PP attacks journalist who debunked Feijóo's pension claims

Why the PP is targeting the journalist who challenged Feijóo

Did Feijóo lie when he said the PP always adjusted pensions according to the CPI? That claim, made during the July 23 election campaign, sparked the controversy. Journalist Silvia Intxaurrondo tested it with three sets of figures in an interview: 2012, a 1% rise while CPI was at 2.4%; 2013, another 1% rise with CPI at 2.9%; 2017, a 0.25% increase with CPI at 1.5%. From that point on, the focus shifted away from pensions to whoever dared contradict the interviewee.

The three figures that contradict the CPI narrative

The data does not deny that the PP has raised pensions; it denies that they did so "always" in line with the CPI. The three years cited in the debate reveal an uncomfortable pattern: 1% increases in years when inflation ran at 2.4% and 2.9%, and a 0.25% rise in 2017 while CPI stood at 1.5%. In terms of purchasing power, each of those adjustments left pensioners behind inflation.

Some argue this is a fair summary, while others counter that the series is misleading: a snapshot of three years does not cover fifteen. Between these two versions lies a verifiable fact: there were years with increases below the CPI, and the word "always" does not account for them.

Why is the PP demanding resignations at RTVE over an interview?

The reaction quickly escalated. From within the Popular Party ranks, suggestions emerged that public broadcasting would lose the elections and its executives should resign the next day, accompanied by messages directly inviting viewers not to watch. The format itself was mocked: the idea that a journalist prepares for an interview and rebuts false data was presented, ironically, as an anomaly.

The contrast with what is considered good journalistic practice is evident. Verifying what an interviewee says and confronting it with their record is not an ambush: it is the bare minimum of the profession. The irony is that the party demanding rigor today labels it sectarianism when it affects them.

How much have pensions risen over 15 years?

Here the analysis gains nuances that neither side wants to acknowledge. Adding up the years under Rajoy and Zapatero, some calculate that pensions have risen a few tenths below the CPI over a fifteen-year horizon. Neither the disaster being proclaimed nor the staunch defense being sold: just a trickle of small, sustained loss.

Another figure rarely put on the table causes more alarm: some claim that the average Spanish pension already exceeds the average salary, something unique among OECD countries, particularly since that salary is precisely what funds the pension.

The MEI: the invisible cost on workers' paychecks

The debate over who raises pensions more hides the underlying problem: how the system is sustained. According to data used in the discussion, Spain currently has 2.74 workers per pensioner, and in 25 years the ratio would drop to 1.75, a 40% decrease. Some point out that pensions already consume nearly half of a budget maintained through debt.

While this is debated, a mechanism goes unnoticed: the MEI, the intergenerational equity mechanism, which is deducted monthly from modest salaries—some estimate it affects gross wages around €1,400—without barely being mentioned during campaigns. Those who pay it do not vote on that levy. Those who receive it, do.

Who defends the journalist and who attacks her?

Reactions split into two currents. One celebrates someone dismantling a half-truth live, reminding us that a journalist cannot stand idly by while falsehoods are told. The other attacks the interviewer based on her history, ignoring the figures: citing her time in regional television or her editorial stance.

The reality is that noise about the messenger displaces the central issue. For a party to debate whether its opponent is lying is politics; debating the person documenting it is something else. We have moved from checking archives to settling scores with those who consult them.

With these elements, the campaign will end up discussing either the data or the person stating it, never both simultaneously. And while this is decided, every month, that unnamed levy continues to be deducted from the paycheck of those least able to negotiate it.