Finally, Spain has Cabinet


Since October 29th Spain has a new PM. Finally, the Socialist Party (PSOE) decided to facilitate the Parliament voting through its parliament group´ abstention. Spain has had an interim cabinet for nearly a year, and it could not be any longer afforded. For making this happen, the  PSOE had to draw an “internal coup” to make its erstwhile leader, who had refused to facilitate the cabinet´ creation, along with the motto “Not is not; which part of the Not does Mr. Rajoy not understand?” to make him resign from the PSOE´ leadership. Otherwise, it would had doomed the Spaniards to their third election.

The PSOE´ regional leaders decided to make a change of direction for several reasons: One is that of the results of the PSOE were worse election after election. They had never been so bad and it seemed the situation would not change. The Spaniards seemed to give their back to the socialist party for its radicalism.  But the PSOE leadership seemed satisfied about just being the first political force of the left, instead of the first political force of Spain. The latter objective seemed to disappeared from the horizon and what is even worse, from their ambition.

It also seemed like PSOE had abandoned the center-left position, and were competing to see who were more radical in their approaches, if the populist Marxist-Leninist “Podemos“, or the PSOE. About the Catalonia issue, it seemed like the PSOE was the most separatist of the Catalan separatists. Finally and not least, the National Intelligence Centre (CNI), had detected in recent weeks the gradual affiliation to the PSOE of a number of people from the “Podemos” environment, in order to grow in the party the more radical positions and in favour of Pedro Sanchez, which would facilitate the cabinet lead by Pedro Sanchez, along with the populists and the separatists. Such an option would have been a disaster for Spain.

Podemos´ leader Pablo Iglesias shows at every appearance his usual arrogance and, what is worse, his deep contempt for the national sovereignty headquarters. His party is more suited to television´ reality shows than the democracy´ institutions in which he displays an anti-system speech and a total lack of respect for the Spanish institutions. Pedro Sanchez was trying to create a cabinet with these people.

Prior to the voting to proclaim PM to Mariano Rajoy, the former PSOE leader Pedro Sanchez, claimed the attention of the media spotlight to take away the limelight from his “intimate enemy” Mariano Rajoy, and to execute a final disloyalty to his still party. He resigned to his Parliament seat, until there it was good and consistent with his position. But also he reinforced and encouraged to those dissidents who wanted to vote Not to Rajoy, calling them decent, consistent and faithful to the party members and voters, who were certainly becoming more exiguous. And somehow he delegitimized the current direction proclaiming that of he will be resubmitted as a candidate to lead the PSOE in order to give back the dignity to their militancy and to the party, which now seems to be lost. Another treason to his party mates.

The fact is that Rajoy will have to negotiate every law in order to govern, but it is certain, that of with Rajoy as PM, the Spaniards will have spared all the further damage of a Pedro Sanchez´ cabinet, kidnapped by Podemos and the independentists, a presidency which, however much they deny it, Pedro Sanchez never stopped trying it. Yesterday, Sanchez recognized it in a TV program, and also showed how radical is his approach.

The Spanish Socialist party has to get rid from hatred to the PP (Partido Popular, the conservatives) and assume its center-left position, the same as most of the European Social Democratic parties, our partners and allies, rather than position themselves as the brainless, outdated, Marxist-Leninist Podemos´ extreme left. Only then, it will get the credibility and the majority vocation again.

They will also have to find a more courageous and smarter Secretary General than Mr. Sanchez, and the intellectual inspiration based on the responsibility of a ruling party, rather than the repetition of obsolete slogans which are destroying the party. Since Felipe Gonzalez left the politics, PSOE has not a modern idea of the left; it has encouraged the growth of the populism and it has become a serious issue for Spain. The PSOE has to leave the barren populism, and becoming again a useful and ready-to-rule left party for Spain, which embodies the moderate left that any civilized country needs. Now, they got some years ahead to make the necessary changes.

Coup in Venezuela



The National Election Council of Venezuela (CNE) declare last week invalid the first phase of requirements for a referendum on revoking to President Nicolas Maduro. This time the revoking plebiscite is postponed until further judicial investigation. This very serious fact has been perceived by the opposition and the majority of the Venezuelan people as a whole attack fait against the constitutional legality.

The possibility of the revoking plebiscite was a democratic means for containment of a genuine social explosion, given the serious deterioration of the Venezuelan people’ living conditions. The opposition has declared it as a real coup and announced that of they will return to the streets to continue their protests against the dictatorial regime of Nicolas Maduro. To some of the main political leaders like Henrique Capriles and Henry Ramos, their passports have been retired in order to prevent them from leaving the country. They have stated that of they will remain united to achieve the required political change in Venezuela, and they are not fearing imprisonment, as is the case of Leopoldo Lopez, the imprisoned and isolated for months’ opposition leader and former governor.

The National Assembly, which is opposition majority, held on October 23rd an extraordinary session. The opposition deputies agreed to declare “in rebellion against the constitutional and democracy breakdown.” It was stated that in Venezuela “there has been an ongoing coup,” accusing the Chavismo of violence and corruption.  It was approved a proposal for parliamentary rebellion: “Confronting the abandonment of the Constitution, the people have the duty and the right to the Rebellion”.

When the Parliament members were discussing all these matters, about 100 people members of the Chavista groups managed to outwit the Parliament’ security, and burst violently in the House, mouthing slogans in favor of Maduro. According to some media, at least two people resulted injured by the Chavistas’ aggression. The Chavista Mayor, member of the House, Jorge Rodriguez, ordered them to withdraw and then these Chavistas left the House, but not before robbing a TV camera at gunpoint from the TV station Globovision. This is how the situation looks like.

During these developments, the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was in Riyadh, where he has traveled on tour to pressure the most important OPEC members of for oil price increasing. The country is suffering the most serious humanitarian crisis which Venezuela has ever reached, caused by the Chavista policies, and it has reached unsustainable levels, according to the international organization Human Rights Watch (HRW).

In recent months, many media have released details about the increasing lack of medicines and food, a lack that is increasing patients’ deaths and restricting the diet of the population. Most pf the people can now eat once a day only. Last June, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights claimed that there had been a drastic deterioration in the Venezuelan health service. The HRW report documented the situation in public hospitals, missing or shortage of sterile gloves, gauze, alcohol, scalpels, catheters and needles, among other commodities. In addition, severe difficulty in finding drugs is seriously affecting people with chronic health conditions such as cancer, hypertension, diabetes and epilepsy, among other diseases.

Nicolas Maduro’s government denies such a situation and punishes those who denounce it. By contrast, the official discourse about the existence of an ‘economic war’ has served the government to justify the use of authoritarian means to intimidate and punish those critical, like the physicians pushed away from their employment for speaking publicly about the situation, and many other persons threatened by secret services’ agents just for protesting into the streets. Meanwhile, Maduro’s government not only has not sought for foreign help, but he has prevented NGOs of providing assistance within the country.

Maduro has already declared disobedience and has shown to the world his lack of respect for the Constitution and laws of his country. The Chavista regime seems to have lost the control of the country, and right now only works through those decisions violating democratic rules, such as the last weeks to halt the revoking referendum process, or directly through the violence.

For the last years, the violence consisted of Nicolas Maduro insulting to the critics, and physical attacks on the streets of Venezuela. Now they have taken several steps further and it has become so difficult and harsh to predict the way which Venezuela might take, which does not bode well at all.


Women voting in the upcoming American Presidential election


In the upcoming presidential election in the United States, if only the men would vote, as it was the case until 1920, Donald Trump would probably be the next president. The victory would be overwhelming and conclusive. If only women would vote, Hillary Clinton would win easily. The gender division at the ballots is nothing new, but it has been accentuated in the current presidential campaign.

The allegations for sexual assault against Trump and his sexist comments have damaged his presidential ‘goal. The testimonies published last week about his sexual behavior have affected to Trump’ aspirations seriously: the polls reflect an increasingly strong advantage of Clinton. Democratic candidate outstrips to the Republican in 5.5% points, according to the publication Real Clear Politics.

The diffusion of a NBC video so close to the November elections which was recorded 11 years ago, where Trump makes lewd comments, and the avalanche of women who have revealed past episodes of sexual harassment by Trump, has worsened his issue among women voters. Machismo, and no statements against Hispanic immigrants or against the Muslim population, are now the real Damocles’ sword for Trump and it might end up being the wall against which Trump would lose the election, as women represent 53% of voters. Words and alleged acts of Trump, opened a national discussion on sexual harassment. It happened something similar about racism in the Obama years.

 According to The Washington Post’ poll, Clinton leads to Trump among the key segment of white women with a university degree, the same group who had opted mostly for Romney four years ago. Among the white women without college degree, Trump is still the favorite.

The fact that Hillary is the first woman candidate for the White House is not the origin of the women’ disaffection for Trump. Per se, Clinton is a candidate who generates enough rejection even among many Democrats, who are showing not much excitement and still remain unconvinced about her, despite of Trump’s fall in the polls. Hillary Clinton, according to the political analysts, holds a number of obvious flaws.

She has been portrayed as a liar after several matters relating to her time as Secretary of State, where it was observed Hillary Clinton’s tendency to lie or cover erroneous actions under false pretenses. The most recent were the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi (Libya), where she was responsible for diplomacy, and of course, the well-known “emails gate“.

Hillary Clinton has been accused of having played the role of Bill Clinton’ “faithful wife”, during his ravings with other women, with the only purpose not to harm her own political career to the White House. She has also been branded of being greedy: Hillary Clinton would have taken hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation from countries which gained political benefits during her time as Secretary of State.

She has also been rated of being enemy of the Roman Catholic Church and pro-abortion: Hillary Clinton’s position regarding the right-to-life is one of the most radical amongst the American feminist movement. She repeatedly has said that she believes the unborn have no constitutional rights, which detracts support within the more conservative American class.

But Donald Trump has been more wrong than right in his campaign. Even in the last debate, where he distanced himself less from his opponent, he was contorted, and could not contain his impulses to jab and insult, and at one point, as Clinton was needling Trump for not paying taxes, Trump interjected, calling her “Such a nasty woman“!

Donald Trump used the high-profile setting of the final presidential debate here Wednesday night to amplify one of the most explosive charges of his candidacy: that if he loses the election, he might consider the outcome illegitimate because the process is rigged. This outrageous claim had never happened in over 200 years of the American democracy.

His scandalous nature started to undermine his support in the general election. Trump’ character is neglectful and disrespectful to women.  Clinton is far from being an ideal or even a good candidate, but if Trump does not extend his support beyond the base of loyal Republicans, will be difficult for him to win. As a result, in those traditionally Republican states like Georgia, Arizona and Utah, Clinton leads the polls.


Colombia rejected a price too high



Juan Manuel Santos, President of Colombia, just got the coveted award of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is still not clear on the basis which he was given it, when in addition to losing the referendum in his country, it seems like one juror who grants it, has or had economic interests in Colombia. At least it’s a little suspicious. But my intention is not to mention the Nobel prizes today, which on the other hand are somewhat discredited in recent times under whom has been granted and the reasons for it or the lack thereof. Today I want to talk about the failed referendum for peace held in Colombia in early October, which ended with a defeat Santos-led option.

The “No”option won with 50’21 percent of the popular vote, just over 60,000 votes on the “Yes”. However, the winning option had no any media support. Only a group of radio and television had some of its stations supporting editorially that position, which has cost the group to be chased in such a way more like a dictatorship regime. The rest of the media gave unanimous support for the ‘Yes’, backing which was generously compensated by significant government advertising ‘concessions. And nevertheless, Colombians showed their maturity ignoring televisions, radios and newspapers and voting with their own reasoning and criteria. Colombians are an exemplary civil society, worthy of praise.

President Santos should have staged an agreement with the FARC in front of the world leaders, before took place the referendum to the Colombians, as if it was just a mere formality. It has meant a great ridiculous for him. The moment he decided to celebrate a referendum, he should have waited until the acceptance of it in the first place, and never take it for tacit granted.

And why Colombians have not accepted the agreement? President Santos missed the truth to the Colombians (and to the world), discussing a peace agreement for Colombia where the FARC sought for forgiveness, forgiveness which have not being asked at any time. Nobody apologized to the FARC’ victims, even worse, if their conditions were not accepted, the only alternative offer was a return to war. It does not seem that there is any repentance.

Santos negotiated a peace agreement in which murderers with crimes against humanity were rid of being in jail for just one day. Furthermore, they would be able to retain the huge amounts of money accumulated by the considered world’s second largest drug cartel. They also would get, even if they did not have the votes required for it, 10 seats in Parliament and 16 other allocated to the regions where their control is absolute. 26 seats granted directly to the FARC. And they wanted to convince the Colombians and to the world it was a necessary concession because in this way, the would not kill anymore.

We were also told that the Havana’ 279-page agreement, world be incorporated to the Colombian Constitution, without the possibility of being ever amended. As if it were the Saudi Arabia’ Constitution, where the full Koran is incorporated and which is of course, not amendable. The agreement of Havana seemed also to be “sacred”. It does not exist in any country in the world, and certainly in any real democracy.

Andres Pastrana, former President of Colombia asked to Felipe González, former PM of Spain: “Would you accept that the terrorist group ETA, murderers of more than 1,000 people, would appoint half of the court judges who will judge them?”. Well, it would be happened in Colombia with those FARC terrorists.

The campaign for the “Yes” announced such catastrophes as, if “No” won, FARC will return to the murders, kidnappings, ultimately back to terror. Nothing like it will happen, as it was perfectly predictable. The narco-terrorists, who are in Cuba heavenly hosted by the Castro’s drinking rum and smoking Cohíbas, have already made it clear after the victory of the ‘No’ that they don’t think about returning to the jungle, where life is so uncomfortable and evil. They better stay in Cuba, living beautifully, much better for sure than the vast majority of Cubans. In the meantime, they will try to find another way to get something good from the Colombian government. I hope the Colombians do not allow it.

The three Magnificent




A new international alliance has just emerged. As a result of the XXIII World Energy Summit held in Istanbul, the presidents of Russia and Turkey Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan decided to join forces. The appointment was the third meeting between the two leaders since the attempted coup in Turkey, on 15th July. The summit strengthens ties between Putin and Erdogan, which were seriously affected in the past. The president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro also attended enthusiastically, delighted to be part of this new group.

Since July 15th happened a number of things in Turkey, such as approval of the extension of emergency rule by the Turkish parliament, in force since July after the military coup, which will continue in force for the coming three months. The president and founder of the AKP, Tayyip Erdogan stated that may even be necessary to extend the emergency rule for an entire year, to better combat the Fethullah Gulen’ brotherhood, the preacher in exile whom Erdogan portrayed as the responsible for the coup. The opposition considers this measure to be a kind of carte blanche to “take revenge” apart from the law on Erdogan’ enemies.

In Venezuela, Maduro is at his lowest popularity moment. Considerably more than half the population want a Revoking Referendum to remove him from office. Although he is using in the meantime all necessary wiles to skip the legality, delegitimizing the parliament by avoiding passing laws as he does not have the required majority, and sending them directly the Supreme Court. His recent statements have announced that the Revoking referendum and the presidential elections will be suspended until the economic crisis is not solved and overcome. He said that of the Chavez regime has come to stay for the next 100 years. Not very promising.

Venezuela’s approach to Turkey comes on the heels of the newly recovered relations between Moscow and Ankara. When in November 2015 a Turkish fighter shot down a Russian aircraft on the border with Syria, the tension between the two countries rocketed seriously. The Chavista’ press took sides with Moscow by then, and echoed all the rumours coming from Russia which accused Erdogan of supporting the Daesh terrorists. Today all that remains far and the situation has turned around 180 degrees, while Turkey’s relations with the United States and the European Union have seriously deteriorated due to the crossing of accusations about the coup’ authorship and about the massive purges taking place to date.

With regards to Russia, the elections are coming in 2018, and Putin has started selective repressions, placed governors and officials in jail, and removed old friends from key positions. This is a pattern of centralizing control by Putin, who has made it clear that what he needs is an instrument to protect his own regime. There is also the determined decision to keep Russia’ influence and control in Syria which is being widely questioned.

The Summit has helped to make progress about future energy engagements, economic cooperation and expanding investment and relations among Turkey, Russia and Venezuela. In addition to the collaboration on energy, the three countries’ leaders have large personal similarities, and they have laid the foundation of an anti-Western political axis based on their confrontation with the USA and the EU. Although Turkey still belongs to NATO.

There is much binding the Three Magnificent. Authoritarianism: all three aspire to a single-party system in their respective countries, without any political opposition, albeit with a semblance of a Western democracy. The three leaders also aim to answer to the US hegemony: The number of frictions and disagreements with Washington both at the regional level, the drug cartels in Latin America or the warnings to Venezuela about the absence of the rule of law; at the international level, the crisis in Ukraine and Syria in particular, has led to gather Russia, Turkey and Venezuela together to face to the US.

Finally, all three have a great cult of their own personality, which has grown significantly in the official media, as the independent or are non-existing or are victims of constant harassment, according to the international organizations’ reports. Their megalomania has led them to order the regular presence of their images in the streets, the public buildings and at the public transportation.

Maduro admires Putin greatly, to the point to propose the Russian leader as the first winner of the newly created “Hugo Chavez Peace and Peoples’ Sovereignty Award“. Seems to me he is not the only one, as Trump expressed his admiration about the Russian, and his consideration as the “real leader of Europa”. Interesting times as coming over.


Russia: the Renaissance of the KGB

Stack of bundled russian ruble banknotes in the officer's cap

After 25 years of reforms, the former Soviet nations have been directed towards an economic market model, although the evolution of these countries has been very different. On one hand, there is a group of countries which has developed towards a democratic economic and political system. This is the case of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia. Other countries have reached a medium-high economic and democratic development level, such as Croatia, Hungary or Slovenia. Then we have a lower level which includes Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Kazakhstan and Russia. Even lower has been the reforms process in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan and Romania. Finally, the worst score is made by Belarus, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

By region, there are different types of leadership, which does not mean a higher level of development or democratization. Czech Republic, Estonia, Bulgaria, Russia and Belarus are example of those countries with strong political leadership, which have not followed the same path of economic growth, strength of institutions, and civil society. In fact, in some of these countries the progress towards a greater economic freedom, has led to an increase in corruption and gradual reduction of liberties.

In some countries such as the Baltic or the Central European republics, such as the Czech, the transition from communism to capitalism, has helped to reduce the corruption, and those where the institutions have been more transparent and less corrupt, there is a much higher development rate. However, in other former Soviet republics we find a picture that of stagnation or even deterioration of institutional quality, which leads me to speak about Russia.

There was a time, not so long ago, when Russian leaders sought to create a depoliticized security structure. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the reform of the KGB became an immediate issue. The agency was not reliably under control. The KGB was not a traditional security service in the Western sense, an agency charged with protecting the interests of a country and its citizens. KGB´s primary task was protecting the regime. Its activities included hunting down spies and dissidents and supervising media, sports, and even the Church. It ran operations both inside and outside the country, but in both spheres the main task was always to protect the interests of whoever currently resided in the Kremlin.

With the new Putin´s agency (FSB), seems like a return back to former KGB, the guardian of “security” for Russia. It once again got the responsibility for pursuing dissidents, who were now branded “extremists.” But the president, former KGB officer, was determined to create something bigger. Putin encouraged a steady growth in the agency’s influence. The president began using the FSB as his main recruitment base for filling key positions in government and state-controlled business; its agents were expected to define and personify the ideology of the new Russia: these are the Russia´s new nobility.

Putin gave it enormous powers: The Investigative Committee, a sort of Russian FBI, was tasked with conducting the most sensitive investigations, from the murders of Kremlin critics like Anna Politkovskaya and Boris Nemtsov to prosecuting political activists. This was accompanied by an expansion of the Internal Troops, and the new Department to Counter Extremism. Finally, this year, Putin created the National Guard, which is a massive military force tasked with fighting internal dissent. The FSB has been granted the role of the new elite, enjoying expanded responsibilities and immunity from public oversight or parliamentary control.

It seems like Putin is getting nervous about his political future. With elections coming in 2018, he has started selective repressions, placed governors and officials in jail, and removed old friends from key positions. This is a pattern of centralizing control by Putin, who has made it clear that what he needs is an instrument to protect his own regime, just like the USSR times with the KGB.

The Russians receive daily a surreal blend of messages. On the one hand, the government and its media (mostly) are not stop talking about how Russia has managed to stand up to Western moral decadence: the multiculturalism, homosexuality, or the US imperialist policy.

On the other, internet talks not stop about the corruption of the elite, of the new Russian’ nobility. Their acts are protected by the government in such an obscene and undisguised manner, a sense of impunity that which goes sometimes beyond imagination.

God is far up, the Tsar is far away.”  A Russian proverb says, which perfectly defines how the lack of moral references and the vastness of the country, has made impossible the rule of law. In today´s Russia seems also difficult the economic and moral growth, as well as freedom and democracy.

Spain: the Harakiri of the Socialist Party




Last weekend we witnessed a sad spectacle inside the Spanish political scene. Pedro Sanchez, the leader of the PSOE, the Spanish Social-democratic Party, became the focus of daily’s columns and editorials, both in Spain and outside its borders, which showed astonished the sequence of events.

The reason was a conspiracy within the Spanish Socialist Party to end Sanchez’s leadership, due to the continuing loss of votes, election after election, reflecting the progressive abandonment of their electorate and which seems to have no ground. The elections´ results under Pedro Sanchez direction are counted by defeats, each one even more severe than the last.

On the other hand, the fact which became the main issue of his leadership: the absurd debate about the refusal to support any attempt to form cabinet in Spain, unless he might be the one to preside it. The source of it, has been his personal hatred to Mariano Rajoy (PP), winner of the elections: Sanchez rejected a grand coalition in the style of our European partners, to which he was been repeatedly invited; neither by abstaining in the PM´s voting. The PSOE has been a ruling party in Spain for 40 years and has held office for almost 22. Can a party like it sustain its great debate over who hates Rajoy the most?

Pedro Sanchez has been considered, even among his PSOE´ fellows, as a danger to Spain.  This is the reason why most of the citizens have taken for good this internal plot against him, whose only virtue is his willingness to die killing.

Traditionally in Spain, the internal crises have been more forgiven to the left than to the right wing. But the current situation was unprecedented and certainly bizarre. In this quarrel, the socialists have consumed too much political credit, because conspiring against their leadership, it is a very serious operation. While it is true they lacked of any space for workarounds or interim solutions: they have too much mistaken during the last year.

The plotters were aware that there was no alternative to the governability of Spain that allowing the cabinet formation of the largest party, which is none other than that PP. And once the cabinet were formed, while they sit on the parliament´ opposition bench parliament, they would start the Socialist Party´ rebuilding, in order to regain the trust of their traditional voters.

Sanchez did not hesitate to violate the party´ internal rules and, what is even worse, the due loyalty to his fellow peers, until some point where he was about to fracture the Spanish socialism. By encouraging the hatred to the PP, the “terrible political right” according to his words, the socialist has not realized that the political Manichaeism has ceased to exist in Spain. Meanwhile, he insisted on negotiating secretly with the populists and separatists an extravagant, illogical route, which was unknown until last week hidden for his own fellow party members, who of course, did not support it.

Even his once few allies, the liberal party Cuidadanos (C’s), reminded him how absurd his intentions were: an exacerbated ambition and obsession to become PM, counting with the least number of seats in the Parliament that his party had never obtained.

The socialist Sánchez represented as anyone what Baruch Spinoza said in the seventeenth century, “the only thing that is common to all animals, including man, is the survival instinct.” After all these months of endless forward rush, it has become clear that any remote cabinet formation which Pedro Sanchez could have formed, it would be based on his own political survival.

Neither the young Spanish democracy, nor the PSOE militancy can afford the party breakdown at the hands of a leader like Pedro Sanchez, obsessed with the power even at the cost of breaking the party. He has lack of state meaningless. The PSOE has been crucial in affirming the Spanish democracy and it must remain so. First, out of respect for its own history and because of millions of citizens are declared Social-Democrats. And second, because is their moral obligation to the Spaniards to abort the system harassment and demolition´ operation designed from the populist far-left, rather than participate in it and naively hand over power to them, which would end the PSOE once and for good.

The more realistic (and Social-democratic) PSOE´ faction reacted against the abusive use made by Sanchez of the party leadership position, with his cessions made to the populists and his incomprehensible sympathy for the separatists. The future of the PSOE goes through a peaceful reestablishment sitting at the opposition´ bench, from where they must serve to Spain´s stability and growth. Spain and the socialist party, its members and voters, need a mature and united PSOE, which is able to offer an alternative.