The comments on this post at Lenin’s Tomb are excellent.
Zapatero closed today’s big debate with these words, after nearly two hours’ bitter argument over the state and future state of Spain.
Vital details: Rajoy’s suit looked cheap and too small; Rajoy seemed much more nervous and uncomfortable while pretending to be calm (the photocall); Zapatero seemed much more nervous during the debate and interrupted Rajoy frequently; Zapatero was, intellectually, the better arguer; Rajoy’s confidence won him points. Rajoy’s point that people ‘don’t understand macro economics’ seemed somewhat patronising and foolish.
In terms of the actual discussion, there seemed to be a roughly equal balance between who ‘won’ each point. The general opinion seems to be that this is 0-0, which is beter for Rajoy than for Zapatero.
Cuarto is reporting that Zapatero won the debate easily among males and those aged between 24-50. Women and the youngest voters were much more balanced in their tastes, though Zapatero comes out on top in every single poll.
Good luck, indeed, to the Spanish voters.
On a different, but connected note: allow me to introduce Simbolos y Senyals, a new project I’ve started. It’s all about the political posters, stickers and graffiti which many of us see on the streets of Spain. My hope is that, along with what examples I can share, readers will send in photos or documents which can be stored together to create a database and library of political campaign material used by major political parties and smaller activist groups. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Also, please feel free to contact me with any examples of such material which you’d like to share.
Shock-jock from the Catholic radio network La Cope, Federico Jiménez Losantos, is being sued by Madrid mayor Alberto Ruíz-Gallardón over accusations the radio personality made concerning the mayor’s attitude to the victims of the 11-M bombings in Madrid. Apparently (and I have to trust El País on this, as I never listen to El Cope), Losantos repeated various accusations against Gallardón, especially that he “didn’t want to know who killed 200 people in his city”.
In a slightly odd move, Losantos is trying to call some top PP officials including Comunidad de Madrid premier, Esperanza Aguirre, Eduardo Zaplana and Ángel Acebes to his defence, I assume as character witnesses. These people represent the right-wing of the PP and they recently won something of a power-struggle in the party against Gallardón’s slightly less extreme wing. They’re also well known for strongly disliking Gallardón, despite (or because of?) his popularity among voters in the capital.
So either these people will stand up and defend their mate, Losantos (the same guy who openly claimed that “Zapatero has an enormous, and growing, responsibility for 11-M”), or they will leave him in the lurch and risk his ire on the airwaves. For the PP, one would think that their obvious choice would be to call Losantos and say something along the lines of “Sorry old chap, election’s coming up dontchaknow, can’t have this nonsense… firm friend… you’re best off on your own…” (at least that’s what the Tories would do). But might this not be difficult for the PP leadership? Could it be risky for them to alienate the far-right sector of Spanish society so close to an election? Or… could they use this as an opportunity to finally twist the knife they stuck in Gallardón and show their strength?
Actually, the court proceedings start after the election, but I suspect that journalists will be keen to know just what the PP’s leadership plan to do with Losantos (and if they’re not, they bloody well should be). If they can avoid this serious question in the run-up to the election (and they certainly shouldn’t), what does it say about a party which desperately wants to wrest power from the Socialists? Either they’re with Losantos or they drop him: time to decide.
As the election draws near, Graeme at South of Watford has been investigating a series of different factors which could change the outcome of the vote. The economy and terrorism are important considerations for many Spaniards, as are problems with the national infrastructure, education and immigration.
The right-wing PP, keen to regain power after two terms of PSOE government, have been hammering on about terrorism more than anyone else (plus ça change…!), and recently, Spanish Catholic bishops raised their voices in support of Mariano Rajoy’s moribund campaign. One of the key points agreed on now by the major parties is that there shouldn’t be negotiation with political parties who refuse condemn ETA bombings, past and present. People who tacitly ‘approve’ of terrorism.
But the PP have a history of tacitly approving much worse movements than ETA will ever be. Born out of the ashes of Franco’s fascist dictatorship, the PP are the standard bearers for a type of neo-fascism, shrouded in the clothing of democracy but with no great love for democratic institutions, self-labelled of the ‘centre’ but retaining ultra-conservative views, explicitly in favour of the constitution yet permanently opposed to rescinding fascist-era legislation.
In fact, the PP fail their own test by refusing to explicitly condemn the atrocious crimes carried out by Franco’s regime (which, by the way, did not end in 1945 as some would have you believe). Claiming that it’s better to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’, the PP argue that nothing would be gained by their formally condemning Franco’s regime. So why not come out and do it? The answer is that the PP want to have their cake and eat it: they want to contest democratic elections and then disseminate lies about the results; they want to claim to represent the ‘centre’ while constantly appealing to the hard-right of Spanish politics; they claim ‘solidarity’ with the victims of terrorism, but only talk to the ones who are members of one of their own grassroots campaigns. They talk about looking to the future and still refuse to remove Franco as ‘Honourary Mayor in perpetuity’ of the city of Salamanca.
I couldn’t vote for a party with such a short-sighted view of history or such a terrible record of equivocation.
After this weekend’s disgraceful displays of racism against Lewis Hamilton at Montmelo, the FIA have warned Spain that one or both races due to take place here this season may be cancelled if anything similar happens again.
Hamilton was subjected to calls of ‘puto negro’ and ‘negro de mierda’ as he carried out test laps at the Barcelona circuit. Other incidents included a rather odd group of people actually going to the trouble of blacking-up and donning t-shirts proclaiming ‘Hamilton’s Family’.
Many Spaniards are big fans of Fernando Alonso (Dullest Man Ever™) and some have apparently used his rivalry with Hamilton as yet another excuse to indulge their pathetic racist beliefs.
Racism in Spanish sport is a serious problem. Numerous black athletes including Barça’s Samuel Eto’o have been subjected to thoroughly unpleasant taunts in recent years. It’s not long since Luis Aragones was fined for calling Thierry Henry a ‘black shit’.
The best thing to do would probably be cancel both the Barcelona and Valencia races for a couple of years. It would teach honest, non-racist, F1 fans that in future, rather than standing by as a bunch of racist scum-suckers make everyone look bad, it would be best to turn around and smack them in the mouth. Also, it would probably help to reduce pollution and hepatitis infections in the race areas significantly.
A gang of bishops (yes, this is the formal collective noun) yesterday called on Spaniards not to vote for a party who ‘negotiates with terrorists’, in a clear sign that they want their fold not to vote at all. As everyone here knows, all of the main political parties in Spain have negotiated with terrorists over the last decade, meaning that loyal sheep have no choice but to either abstain or vote for one of the several Falange parties jostling for the fascist-fetishist constituency.
On the other hand, the bishops may have been suffering from the same collective memory failure that the PP have shown symptoms of. This debilitating sickness has led the right-wing party and its supporters to lash out at any suggestion that talks be held with ETA or Batasuna, even though this was precisely their own policy when they were in power.
My point of view: if the bishops don’t keep their big noses out of politics, perhaps we should have one of those traditional anti-clerical carnivals which happen here every now and then. Religion has a place in some people’s hearts but it has absolutely no place in democratic politics. We should all support the cutting away of any parasitic agency which seeks to pervert our democracy.