When disproportion is the norm and rhetorical bloat a constant, there is a risk that the strategy will backfire. When Pablo Casado throws himself into the microphones to exhibit virtues that he does not possess, he exaggerates the translation of everything. When the right never finds a temperate zone, it is difficult to take it seriously. When everything in the popular ones is a broad brush, everything ends up being excessive. And when everything is excess, you run the risk of always sounding the same. For something, Pío Baroja said that democracy is histrionics.
Married practices it every morning. Theatricality and effect. This time without realizing that his voters, that his young electorate also has serious difficulties to emancipate themselves, cannot afford a rent and suffers the consequences of the bubble and real estate speculation. Wear a purple, red or red bracelet, today “it is not enough to have a job and a payroll”, as the leader of the right has said, to pay for a roof where to live and start a life project.
The average salary of young people between 16 and 29 years has fallen in the last decade by 5% and has gone from 1,025 euros a month in twelve payments to 973. They are no longer even mileuristas! In fact, 32% of those under 30 would have to allocate 92% of their salary – if they had it – to rent if they intended to become independent.
But Casado has told those in their 20s, 30s and 40s that the best thing is for each one to manage as best they can and that he is “in favor of people doing what they want with their own business. Of the will”. Following his doctrine, no one would pay taxes here because, overall, what we earn is ours and we allocate it to whatever we please, which will never be public, but private. If the emeritus has done it, after serving as a commission agent for 40 years, why won’t the 47 million Spaniards who now know that Juan Carlos I, beyond the social disgrace, will not have criminal reproach.
All this on account of a housing law that is not yet known in its literal sense, but that the right has rejected with virulence and announced an appeal before the Constitutional Court. For communist, for interventionist, for Bolivarian, for confiscatory, because it introduces legal insecurity…. And because it has been promoted by a government that wants to end private property!
The PP forgets that private property is protected in the Constitution as the right to housing is guaranteed. The Magna Carta says more, and that is that it is up to the public powers to guarantee that right, but also to regulate the use of the land according to the general interest to avoid speculation. Article 47, which it seems that the head of the opposition did not read.
His reading of the law of laws is as biased as it is of the drafts published so far of a rule with which the Government intends to limit the price of rents, and that will not affect natural persons but the legal ones who have more of 10 properties. He also forgets that the decision to declare stressed areas will correspond to the town councils and the Autonomous Communities and that in Spain the young vote led Felipe González to La Moncloa in 1982; Aznar in 1993 and Zapatero in 2004.
Quite a lynx. First, he takes the side of the electricity companies and their benefits against consumers who can no longer afford electricity bills, and now with his collusion with the vulture funds, he is attacking young people and, in addition, he insults them saying that If they do not rent and become emancipated, it is because they do not want to, since with a job of 970 euros they can pay a rent of 850 euros. Who can’t keep up with 120 euros a month? Food, electricity, gas, telephone, transportation … Whoever does not do it is because he is a madman or because he prefers to live the silly soup of the family home. This is called shooting yourself in the foot and unnecessarily offending.
The Government’s proposal may deserve criticism and amendment -that for that the text will face the mandatory parliamentary procedure-, but in no case can it be said that it is a boutade typical of communism, but a response to the despair of millions of citizens, young people and not so young that they struggle to pay rent every month.