfortable: that a PP and Vox government would be even more damaging than the current one. Not because of ideology, but because of incompetence. The central argument is that, when it comes to housing, pensions and healthcare, the right's prescriptions would not only fail to fix existing problems but would make them worse by handing more weight to private capital and investment funds.

The starting point is a warning about privatisation. It is claimed that PP and Vox would encourage vulture funds in housing, benefit landlords with greater leverage, and open the door to privatising pensions and healthcare. The risk being pointed to is not theoretical: it is recalled that investment funds can collapse, as peine in 2008, and that a retirement tied to financial markets is a retirement exposed to cycles nobody controls.

The incompetence-versus-corruption argument

The most repeated criticism is not that the right is more corrupt, but that it is more incompetent. PP leaders are described in derogatory terms, and the claim is made that, being just as corrupt, they lack the management ability attributed to the current government. It is a line of attack that does not exonerate the government, but rather positions it as the lesser evil.

Against this, the right's defence rests on two ideas. First, that PP and Vox do not want to entrench themselves in power or govern by decree, unlike what is attributed to Sánchez. Second, that alternation in power is healthy even if the result is imperfect: "not good, simply not worse."

Housing as a battleground

The diagnosis on housing is the most technical. It is claimed that housing is "the most state-intervened asset" and that this is why it works so badly. The conclusion drawn is that the solution lies in deregulating, not intervening more. Defenders of the public sector respond that rentiers are not entrepreneurs, but parasites who profit from scarcity.

The irony comes when it is pointed out that the classical liberals —Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill— despised rentiers and considered them leeches. Today's liberals, it is said, idolise them.

Pensions: privatise or manage?

The pensions debate pits two visions against each other. One holds that after 40 years of working, depending on politicians who hate you is a mistake, and that the sensible thing is to manage your own money. The other recalls that investment funds collapse and that retirement cannot depend on a market that crashes every fifteen years.

The middle-ground proposal that emerges is to privatise everything except defence and security. It is an extreme position that, however, is presented as coherent: if the state manages things badly, it should manage less.

Disenchantment as a conclusion

The debate does not end on an optimistic note. It is claimed that all governments are worse than the previous one and that democracy only guarantees the same agenda. The conclusion that prevails is that voting changes nothing, and that the collapse of the regime is only a matter of time.

It is a comfortable thesis: it demands no proposals, only patience. And it is probably the one that moves the fewest votes.