Spain's PM blames Rajoy-era cuts for Urda rail disaster

Pedro Sánchez has attributed the fatal railway accident in Urda, which killed nearly 70 people, to infrastructure investment cuts approved after the 2010 crisis, arguing that the "far-right wave" is collapsing. The link between those cuts and the disaster is a political claim by the president, not an established fact.

The Prime Minister and PSOE Secretary General, **Pedro Sánchez**, linked the **Urda** rail accident in Toledo province to infrastructure spending cuts he says were implemented by **Mariano Rajoy**'s government in response to the 2010 financial crisis. He made these remarks at a pre-campaign event in **Tarragona**, placing this tragedy—which occurred two weeks prior and claimed nearly **70** lives—at the center of his economic argument.

This assertion has an immediate consequence: it turns a deadly incident into a campaign talking point. It is crucial to separate two things: what Sánchez said and what is proven about the accident's causes. Regarding the latter, attributing the crash to a budget decision from fifteen years ago is a political hypothesis, not a technical conclusion.

## What Sánchez said and where

Sánchez presented the cuts as the root cause of underfunded infrastructure and, consequently, the collision of two trains in **Urda**. "If there is one lesson to be drawn from the latest rail accident, it is that we have taken **15 years** to reverse the cuts in railway infrastructure investment trinc the misguided neoliberal response to the 2010 financial crisis," he stated. He added that this is why a government that strengthens public services rather than cutting them is needed.

The timeframe he sets is relevant: speaking of **15 years** to reverse those cuts places the starting point around **2010** and the reversal in the present moment. In other words, the president is not describing an isolated decision by a previous government, but a sequence of public investment that, in his view, lasted over a decade.

He also contrasted his attitude with that of his opponents regarding tragedies. "Tragedies happen regardless of who governs; the key is how you respond to those crises," he argued, claiming his party has always faced up to challenges while others turned their backs on victims. Here, a note of sobriety is warranted: the victims of **Urda** and their families are not tools for partisan confrontation, and any debate on responsibility should start from technical reports.

## The far-right wave and November 29

Much of the rally focused on the thesis that the tide of the far right is beginning to recede. Sánchez cited **Lula da Silva**'s victory in Brazil and the Democratic Party's performance in US midterm elections to argue that this wave "is crumbling." From there, he jumped to the Spanish election date of **November 29**, which he set as the moment when this collapse will reach Spain.

"I'm sorry for **Feijóo** and **Abascal**, who wanted to ride the far-right wave," he joked, adding that Spain is governed from Madrid, not Washington, Tel Aviv, or Buenos Aires. This phrase condenses the core of his speech: presenting the elections as a choice between two models and framing his rivals as branches of a far-right international. This is a political interpretation, not electoral data.

On promises, Sánchez committed to constitutionally protecting abortion rights and raising the minimum wage "every year the left is in power." These are programmatic announcements without specific figures or timelines in his speech, and thus cannot be verified as accomplished facts.

## Allies and campaign tone

The event was attended by former Vice President and current European Commission Executive Vice-President, **Teresa Ribera**. Before Sánchez spoke, Industry Minister **Jordi Hereu** addressed the crowd almost entirely in Catalan, praising the president's "courage" against "warlords." Hereu also appealed to antiestéticars of the right-wing in Catalonia with a message about language and culture.

The President of the Government of Catalonia, **Salvador Illa**, attacked the PP for its relationship with **Vox**, stating that citizens do not see judges as "impartial." He also claimed the Popular Party "buys witnesses" to harm the president. These are high-voltage accusations launched without evidence on stage and must be read as such: statements by a political leader during a campaign, not proven facts.

The overall picture shows a campaign mixing economy, infrastructure, and institutional narrative. The connection between cuts from three decades ago and a specific accident is the most delicate part of the discourse because it involves real victims. Economic policy allows for debates on public capital stock and maintenance; attributing a disaster to a budget decision requires more than a rally slogan.

## What can be affirmed and what cannot

There is a verifiable fact: Sánchez uttered these words in **Tarragona** and explicitly linked **Rajoy**-era cuts to the **Urda** accident. Another verifiable fact: the disaster claimed nearly **70** lives and occurred two weeks before the event. A third: the president did not attend the state funeral for the victims, just as he had not attended the one for **Adamuz**.

What is not established is that investment cuts caused the accident. That link is sustained by the president, not by a technical report cited in his speech. Any rigorous reading should wait for official conclusions before accepting a fifteen-year causal chain.

Regarding infrastructure and rail safety, it is worth remembering that investment decisions go through annual budgets, contracts, and multi-year plans, and their effect on safety is neither automatic nor immediate. Economic policy bears responsibility for maintaining public capital; determining guilt in an accident belongs to the investigation. Mixing both without proof is legitimate as discourse, but not as diagnosis. And with victims involved, caution is not mere decoration.