The intervention of the leader of the Popular Party, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, in his speech as a presidential candidate had two different parts. A first, more typical of a motion of censure against the current Government in office and another in which he outlined innovative proposals that could constitute the bases of a government program. This circumstance constituted an implicit recognition of the candidate’s difficulties, as he did not have enough votes to begin with. Aware of this deficiency, Feijóo dedicated a long stretch of his speech to criticizing the current Executive, with the emphasis placed on the political management of Pedro Sanchez. Nothing new, in this aspect, in relation to the criticisms that Feijóo formulated during the electoral campaign or during his interventions in the Senate. The PP candidate alternated remembering Sánchez’s political ups and downs with mentioning some of his failures, such as the ‘only yes means yes’ law that has allowed dozens of sexual offenders to be released from prison. Although to a lesser extent than what happened in the famous electoral face-to-face, his intervention also contained inaccuracies, as the deputy Óscar Puente, appointed by the PSOE to reply to him, reminded him. Among these, the Government’s pension policy or the positive impact of its management on the recovery from the pandemic and inequality.
Where Núñez Feijóo’s intervention was most interesting was in its propositional part, marked by the need for a pact between the PP and the PSOE to address the major issues of the State. The popular leader outlined striking proposals, such as incorporating a crime of institutional disloyalty into Spanish legislation and increasing penalties for embezzlement, with the clear intention of bringing to justice any actions by Catalan and Basque independentists contrary to the Constitution. Both proposals please Vox and contrast with Sánchez’s desire to de-judicialize the territorial conflict in Catalonia. In any case, they could constitute, depending on how they are carried out, a definitive obstacle for the PP to be able to count on the support of the nationalist right of Junts per Catalunya that Feijóo repeatedly named. However, it is necessary to assess the conversational spirit with which he presented this second part of his intervention. He knew how to tune in to the widespread desire in society for collaboration between the two main state parties, and his appeal for the end of the block policy It was a success.
Not having given in to the most conservative and unitary sector of his party, Feijóo’s proposal could have made an impact on public opinion tired of so much political polarization. Although some of the proposals he formulated in this regard were sensible, it is possible that they came at the wrong time when the Popular Party has assumed a high share of responsibility for the frontist bias that Spanish politics has. Feijóo’s call for concertation clashed with the pacts that the PP has carried out with Vox in important communities and dozens of city councils and with the coalition with the extreme right with which he himself aspires to be elected president.