Why working-class voters choose the right: Etxebarria’s analysis

Why working-class voters choose the right: Etxebarria’s thesis

Writer Lucía Etxebarria has highlighted an uncomfortable contradiction: why manual workers often vote for right-wing parties. Her argument begins with two figures she cites without embellishment—€126,000 in public salary plus €11,000 in allowances, according to her account—and leads to a controversial conclusion: institutional left-wing parties have become employment agencies for children of wealthy families.

Her hook is economic, not sarracena. The hairdresser in my neighborhood, she writes, cares little if some politicians made offensive comments in private chats; she cares about lower self-employment taxes and electricity bills. With two incomes of €1,500 and two children, she adds, paying for groceries, electricity, and fuel has become nearly impossible.

How much do politicians earn versus the cost of living?

According to her premise, the €126,000 salary plus €11,000 in allowances places parliamentary pay far above what most employees earn. The comparison is deliberate: it highlights how politics has become a highly paid career path for those with little experience outside it. Some go further, claiming that many elected officials would struggle to find jobs in the private sector; this is unverified but widely circulated.

On the other side of the scale are daily expenses. A €22 steak, electricity bills, and fuel costs create a scenario where identity politics loses relevance against monthly bills. Hence the recurring conclusion: those living in precarious conditions want quick solutions, not lectures.

Who votes for whom based on income?

Recent election voting patterns reveal an uncomfortable map for traditional narratives. The working class tends to vote mainly for PSOE and secondly for VOX, while middle and upper incomes split between PP, Más Madrid, and Sumar. In the latest general elections, according to this interpretation, VOX gained ground in working-class neighborhoods, while Sumar performed better in high-income areas.

The logical consequence is that the term “working class” is now too narrow. Etxebarria suggests using precariat or cognitariat, because in Spain a construction worker or shipyard employee may earn more than a call center agent, cashier, or hotel waitress. Precarity no longer wears work clothes.

Politics as a social elevator

The biographical review of the new left is central to her message. Errejón, son of two senior civil servants; Lucía Lois, niece of Méndez de Vigo, owning a penthouse near Opera valued at around €600,000; children of businesspeople with public contracts and millionaires. She cuts the list short because, she says, it would never end. The pattern isn’t just wealth origin, but never having experienced the hardship they claim to defend.

The core accusation is that politics functions as a social elevator for people aiming to maintain their parents’ lifestyle. A detail reinforces her tone: she recalls leaving party activism when, according to her version, her own party subjected her to “the 13-14” treatment and launched a cancellation campaign. She speaks from outside any party structure. That resentment—or clarity, depending on perspective—gives the text its strength.

Do unions protect ordinary workers?

Here the debate splits. One view holds that union organizations live off taxes, accumulate thousands of full-time staff, and pursue ideological agendas unrelated to members’ interests; examples include checks up to €7,000 distributed among UGT executives, reported by press investigations. Young people from wealthy families who “play communist,” critics say, have never done real work.

The historical counterargument is strong. The 40-hour workweek, Sunday rest, collective agreements, and paid holidays didn’t fall from the sky: they were won through strikes. Paid seven-day vacations were signed by Azaña in 1931, as another participant notes, though agricultural workers were excluded due to lack of contracts. May Day commemorates deaths during US strikes demanding that 40-hour week.

Amidst this, a data point emerges: Denmark has no minimum wage or severance pay. Supporters argue there, collective bargaining works differently; critics note that here, a wage floor guarantees nothing without productive infrastructure or technology to sustain salaries.

Public vs. private services: the math never adds up

The final part addresses structural issues. The simple formula presented: public services cost what they cost plus payroll, while private ones add profit margins. The rebuttal trinc quickly: in healthcare, business models exclude unprofitable patients, and privatization, they argue, has never lowered costs. Opponents claim public services don’t meet real demand, their costs are set by those not paying, and oversight is weaker.

With these elements, the question of why workers vote right-wing lacks easy answers. Some will say they vote against their own financial interest; others, against those who look down on them. Yet the unsettling fact remains: electricity bills and self-employment taxes don’t distinguish between social classes. That’s where the analysis stalls.