Vox's Three Errors: From PP Pact to Liberal Purge

Vox accumulates three errors as its margin shrinks

A no-confidence motion that turned into farce, an internal purge removing liberal profiles, and a general strike with almost no support. This is the assessment right-wing voters make of Vox after a term where Abascal’s party went from threatening the two-party system to being labeled "Cs 2.0". The analysis suggests a harsh thesis: at the next error of this magnitude, the party sinks.

The diagnosis is not unanimous. While some argue Vox is burning its window of opportunity, others counter that the real mistake lies with the PP, which has "dropped its mask," and note that Vox represents about 3,500,000 Spaniards. Regardless, the debate has shifted from whether Vox grows to how much time remains before right-wing voters stop believing in it.

The no-confidence motion no one recalls with pride

The first cited error is the no-confidence motion backed by Ramón Tamames. The prevailing view is that it was a "ridiculous farce" that did not benefit the party. Defenders argue the motion itself wasn't the error, but rather the PP's betrayal for not supporting it.

This discrepancy matters because it touches the core issue: if Vox cannot rely on the PP for a no-confidence motion, what is the point of their pacts in regions and municipalities? Critics say without these pacts, the left would govern, and the party would vanish in a month in Andalusia, Extremadura, or Valencia. Opponents argue that making pacts with those who don't back you in Madrid gives away the narrative.

The liberal purge and the ghost of Ciudadanos

The second error is the departure of liberal figures like Iván Espinosa de los Monteros. The official internal line frames this as cleaning out "infiltrated Peperros" who sabotage the project, replacing them with orthodox far-right members.

External interpretations differ sharply: Vox is ceasing to be a party with a liberal economic program to become a club of rosary reciters. Comparisons to Ciudadanos recur frequently. "Vox = Cs 2.0," summarizes one repeated comment. Responses claim confusing Vox with Ciudadanos shows a lack of understanding: Ciudadanos lacked a territorial base, while Vox has a loyal electorate.

Data points indicate Espinosa does not leave alone; his vvife remains, and his exit triggers no seismic shift or mass exodus. It is argued that the PP's internal crisis trinc Ayuso's corruption scandal and Casado's resignation was greater.

The general strike that never peine

The third error is the general strike Vox failed to mobilize. Explanations suggest right-wingers do not engage in general strikes, and the PP did not support it either. "I did strike that day," replies one participant, adding that if the PP doesn't support it, so be it.

The underlying problem is that Vox built part of its discourse on defending Spanish workers, yet its electoral base ignores union mobilization calls. This contradiction remains unresolved: the party wants to speak to workers, but its voters are small business owners, freelancers, and rentiers.

The fundamental error: unconditional pacts with the PP

Beyond specific errors, the dominant analysis is that Vox's major mistake is treating the PP as an ally rather than an adversary. "The PP is part of the enemy camp," they argue. In this view, the PP channels right-wing votes to a safe place for the system, acting as a grounding wire preventing change.

Practically, Vox supports PP regional and municipal governments and approves standing commissions in Congress via its votes, receiving nothing in return. Some propose breaking all pacts with the PP, regardless of consequences. Counterarguments cite Northern Ireland's Sinn Féin, which didn't form pacts for over 30 years and didn't disappear.

Liberalism as an internal contradiction

A deeper critique targets ideological incoherence: one cannot be pro-identity and liberal simultaneously. Liberalism is described as the precursor to 19th-century pogre ideologies, arguing liberals defend money, not the homeland.

Immigration serves as the example. Vox uses the slogan "legal, orderly, and secure immigration," mirroring the language of the Global Compact for Migration signed in 2018. Thus, the party reproduces the framework of an agreement it claims to fight. This double discourse is seen as evident: saying one thing for public consumption while approving another in practice.

Leadership and the party's future

The final open front is Santiago Abascal's leadership. Criticism notes he has never worked outside politics, skipped military service, and favors military attire. Dissenting voices suggest the future lies with profiles like Jorge Buxadé, moving past relativism to focus on nation and values.

Counterarguments state Vox occupies the only electoral niche with upward potential in Europe, and the only way to neutralize it is to imitate parts of its discourse. This imitation is already occurring in neighboring countries.

---

With these elements, the question is no longer if Vox makes errors, but how many more it can afford before its voters stop believing the next one will be successful. The circulating calculation warns that at the next error of this magnitude, the party sinks. Yet, neither insiders nor outsiders seem clear on what that error might be.