Por estos dos motivos, defensa de JOH solicita repetir juicio
Rubalcaba (EN) Intervención acto de proclamación
1. Address by Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba at his formal
presentation as PSOE candidate
Palacio Municipal de Congresos, Madrid ‐ 9 July 2011
I never realised there were so many ‘Rs’ in the dictionary, so many words that begin
with an ‘R‘ (he refers to the video previously screened, in which various words
beginning with ‘R‘ are used to define him). I have to say that I am not so sure that
some of them necessarily define my state of mind today. It says “relaxed”, for
example. No, not relaxed. There was at least one word missing, to my mind, a very
important ‘R‘ which has divided José Luis [Rodríguez Zapatero] and myself almost
every weekend for these past eight years: Real Madrid supporter. I see that this has
changed, because when I made such statements in the past, before I was candidate,
opinions were divided. Today it is not so bad.
Thank you so much. Thank you from the heart. I am sure you can easily imagine how,
when I stepped up onto this platform today, I thought about the day when I first joined
the party, and that the last thing I could have imagined back then was that I would one
day be chosen by you as candidate to head the Government. It did not even cross my
mind. And so I must offer you my thanks, from the heart. Thank you for your trust,
thank you.
It is a great responsibility, but I feel proud, I feel happy, and above all I feel confident.
Why? Because I do not feel alone. I see all of you here, I feel your support and above
all I feel the support of the millions of Spanish people who have been with us for so
long, through all the years of our democracy. Millions of Spanish people... And that is
why I feel confident, at ease and, of course, proud.
I was thinking back to the day when I first entered politics. I entered politics along
with many of you to fight for liberty and democracy. They were difficult times. We
had a cruel, pitiless dictatorship. I know that there are people now who deny it, but
that is the way it was. Cruel and pitiless. Ever since then, I remember, and I have
never forgotten the lesson, I learnt that democracy has owners; its owners are the
citizens. They are the owners of democracy. Something I have never forgotten from
that moment on.
I committed myself to political life; I entered political life because I wanted to be of use
to citizens. Undoubtedly in a career such as mine there have been things I have got
wrong and things I have got right. There is one thing, though, that nobody could ever
accuse me of. There is one thing of which I am absolutely certain: I have never shied
1
2.
away from a challenge. I have never thrown in the towel when faced with any
problem, never. Of that I am completely certain.
That is why I am here now. It is why I am here right now, because Spain is going
through a difficult time and there can be no place for one‐upmanship, for
irresponsibility, no place for opportunism. Spain is going through a difficult time which
demands major commitments. And that is why I am here. I am here because, with your
support, I have decided to take a step forward, sure in my belief that I can be of use to
my country. That is why I am here now. I can serve my country. It is a moment of
commitment to all of you.
And right from the outset I aim to tell you the way I want to do things, the way we
must do things. We must be ambitious in our aspirations and realistic in our
proposals. That is what we must do. Ambitious, very ambitious and realistic. That is
what we must do. We must do something hugely important, and those of you who
know me will be aware this is very much a part of me: we must not promise anything
we cannot deliver. You will never hear me commit to anything which I do not believe
I can put into practice. Ambitious, then, and realistic. That is what I call on us to be.
Allow me now to speak a little about the Socialist Party. Have you ever noticed that in
Spain no politician defines him or herself as a right‐winger? There aren’t any. They
don’t exist. Even those who are on the right of the right, don’t say they are right‐
wingers. So be it. That also sets me apart from them. I have felt proud every single day
of my life to call myself a socialist. Proud.
Proud to belong to the governments of Felipe González and José Luis Rodríguez
Zapatero. I would like to thank both of them publicly here today. I have learnt a great
deal from them. Both have truly stood up for Spain. I have learnt that when difficulties
arise, one must never give up. I have learned, I have seen them give their all, stand up
and be counted when others shrank away, place their necks on the line when others
were attempting to jockey for position. I have seen them.
Let me tell you something. I do not normally talk about my conversations with José
Luis. I don’t do it. There are those who do, who almost as soon as the door of the
Moncloa closes behind them are opening their mouths. Not me. I’ve never been like
that. But the truth is that a great deal has been written and said about the night of
the 9th of May, and I would like to give you my account. I spoke to him that night,
many times. He never spoke to me of votes. He never spoke to me of his political
future, or even of the Socialist Party. Never! Do you know what he said to me, time
and again? “We cannot allow what is going to happen to Greece to happen to us.
Because if it happens, there will be generations and generations in Spain who will
suffer the consequences”. That is what he said to me. Time and again. It was a very
difficult night. And I would like here and now to thank you, José Luis. To thank you
for everything.
This may be the right time to say something that you have heard me say on many
2
3.
occasions: our enemy is not the Popular Party, not the Right. It isn’t. The Popular
Party is our adversary. Our enemies, yesterday, today and forever, are fear,
insecurity, injustice, intolerance, inequality... They are our enemies. And we have
always stood up to those enemies for what we are: the allies of progress, and the
allies of change. Let me give you an example. We have governed many years in our
democracy. For almost two thirds of the democratic era there have been socialist
governments. We have done many things and we have learned one fundamental
lesson: nothing is ever finished, you can never rest on your laurels, there is always
more to be done.
I would like to speak out about the struggle of women for equality, to be treated the
same as men. The struggle which they, unsupported, began decades ago. We men
joined in later. It is only in the last eight years that we have turned that struggle into
a cornerstone of the policy of our socialist government, and have made considerable
progress. But as I said, there is still a lot to be done, a great deal more, as one can
easily understand. You cannot in seven years redress the injustice of centuries. It is
impossible. There is a great deal of work still to be done in terms of equality. But we
did it. Why? We did it because we hold true to three essential principles or three rules,
three hallmarks: our principles which we have always maintained; our capacity to
adapt to changes, to change, and something very important: our ability to present the
populace as a whole with a project for the majority.
And so principles, changes and that majority project have been our hallmarks. And I
say to you that they should remain our hallmarks. All three: principles, change and a
project for the majority of Spanish people.
Now more than ever, because change is now happening at breakneck pace, and it is
not enough simply to adapt. We must lead change. The future does not simply lie in
wait, it is there to be seized. That is the difference. And while we are on the subject, let
me say that we will need to make a huge effort. We need to restore the status of
change, the future. We need to restore the lost status of the future. And for
progressives that is vital. We must restore the status of the future. It is vitally
important. We must adapt to changes on the basis of our principles. Because we have
an economy 2.0, communication 2.0, but there is no liberty 2.0, or justice 2.0, or
equality 2.0. On the basis of our principles.
And we must change, and spend barely a moment looking back. Some believe that the
solution to our problems lies over our shoulders. Not us. Not even in our own actions
will we find the solutions to new problems. If, as some believe, we cast our gaze back
ten years to find the solutions to the crisis, we will not find them. Do you know what
we will find? We will find the origin of the crisis. Precisely that, the origin of the
crisis. We must not look back.
We are a party which has always refused to believe that any time in the past was
better. But we are something more than that. We are a party of effort, we know that
victory is won through effort. Apart from anything else, because throughout our
3
4.
history no one has ever handed us anything on a plate. We are a party of effort and we
must be proud of being the party of effort.
We are a party of rights. Of rights, yes, but also of obligations and responsibilities. That
is the Socialist Party. That is why we must champion those who advance through their
efforts and not those who advance through fraud, deceit and profiteering. They are
not our allies.
I will say more, and this is something which those who know me are aware I hold dear,
there is an attitude, a way of behaving which I believe forms an intrinsic part of the life
of a socialist, and that is austerity, public and private. Austerity. It is a question of
consistency. I will ask you to be austere. In fact, I will demand it. I will demand
austerity in your behaviour, in public and in private. Why? Because I have for a long
time believed that unless you live as you think, you end up thinking as you live.
I began by reaffirming my democratic values, your values, those we share... and I did
not do that by chance. I did it because we are at a time when people have reasonable
doubts as to whether votes are more important than markets. There are those who
are questioning this basic principle of our democracy. Some believe that politics has
lost the battle. Some believe that the markets are riding roughshod, and now will do
so forever, over their interests, and so the debate must begin there. Because if the
markets have ridden roughshod over the interests of others, it is because someone
in the world of politics allowed them to. And what is decided by politicians must be
corrected by politicians. And so let us begin by stating that many of the problems
currently being seen in Spain and in the world are political problems. And it is politics
which must resolve them, politics every time.
Politics must take charge of breaking this almost irreducible paradigm whereby the
profits are enjoyed by the few, and the losses suffered by the many. It is politics which
must bring an end to that idea. The truth is that it would be difficult in the world in
which we find ourselves, with the problems which face us, for one single country to
tackle these political problems by going it alone. Incredibly difficult. Our response must
be a combined one. Coordinating, working, pursuing politics... Always politics, with
many players involved.
Let me give you an example. An example which I saw particularly during the five years I
spent at the Ministry of the Interior. I am talking about tax havens. I know they are
terrible. I know that you all know what I knew when I became Interior Minister: tax
havens are home to places where the money men avoid paying their dues to the public
purse. But there is more to it than that, the money from drug trafficking, the money
from corruption, the money from people trafficking. It is intolerable, it is indecent, it is
absolutely immoral that there should be tax havens in the world. Absolutely immoral. I
believe that they will be done away with. I do not believe that the world can endure
such indignity for much longer. I believe they will be done away with. But one single
country cannot do away with them. We cannot do it from Spain, however much we
might like. We need to join forces. We need to pursue politics.
4
5.
We need to join forces. And where do you think we have the greatest force? In
Europe. I cannot comprehend how there can be people attempting to deal with the
world’s problems who say that Europe is worthless. People who want “less Europe”.
When the reality is quite the opposite: Europe gives us strength. Europe allows us to
make our case in the world through strength, based on our principles. We say that
there should be a levy on financial transactions. Of course there should be, showing
solidarity with the poorest nations. We have been calling for it for a long time. But you
know what I say to you? For Europe to call for it in the world, it must first be put on the
table in Europe. Let us do that, in Europe, and with the strength of Europe call for it in
the world. As I say, we should stop complaining about the US ratings agencies and set
up European agencies. Create European bonds.
We should do it to defend ourselves, to defend the countries that are being attacked
day after day by those speculating with their sovereign debt. And we need to build
more Europe.
In short, I would like to base my address on three cornerstones. The problems are
very great, they are global, and we can never tackle them through less democracy,
but through more democracy. We will never be able to deal with them through less
politics, but with more politics. Never with less Europe, but with more Europe.
Which is why I want to say this to you right from the outset: more democracy, more
politics, more Europe.
As the party’s candidate to be President of the Government, it is natural in my first
address to speak of what citizens are asking others, what they expect of us. And I
believe they are asking for four things. The first is that we listen to them, that we listen
to their demands. The second, that we identify their problems. The third, that we put
forward solutions. And lastly, that we sort things out. It is as complex and simple as
that. And we must do all of that while being ambitious and realistic. Ambitious in our
explanations and realistic in our proposals.
In short, we need to answer the questions as to what our citizens’ problems are, what
our proposals are and, ultimately, what we aim to do with Spain. What kind of a place
Spain should be in 2016. What changes we want to see in Spain during the next term
of government. That is the answer that we need to give at an electoral rally like this.
And I will give it to you, very succinctly.
I will set out before you four aspirations. Four proposals, four undertakings, four
objectives. The first, and most urgent, is to create jobs. The second, and most
important, to create a healthy, competitive economy. The third, what matters most
to us: equal opportunities. And the fourth, what we are being asked for, a change in
politics and in democracy. Those are the four objectives. The four aspirations. And,
as I say, they are ambitious aspirations. But there will be specific proposals, specific
solutions.
And that is how we will work from now until the election. That is how we will conduct
5
6.
our Political Conference and our electoral manifesto. Specific aspirations and solutions.
Let me now focus a part of my speech on these four objectives. I will begin with jobs.
As you all know, this crisis is global. In Spain, though, it has certain distinct aspects. I
will address one: the property bubble. I must talk about the bubble for a moment
because it is a factor which has marked the difference for many years, more than ten.
We built houses upon houses at a frenetic pace, with no sense of balance. Companies
took on debts to build homes. Families took on debts to buy homes and banks took on
debts to offer loans and mortgages to those families and companies. We did that for
ten years. And then a financial crisis emerged and, if I may say so, it caught us up to
our necks in debt. That is the debt we must pay off. And that is how we must explain it
to the people of Spain. We have to pay that debt.
Let me put it another way. Housing in Spain accounted for around 9% of Gross
Domestic Product. In a sane economy, housing should be around four, four and a half
percent of GDP. We had five percentage points too much. A five‐point gap in growth
which now needs to be filled in with something else. Let me put it a third way.
We are not going to restore two million jobs in housing, even if the housing market
recovers, and it will recover once credit is flowing. We cannot build enough homes to
make space once again for those two million workers. Which means that jobs need
to be found somewhere else. That is the essence of what we need to put before the
people. We need new companies creating new jobs in a new economy, because that
is the essence of our programme, given that we need to bridge that five‐point gap in
our GDP.
That is our approach. It is true that housing and the crisis in other sectors have brought
about dramatic consequences in terms of millions of unemployed, flesh and blood
people, with names and surnames. People who have lost their jobs, and with them
their livelihood, but have lost much more: self‐esteem, belief in the future... Because
when you are out of work you cannot be sure of anything.
People say now that we are faced with a generation which, for the first time, will have
a worse life than their parents did. And it is true. But worse things are being said: that
their parents think the same; that their children’s generation will be worse off than
them. And that for me, if I am pressed, is more dramatic, and explains why we cannot
resign ourselves to this situation. I know that to create employment we must have a
healthy and competitive economy. I know that. But what I am trying to tell you is that
we cannot expect that healthy and competitive economy to be fully in a position to
create formulas for job creation. We need to work faster. We cannot simply allow
growth and jobs to go hand‐in‐hand. We need to speed things up because
employment is the urgent issue, a vital need for so many Spaniards. The question is:
can we do it? And I tell you we can. We can mobilise, in the public sector, of course,
but also in the private sector. We can remove obstacles. We can join forces. Of course
we can! We can find a way to fast‐track job creation. But the question is not just
whether we can do it, the question I am asked, time and time again, is if we will have
6
7.
the money. Because that is the million dollar question. And I tell you that we will, we
will have the money. Let me give you a very simple example of where we can find it.
An example which everyone can understand.
We are currently restructuring the banks and savings banks. It will soon be the
moment, the moment to call on the banks and savings banks to use a part of their
profits to create jobs. We will do that and we can do that.
It is true that Spain has lost jobs and has done so because of other reasons. Jobs have
been lost, among other factors, because our employment system quite dramatically
forces businesses to balance the books, when things go wrong, through redundancies,
and that cannot be allowed to remain the case. We also have an economic system
which accepts as quite normal that until the economy is growing at 2% no jobs will be
created, and things cannot go on like that. So changes will be needed.
That is the purpose of the employment reforms, and that is why we introduced them.
We did so to strengthen job contracts against redundancy, to give companies the
flexibility to protect themselves, to organise themselves better in response to the
changes which happen day by day. But we cannot leave it there. We will undoubtedly
need to propose new reforms. I personally like part‐time contracts, and I feel they
should be incentivised. We have already done so, but further progress is needed. And
it seems to me that the way forward is to seek an agreement between businesses and
workers. An agreement whereby we give greater flexibility to such contracts, which is
what businesses are calling for, and greater security, which is the call of the workers.
How? For example by improving their pensions system. This can be done, and we can
continue to develop part‐time contracts.
There is one thing we have learned over the years of our democracy. Something very
important. That consensus is always better than conflict. Very important. I look across
at Pepe Griñán, because he has said it to me time and again, and I turn to Valeriano
because he has said it time and again: “consensus, always consensus”. Consensus in
many areas, I mentioned one of them, for example one of those now being discussed
and about which I would like to clarify my position. Consensus in terms of dialogue and
agreement about changes to the structure of employees’ salaries and business owners’
profits, to ensure they follow parallel paths and are agreed in accordance with shared
goals. That is my proposal, consensus on an agreement for salaries based on shared
goals. That makes companies stronger.
Dialogue and agreement for what? Well, for example, to see if we can succeed in
bridging the unacceptable salary gap which exists between men and women within our
economy. What is going on? The issue is as simple and probably as complex as
applying to the labour market, to the economy, a principle which we have championed
in other spheres of life: equal work, equal pay. As simple and as complex as that.
I said that there was much still to do. We have made great efforts to protect the
unemployed, great efforts. We now need to focus our efforts on helping them find
7
8.
jobs, mobilising them to find jobs. I am concerned about two groups, as some of you
will already have heard me mention. My concerns are with the young people who left
the education system without finishing their studies, attracted by construction, by
housing, by what at the time was easy money... and who now find themselves without
jobs and without qualifications. This group concerns me. And we cannot overlook the
needs of a group which comprises hundreds of thousands of young people. Specific
programmes must be set up for them combining the two things they need: training
and work. Training them while they work, dual training as it is known, and that is
something we can do.
I am also concerned about a second group in almost the opposite situation, those who
remained in education, who have qualifications, who have studied and now cannot
find a job. We need to dedicate additional efforts to that group. We need to give them
that first opportunity, their first job, because, as we know, once you have found your
place in the labour market is much easier to maintain it.
They are two groups on whose behalf I earlier called for an effort from the banks and
savings banks, for them among others, because it is true that banking profits could in
part be dedicated to these groups. Because the banks and savings banks can... and
because young people cannot wait. That is the reality.
But I said earlier, and this is true, that stable job creation requires a healthy economy
and a competitive economy. We are growing, only a little for the moment, but we will
grow more and the time is now approaching when we will be in a position to put
forward redistribution policies ensuring that those who have made the greatest
sacrifices during the crisis will be compensated for it. Let me put it another way. To
ensure that those who have not suffered during the crisis play their part in helping us
all emerge from it at the same time. Now is perhaps the time to reconsider some of
the things we have done and to correct them. Why not?
We did away with property tax. Times were different, the economy was different. I
believe that the moment has now come to reconsider, to bring it back in, although not
in the same way. Because it is true that it was a tax which burdened the middle
classes, and we will not do that again. We will bring back a property tax which is
genuinely levied on the huge holdings of assets which exist and which must play
their part in helping those who have suffered most in the crisis so that we all emerge
from it together. That is the redistribution policy which I am considering.
An economy is healthy when it is free of imbalance. And I will be quite clear here:
imbalance means having a deficit that you cannot pay, having a debt that you cannot
pay, having a balance of payments which is out of control or having runaway inflation.
We cannot allow ourselves these kinds of imbalance. We are taking many actions to
correct them and we must continue to do so. We have an agreement with the
eurozone countries, and that must be fulfilled. We must fulfil the agreement because
we cannot allow the deficit to be an albatross around our necks as it has been over
recent years. We are not going to make the same mistakes again. It is not true that the
8
9.
deficit is progressive. That is not true. We must fulfil our commitments, continue
shouldering our debt, paying it off. We must continue to put our balance of payments
in order, exporting more and importing less, and must continue to combat inflation by
freeing up the goods and services markets.
That is a healthy economy, a balanced economy, and in the world in which we live, a
competitive economy is essential. Competitiveness means many things, as I will now
discuss. A competitive economy is an economy with good business people, an
economy with qualified workers, an economy with sound infrastructure, an economy
which has an efficient public sector with no overlaps, an economy with a secure and
flexible labour market. An economy which has an efficient energy sector, a robust
industrial policy with a science, technology and innovation system, an efficient
economy. A competitive economy is all that in unison with a financial system which
fulfils its function, in other words which lends to businesses and to families to allow
the economy to progress.
Let me focus for a while on our financial system. I have already said a few words about
it. We all know that small and medium‐sized enterprises lack credit and operating
capital. The lack exists, and that is a serious problem for our economy. Which is why
we must complete the restructuring of our financial system as a matter of urgency.
The sooner the better. And I will go further, although this may be a completely
incidental issue. It is possible, it cannot be ruled out, that on occasion the State may
need to inject capital to restore the balance sheet of certain savings banks. Let me
state my position if that happens. My position is that we must be hands‐on in our
approach. If the State provides funds it must be hands‐on in managing those funds
properly, to ensure that they are genuinely used for their intended purpose. And to
ensure above all a much more important aspect, that when we withdraw our funds,
when we sell up, that the Spanish people do not lose one single euro. That is what I
say we must bear in mind. Not one single euro, and that is why we must be hands‐
on.
I also mentioned that competitiveness, or a competitive economy, means many other
things. I would like to talk for a moment about the three major challenges which
Europe has set itself, the challenges laid down in the 20‐20 programme and which are
vital in discussing competitiveness and job creation in our country.
Europe has three problems: energy is very expensive because of an inefficient energy
system; climate change; and an ageing population. The fact is that these are
problems which for Spain represent a drag or a driving force, and depending on how
we handle them will act as a drag
Or a driving force. Allow me to explain. These are problems where the position of
Spain is quite different, both for better and for worse.
9
10.
Worse because we are more heavily affected because of greater dependence in our
energy system. We are very vulnerable to climate change and we have an aged
population. Not the most aged yet, but that will come about, among other aspects
because of our excellent health system. Alongside these three problems, though,
alongside these three characteristics which make the three problems more serious,
our country does enjoy advantages. For example, we are Europe’s leaders in
alternative energy, for example, when we talk about climate change we have the
best companies to manage the water cycle and, for example, when we talk about
ageing we have a dependency care system to look after dependent people and which
has made us the pioneers in many spheres of knowledge associated with this type of
support.
These are three major opportunities. Major problems, major opportunities, major
competitive edges. I refer to these three sectors because they are the three sectors
which will probably create the greatest number of jobs in the coming years. Because
we will have to address them. We will have to combat climate change and we will have
to continue caring for our elderly population. We will have to do it, and jobs will be
created. Now think back to that 4% gap in GDP, the new jobs (those lost in
construction). Some of them will be found here, in these three sectors. And if I bundle
them together it is because all three share one characteristic, in that they are
innovative sectors. They innovate, and that is the final word I wanted to say about
competitiveness: competitiveness is above all innovation. We will be more competitive
if we are more innovative, we must innovate and those three sectors have huge
potential for innovation.
Why innovate? To create new companies, to generate enterprise. Innovate to do
better what we are doing in our traditional sectors, to export. Innovate to create new
companies and create new jobs.
Innovation is enterprise. Allow me now to focus a little on entrepreneurs. I will, if you
will forgive me a colloquial expression, bust a gut for entrepreneurs. I will give my all
because I believe it is vitally important. Many things must be done, to make their life,
their work easier, for example a reasonable tax system. Obstacles must be removed
allowing them to compete, because there are sectors which they cannot break into.
And we must do away with red tape. All of that needs to be done.
The other day I was lucky enough to meet a 26‐year‐old prize‐winning entrepreneur.
His name is Pedro Tomás Delgado. He is from Extremadura and he has a biotech firm
which treats waste water using plants. It is a decent company. It has 25 employees and
operates in 30 countries worldwide. He gave a magnificent speech, and said one thing
which will I will not forget. “For me it is not a question of winning or losing, but
winning or learning.” He means that you cannot be expected to get things right first
time, that entrepreneurs need patience, need consistency. And I will tell you
something else, enterprise is something you can learn. You can learn it at university,
you can learn it at high school, because enterprise is ultimately an attitude.
10
11.
Entrepreneurs have an attitude which is conveyed in the educational system.
I am an educator and a civil servant. And so I can allow myself to say what I am about
to say without being misinterpreted. We have a fantastic educational system, the
best in the world in training civil servants. And that must remain the case. But I also
say that what we need now is to train entrepreneurs, to teach in our classrooms,
from the grassroots upwards, about the need for enterprise, to be active, to project
what we know about the labour market, to create businesses. That is a challenge for
our educational system, to train entrepreneurs.
Innovation, training, science are terms which immediately lead on to universities and
our science and technology system. Here, too, we are better placed than people often
claim. It is true that work must be done at what we would call the core of the system,
changes are needed at universities. But I am much more concerned with the
hinterland of our universities, the science and technology system. The hinterland
shared by universities and the active economy. There are borders which need to be
broken down there, barriers which must be removed. We must, so to speak, create a
scientific Schengen in Spain. Remove borders allowing ideas, workers, knowledge to
travel freely... allowing universities to play their role in promoting enterprise creation
and job creation. That is what we must do. As you know, we are the ninth‐ranked
country in the world in terms of scientific publications. The issue now is to achieve that
ninth place in terms of patents, that must be our goal.
Let us turn to equality. It is an issue which we know well, and of course we as a party
have always championed liberty. That does not in itself make us stand out from other
democratic parties, but equality does, equality is what marks us out, and the equality
of the 21st century is equality of opportunity. Now, we in government cannot
guarantee people that they will achieve all their goals in life, we cannot do that, but
we must at all times tell people that we will give them every possible opportunity, the
same opportunities for all citizens, in order to achieve their goals. That is something
we can do. That is equality of opportunity.
Nowhere is it written that we must emerge from this crisis as a more insecure
country, as a more uncharitable country, a more divided country. Nowhere is it
written. That is what is at stake in the election, the way forward. That is what politics
will decide, that is what the citizens will decide with their votes, and that is what we
must speak about time and again between now and the election, beginning with
equality of opportunity and education.
You will not mind if I speak a little about education, which is my province. Education is
much more, as you all know, than a horizontal policy. It is much more. Education is
almost everything; it is economic policy, because we will only grow if we educate; it is
social policy, because equality still depends on education; it is employment policy,
because without education one cannot expect to find a job; it is even foreign policy,
because it is true that today educational exchanges forge and strengthen relationships
among countries; it is cultural policy... it is, quite simply, politics. An educational
11
12.
system is the backbone of the country, it is what gives its strength. Education is our
great tool.
But underlying education, those general aspects, are the smaller players: the students,
the parents, the teachers. What concerns them, what concerns us, what concerns me?
Educational failure, naturally. Incidentally, beginning with that phrase, ‘educational
failure’, I imagine that you, just like me, will often have reflected on how cruel and
unjust the phrase is. How can one brand as an educational failure a kid aged 14, 15,
16? What nonsense! I propose that we should begin by removing it from our
vocabulary, that we should talk instead about school dropout, although I well know it
is not exactly the same. School dropout has always been dramatic, but in a knowledge
society it is particularly so. Because anyone who drops out of education without the
training required for their social integration can find themselves excluded for life. That
is why school dropout is so dramatic. And that is why we must fight against it, because
it can be prevented.
All teachers know that the warning signs of school dropout come when a youngster, a
child in primary school, begins to have problems with language and mathematics...
There is a problem there and we must act. And well‐to‐do families have historically
handled the issue very well, with what were called private tutoring. Remember that?
Yes, of course, that is what it is all about, another way of stating what I wish to explain:
addressing the needs of children who are beginning to fall behind, underpinning their
studies, giving them individual attention to prevent school dropout; because it can be
prevented. I see some of you looking at me as if to say how expensive that would be,
and I would say to them if that is expensive, then how expensive is ignorance? That is
what I would say to them.
I will give you two undertakings. The first is a particularly innovative undertaking: I
say to you here and now that I will not change any of the educational laws currently
in place in our system. Not one, not a single law. Education does not need a
legislative tug‐of‐war. What it needs is consensus, dialogue and stability in its legal
framework. That is what education needs: resources, motivated teachers who are
afforded social recognition, and well‐managed institutions. That is what it needs, and
there is no need to change the law to achieve it. All it takes is to do things properly.
And let me say another thing. We all know that the quality of an educational system
can never be greater than the quality of its teachers. It can’t be done. And between
now and 2020 we will need to recruit 200,000 new teachers. Imagine how important
that process is. Which is why I have proposed a change to the teacher recruitment
system, a move to the resident intern system which has been employed in the health
service with such excellent results. And in fact many people believe, and I am one of
them, that the quality of our health system is the result of our ability to recruit the
very best to be our resident doctors. My idea, then, is to transplant, and that is
absolutely the right word, this system into education. Why? To recruit the best,
because we cannot afford not to, given that we need to fill 200,000 vacancies. That
12
13.
means guaranteeing the quality of the educational system.
And talk of resident interns leads me on to healthcare. I believe that if there is one
thing of which we are proud in Spain it is our public health system. Proud because it is
very good, and because it is very cheap, very cheap indeed. We spend 7.5% of our GDP
on public health, two points less than the European average and five points less than in
the United States, where there are 50 million people with no healthcare provision. It is
good and it is cheap.
We have good doctors, good nurses, we have support staff, good hospitals, good
health centres, excellent biomedical research. Excellent. We have a magnificent health
system. That is why in Spain we have the second‐highest life expectancy in the world,
because we have a good health system.
It is one of the few untouchables for the Spanish as a whole, and that includes the
Socialist Party, and it includes me. I say this to you: we will fly the flag of public
healthcare. Or to put it another way, we will do nothing, I will do nothing, I will sign
nothing, I will agree to nothing which would weaken our health system. And nothing
means nothing.
A system which is public, administered by the autonomous regions; which is universal,
everyone who goes to hospital is cared for; which is free, because we pay for it
through our taxes. Which is why co‐payment makes so little sense, because it means
paying twice for the same system, and it is also true that those who call for co‐
payment in the morning have changed their mind by the afternoon, but in short...
co‐payment.
It is a good health system overall. It is a good system above which there now hovers
one word: privatisation. Yes, allow me to explain in thirty seconds why I believe that
when people hear the word privatisation they undoubtedly have not understood very
clearly what we are talking about. The health system is, above all, a system of inter‐
generational solidarity. Young people, who are less often ill, pay the same as their
elders, who are prone to more frequent illness. That is a system of solidarity. And of
course, if those planning privatisation intend to take out the young people, who do not
fall sick, and put them in private hospitals, leaving the chronic and frequent patients in
public hospitals, that would be the ruin of public healthcare. And that, dear comrades,
we will never allow. That we will never allow.
And so beware the siren’s call, beware fine‐sounding words, because at times what
they conceal is something like what I have just decried. Health... We spend a lot of
money on health. We spend 70 billion euros a year, and that is why we have a
wonderful opportunity to be more efficient. No one will convince me that out of 70
billion we cannot save a few million. Of course we can. We can be more efficient, and
that means spending better on health. In pharmaceutical policy, for example , we
have already achieved a great deal. But I would like each one of you to think about all
the medicines you have in boxes or cupboards at home. How many do you have, how
13
14.
many that you do not even remember what they were prescribed for, how many that
are out of date... The fact is that in terms of medication greater efforts can still be
made. Healthcare can, of course, be better managed and administered.
And I will say more, next year the regional funding system includes 8 billion euros
more for the regions, the legislation has already been signed, and I say to you that
we must call for the bulk of that 8 million to go to public healthcare. That is what we
must call for. What is more, we must guarantee it. We must guarantee, and we will
later look at the mechanisms to do so, that all the money which the State allots to
healthcare is actually spent on healthcare. We must guarantee it, because we are
talking about 8 billion euros.
And here I will now bring this subject to a close. It has been said, almost as a truism,
that the family have a complex relationship with the left. A complex one. Not with me,
because I do believe that the family is the basic social nucleus of society and that those
of us in public authority should support and strengthen it... families, because there are
many, many types, all of them equal.
And there are those who believe that supporting families means going out on protest
marches every Saturday afternoon. I do not. I believe that supporting families means
bringing in paternity leave, increasing study grants... Supporting families means
bringing in a system to care for dependent people which also looks after those who
look after the dependent. That is what helping families means. It means allowing
men and women to strike a balance between professional and family life, making
progress in shared responsibility in the household. That is what helping families
means. Having a sound schools policy for children aged 0 to 3. That is what helping
families means. And that is what we will continue to do: help families through such
policies. When it comes to families some preach but do not practise, while others
among us act. Some preach, and others of us act. It is a great deal easier.
And I am now coming to an end. Allow me to speak briefly on the fourth objective:
democratic politics, political change. Because as can clearly be seen in what I have said
so far, I am convinced that it is politics which serves to bring about change, which can
change the world. But in order to do so, dear comrades, it is perhaps now time for us
to reflect on something of a change in politics, something of a change in democracy.
We cannot plan major social reforms, major economic reforms, market reforms and
then claim that nothing needs to happen in politics. We cannot. We must also change
politics, beginning by ensuring it is clean, absolutely clean, that it is clean and seen to
be clean. That is very important, just as with austerity, clean and seen to be clean.
I will return here for a moment to the property bubble. It has brought no end of
trouble to this country, among other aspects because as a result of the bubble, under
cover of the bubble, many allowed themselves to get caught up in their own bubbles...
became corrupt. Much of what is now coming to light is to do with that, the property
bubble, urban planning. We have done a great deal to strengthen the penal code,
there are many police units which have done their job very well. We have done a great
14
15.
deal to pursue and punish the corrupt, we have done much, but not enough. People
are not satisfied with an arrest for corruption and eight years in prison for the
offender. They are not satisfied and you know why? Because the offence came first.
What people want is that there should be no corruption. In short, our approach to
corruption is not just to pursue, but also to prevent, and that leads us on to something
which on occasion we prefer not to discuss. Prior control. That is the issue.
We must address urban planning. Allow me to say categorically, to avoid any
misunderstanding, that I believe that urban planning is well managed in general by the
regions and local councils. What is more, I believe that those in charge of urban
planning in the regions and local councils are impeccably honest and honourable. But
there is a problem there, and we cannot ignore it. What am I thinking? What am I
proposing? Well, what many of you think and have often said, that the State needs to
have some kind of power, some form of prior control over urban planning in order to
prevent corruption.
I know that it is difficult, and that we must tread carefully because the dictates of the
Constitution are what they are. And I tell you now that it is not a question of
removing powers from anyone, of undermining the independence of anyone. It is
about sharing effective controls; in short, guaranteeing a system of politics which is
clean and is seen to be clean. That is what it is all about.
And democracy is prey not only to the problems I have mentioned. There are others.
We need to tackle other problems which are connected with democracy in the 21st
century and which can be very easily summarised as an inescapable contradiction,
namely that in the world of the information society, with the information technology
that exists, it is absurd that the relationship between citizens and their
representatives should take place once every four years, while for the rest of the
time all the populace can do is listen to us. It makes no sense, there is no logic, it is
not in tune with the society in which we live, and we must in this regard listen to
what people are telling us in the street, but also off the street. Above all, in fact, off
the street.
And they are giving us a number of very clear messages. They say: you’d better count
on me, or I will no longer count on you. They say: do not confuse your world with our
world. They tell us that they are sick of party politicking, tribalism, torrid debates
about the minutiae. They tell us this ceaselessly, and they tell us that politics cannot
be a source of problems, but must be a source of solutions. We are told these things
time and again, and we need to listen, and need to act in accordance.
Democracy as a system has swept away totalitarianism because it is superior in every
aspect from the moral perspective, of course, but also because it is more effective,
because it has resolved problems. Democracy also achieves legitimacy by resolving
problems, through its results, and that is something that we must not lose sight of. In
short, when citizens begin to feel that politics is not the solution, but the problem.
When they begin to feel that all politicians are the same, that their vote does not
15
16.
matter, democracy has a problem.
And what is more, that is not true. Or could anyone in their right mind claim that Olof
Palme is the same as Le Pen? Or that Margaret Thatcher is the same as Lula da Silva?
That Sarah Palin is the same as Obama? Or that Felipe González has anything in
common with… George W. Bush.
No, there is nothing in common there, but it is not enough just to say it. It has to be
reaffirmed with the facts which I have attempted to put across throughout this speech:
that politics matters, and that politics matters a great deal. And we must act, we
must make changes, at times changes which we will find difficult, because the fact of
the matter is that there are things which have served us well, things we did in the
transition to democracy, that we devised and which have worked well. The electoral
system, for example. The electorate asks two things of us: greater proportionality
and greater proximity. And let us agree that both demands a reasonable. And so
perhaps now the time has come for the Socialist Party to begin a far‐reaching
discussion about the electoral system. I know how difficult it is, I know that to change
the electoral system we need consensus, as a basic rule of democratic governance, I
know that. But that does not release us from the obligation to think about what is
happening and to put forward specific proposals. It does not release us.
And let me tell you this: I have a model. The model which most appeals to me is the
German model, it appeals to me greatly. Small constituencies, which favour the
relationship between representative and represented, and a national block, which
favours proportionality. It appeals to me greatly. So what do I propose? I propose
that we debate it, that we use the Political Conference to debate this issue in depth
and emerge with a proposal for electoral reform.
There is one more thing I would like to say about politics, just one. It is vitally
important that we change the law in order to strengthen the fight against corruption,
to improve the functioning of democracy; to make it more modern and more effective.
But it is much more important that we change our form of political behaviour.
This is how: I have made efforts, a great many, and there are more to come, to
consign party politicking and tribalism to the attic of history, to the past, from which
they should never have returned.
There are many changes we need to make in politics, we need to make sure that when
someone puts forward an idea it is not discarded because of who they are, but on the
basis of its content. We must ensure that our debates have more meat and less
garnish, more ideas and fewer insults. We must succeed in debating and resolving
problems, not responsibilities.
And my call is for us to put all this in our manifesto. I am aware that it is ambitious, but
it can be feasible, it can be credible and, above all, it is possible, and that is what we
must do with our manifesto. Ambitious and possible, that is what I propose in terms of
16
17.
politics.
And now I am drawing to a close. I have tried to put across the many good things in
Spain. We have things which we must preserve, there are others which we are
changing, changes which we must take further, which we must maintain, and there are
new things to be done, major changes. We now have the opportunity to do so, we
have the ability to do so and I believe we have the collective will to do so: major
changes. Based on a concept which I believe has been transparent throughout my
address, that Spain is a great country. And countries achieve greatness not in the way
they evade crises, no. Not because crises do not affect them, no. Greatness comes
from the way they deal with them. Their ability to deal with them, their belief in
themselves, that is what makes a country great, and our country is just that.
It is a country which cherishes liberty, which cherishes tolerance, it is a country which
espouses equal opportunities, a country with an educational system which we never
imagined we could achieve, a university system, companies competing around the
world in a way we never believed they would compete. It is a country which is well
positioned in the world. A country which reaches out to others, in Europe, Latin
America, the Mediterranean, with an incredible cultural wealth, beginning with our
language. It is a great country.
And based on that belief in this country, that definition of this country, the belief I
have in my country, in Spain, I call on you, I call on myself and I call on the Spanish
people to work together, in coordination with all those who wish to join efforts,
establish consensus and dialogue, to achieve those four major objectives. To create
jobs, and to do so from the outset; to forge a healthy and competitive economy,
capable of distributing the efforts required in emerging from this crisis; to underpin
our equality of opportunity, our welfare state and, lastly, to change politics, to make
it more effective, more approachable and, if you will allow me the tautology, to
make it more democratic. To make democratic politics more democratic.
And it is in order to achieve all of this that I am calling for your support, and will be
calling for the support of the Spanish people. I know that this task is feasible, because
the manifesto we will present is based on realism. The realism of those who truly
understand Spain: ourselves. And above all, on values. Values which I have been at
pains to stress that I have shared with you for many, many, many years and which lie
at the heart of my proposal for our manifesto.
In short, I invite you to share this project with the great many citizens who believe
that hard work is better than apathy and resignation. I invite you to share this
project with the many Spanish citizens who believe that reconciliation, agreement
are better than confrontation. Those who prefer a yes to a no, those who believe
that before you act you must listen, and that after you act you must explain. Dear
comrades, we must address all of them over the coming months.
It will be no easy task. It is in challenging times that we are expected to give of our
17
18.
best. Our aspirations are ambitious, but our proposals and our solutions will be
realistic. Ambition and realism. Those are the watchwords I call on you to work with
over the coming months.
We have ahead of us an electoral campaign which I tell you now from the outset, in
this my first address as candidate, is an electoral campaign in which nothing is
written and nothing has been decided beforehand. Absolutely nothing.
I, as always, will be doing my utmost and will be out there giving it my all. And that
for me will be no hardship. Do you know why? Because when you are fighting for
something you believe in, you find all the strength you need. It will be no hardship,
but I cannot do it alone. I need you to lend me a helping hand, I need you to help me, I
need you. I need to be able to count on you, on your efforts, on your hard work, on
your ideas, on your support... I need to be able to count on all your support because
we have an incredibly important job ahead of us, to convince millions of Spanish
people to trust in us again. That is what we must do.
And we will do it, we will do it. Look around you, because we want to do it, I can see it
in your faces and in your applause which has made this speech much longer than I had
intended, and made me sweat much more than I would have wished. We will do it
because we want to do it, we will do it because we can do it and we will do it, above
all, because we know how to do it, because we have done it on other occasions in
our history. We will do it. And so let’s get to work, let’s do it.
Let’s make it happen.
18