LONDON — The Liberal Democrats used to watch their rivals indulge in messy factional squabbles with glee. Now they are scrambling to project an image of unity.

Britain’s third-largest Westminster group could hold significant power after the next election if no party wins a majority of MPs and Prime Minister Andy Burnham is casting around for a deal.

But for now, the focus is on weathering an internal storm in the centrist outfit. MPs rallied around their leader Ed Davey this week at a marathon four-hour meeting — held days after one of his frontbenchers resigned in an ill-fated attempt to oust the party chief.

The botched coup comes as the Liberal Democrats try to answer a more existential question: what are they actually for and how do they make an impact in Britain’s fragmented political landscape?

POLITICO’s Poll of Polls shows the Lib Dems coasting along. After getting 12.2% in the 2024 general election — and bagging a record 72 members of parliament as a result — the party has slipped down, polling between 9% and 11% since Andy Burnham became prime minister. 

POLITICO explains why Lib Dems are now openly discussing Davey’s future; how much danger he is in; and exactly how the man known for a cheery demeanor and eye-catching paddle-board stunts could be capsized.

1) Why is Davey’s future in the headlines?

The surprise resignation of the Lib Dems’ Treasury spokesperson Charlie Maynard a week ago triggered the latest round of soul-searching about the leader’s future — but the grumbling goes back a bit further.

Maynard’s resignation followed costly tax-cutting pledges from Davey at the party’s conference in September and came hot on the heels of sharp responses — including from 2024-intake Lib Dem MPs Tom Gordon and Vikki Slade — to the way Davey defended an existing guarantee on state pensions. Some MPs believe the party isn’t adequately representing younger voters by opposing changes to the so-called triple lock, now targeted for reform by Burnham.

The immediate threat looks to have receded. Maynard’s resignation has gone down badly among a host of colleagues.

One Lib Dem frontbencher — granted anonymity to speak about internal matters like others in this piece — said the “vast majority of us think it’s beyond ridiculous and are really angry.” A second frontbencher said it was “bang out of order” for colleagues to brief internal policy discussions to the press.

2) So he’s safe?

Not quite — fizzled plots like this have a habit of still bringing grumbling to the surface (just ask Theresa May)

There remains frustration among some MPs over Davey’s perceived failure to exploit a gap in British politics opened up by voters’ deep dislike of Keir Starmer’s Labour government after the 2024 general election.

• 
  Labour Party

  Labour Party
• 
  Reform UK

  Brexit Party (relaunched as Reform UK in 2021)
• 
  Conservative and Unionist Party

  Conservative and Unionist Party
• 
  The Green Party of England and Wales

  The Green Party of England and Wales
• 
  Liberal Democrats

  Liberal Democrats
• 
  Restore Britain

  Restore Britain
• 
  Scottish National Party

  Scottish National Party
• 
  Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales

  Plaid Cymru
• Show more

YouGov’s Anthony Wells explains that the party was stagnant “during a period where the Starmer government came in, became extremely unpopular [and] lost a huge amount of support” that “didn’t go to them.”

He contrasted this with how the Lib Dems gained traction in the 2000s when the Labour government was in big trouble. The Lib Dems are normally good at grabbing “the low-hanging fruit of unpopular left-of-center governments.”

“They haven’t nailed their colors really firmly to any mast,” says Wells. “They have been something to all men — and it means they may have suffered in comparison to people like the Greens under [leader] Zack Polanski, who’ve been much clearer about what they stand for.” 

Removing a Lib Dem leader remains reasonably easy — though a crunch meeting of the parliamentary party on Tuesday suggests there currently aren’t enough MPs to actually trigger a ballot of no confidence, let alone win one. 

Eighteen MPs (25% of the parliamentary party) would need to push for a vote of no confidence to be held. An absolute majority — 36 MPs — would then have to vote no confidence in Davey for a leadership election to be triggered. 

Davey could stand in that leadership election if he could secure nominations from 10% of Lib Dem MPs and 200 members from at least 20 different local parties. 

Unlike in the Conservatives, where a leader cannot be challenged again for a year after they win a no-confidence vote, Davey would be given no such grace period if he survived — meaning another ballot could take place just months after he saw off a coup attempt.

3) What’s the view from Davey world?

The arguments in the leader’s favor appear to have won out — for now.

For one, he has a record of winning. Davey can point to having taken the party to its largest number of constituencies in its modern form by focusing on a fight-by-fight, seats-first strategy. The 2024 campaign prioritized targeted campaigning in specific areas, rather than seeking a higher national vote share that doesn’t translate to a high number of MPs.

Loyal allies have come out to bat for their embattled boss this week. Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper, seen as a possible future leadership contender, said there’s a “real sense that we need to come together as a group” to stop the Tories and Reform UK “from forming the most right-wing government in our history.”

Subtext: let’s not mess around and let our real enemies in.

A third frontbencher told POLITICO Davey doesn’t “just have the support of the parliamentary party — there clearly aren’t anything like enough MPs to trigger a vote of no confidence.” They said Davey changing his top team earlier this year by appointing James Holt as director of political strategy and Ruth Younger as chief of staff “just needs time to percolate.”

4) So can Davey just keep calm and carry on?

Maybe.

Wells believes the party doesn’t “necessarily need to do much” to hold its current crop of seats at the next election — and that a middle-of-the-road approach against flashier, potentially more divisive opponents — might actually work in its favor.

While “their brand may be less distinctive, it also means they’re more coalition-able,” Wells says. He points out that there’s already much less objection from Labour about working with the Lib Dems compared to the Greens, who Burnham this week threatened to can local power-sharing agreements with amid a row over anti-semitism.

“There is a strategic advantage to them in terms of not offending people, but there’s also a strategic weakness in not defining yourself very clearly,” he says.

Sam Francis contributed reporting.

PARIS — Edouard Philippe was once seen as the only man capable of defeating Marine Le Pen in next year’s French presidential election. But his lackluster campaign as the country’s voice of reason is putting his allies on edge — and some of them are starting to wonder if he has what it takes.

The former center-right prime minister promised a “massive” campaign platform that would fix France, put its finances back on track and restore the country’s standing in the world. And while Philippe has upped his campaign tempo in recent weeks, his proposals tend to fall flat.

POLITICO spoke to six members of Philippe’s political family, some of them campaign team members, who shared doubts about his strategy and chances of success. Some were granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal matters.

“It’s unbelievable how nothing is making an impact,” a campaign official told POLITICO ahead of Philippe’s decision to announce his plans for a flagship pensions reform. “I can’t stop thinking about it.”

Philippe is still the best-placed mainstream candidate to challenge far-right Le Pen, who commands a substantial lead in the polls. But his poll ratings have stalled over the past year, and he is now locked in a tight race with far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon to clinch a second place which would qualify him for the runoff. MEP Raphaël Glucksmann, who trails the duo in most surveys, could see a boost for his campaign after scoring a decisive victory in the recent center-left primary.

Philippe is facing a pileup of problems: He has yet to unite the center behind him, remains burdened by a decade of centrist rule and is struggling to gain traction among voters with his pitch as the plain-speaking pragmatist fighting populism.

“Philippe is the most honest guy I know,” said an ally, “but he needs to unite and find a project that rallies people around him.”

Meanwhile, Le Pen and Mélenchon are dominating headlines with political one-upmanship and at times inflammatory proposals. The two populists locked horns last week over school protests, with Le Pen accusing Mélenchon of fueling the violence, and the far left positioning themselves as the protectors of France’s youth against police violence.

“The risk is great” that Le Pen and Mélenchon will squeeze him out of the race, Philippe’s ally added.

Stale marriage

Philippe, who left his position as prime minister under President Emmanuel Macron in 2020, has been planning his bid to succeed him for years. But things haven’t quite gone to plan on the campaign trail, where he has faced upsets and distractions.

When Philippe recently announced his unpopular proposal to push back the retirement age to 65, it was supposed to be a make-or-break moment in his campaign. Instead, it went almost unnoticed.

First, he was forced to delay his flagship announcement because Macron decided to address the nation about Russian threats and spiraling fuel costs. When he finally got round to it, it was overshadowed by antisemitism allegations against National Rally leader Jordan Bardella.

Ultimately, his 20-minute speech detailing his pensions plans on YouTube garnered only 70,000 views.

A day later, Mélenchon livestreamed a two-hour Q&A session with students from HEC, one of France’s top business schools. It got 550,000 views.

But according to Philippe’s campaign spokesperson Arnaud Péricard, the battle will be won in the long run.

“We’re not firing an arrow and then running away … Voters shouldn’t be underestimated; they can understand why our pensions system needs fixing,” he said. “But we aren’t mere accountants … We want a return of a powerful France that can lead on energy, industry; that’s why we need to balance our books.”

But a mix of economic realism and European ambition sounds all too familiar after a decade of Macron’s presidency — and even insiders know there’s little appetite for it. “There’s no desire for the centrist bloc. It’s a bit like marriage after 10 years,” said the same ally quoted above.

But for Philippe, a pro-European who was one of Macron’s coalition partners, there’s not much else he can offer.

“It’s difficult for the moderates: They know what state the country is in. They understand interest rates, debt and deficits,” said OpinionWay pollster Bruno Jeanbart. “They have to campaign as if things will get better, but it’s going to be difficult. We’ll have to work longer, accept more social spending, less benefits. There is no good news.”

Cornered

The silver lining for Philippe is that while he’s not doing too well, his immediate rivals aren’t doing any better. Conservative leader Bruno Retailleau is stuck on single-digit polling figures, while centrist Gabriel Attal, leader of Macron’s Renaissance party, has relentlessly campaigned throughout the summer but is still lagging behind and looks increasingly isolated.

Party insiders are confident Philippe will prevail, but admit the drawn-out centrist battle is dragging their champion down.

“We are at a bit of a standstill, and letting ourselves get boxed into a duel with Attal,” complained a senior official from Philippe’s Horizons party.

When Philippe and Attal announced their education proposals simultaneously last month, “people didn’t notice our proposals, they just saw the squabbling with Gabriel Attal,” the official added.

A member of Philippe’s campaign team said there was “little bandwidth” to make an impact because there were “too many” centrist candidates. “Maybe we’ll have to wait before addressing some campaign topics,” the official said.

In the coming weeks, Philippe’s team hopes to drain Attal’s support among lawmakers and local representatives, according to two allies, and force him to throw in the towel.

But that’s unlikely to provide Philippe with a much-needed boost, said a centrist senator, as enthusiasm is flatlining at the local level too. “There’s no real movement anywhere,” the senator said. “And the French aren’t really listening.”

Pauline de Saint Remy and Elisa Bertholomey contributed reporting.

Independent Łukasz Gibała won Kraków’s mayoral runoff on Sunday, defeating a candidate backed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk and handing Poland’s governing Civic Coalition a setback in the country’s second-largest city.

Gibała secured 62.12% of the vote against 37.88% for Senator Monika Piątkowska, according to the official results. Turnout was 44.27%.

The result follows the removal of Mayor Aleksander Miszalski, backed by Civic Coalition, in a May referendum.

“The people of Kraków have just regained their city! Now let’s put aside our differences and show that we can work together,” Gibała said, appearing to acknowledge that he will have to cooperate with Civic Coalition and its national coalition partner, the Left party, which together control 23 of the city council’s 43 seats.

This was Gibała’s fourth shot at the mayoralty. A local councilor and former national lawmaker, Gibała narrowly lost to Miszalski in 2024 in his previous attempt.

This time around, he campaigned on breaking with the political establishment, riding a wave of public discontent over Kraków’s huge debt and attempts to establish a low-emissions zone.

Gibała won the Sept. 27 first round with 36.4% ahead of Piątkowska on 29.9%. The candidate of the main opposition Law and Justice party finished third with 17.5%.

Piątkowska, backed by Civic Coalition, tried to distance herself from Miszalski while arguing that close ties with the national government would benefit Kraków, pop. 800,000.

Nationally, Civic Coalition remains ahead in opinion polls, but current voting intentions suggest that Tusk’s coalition will fall short of a majority in scheduled fall parliamentary elections.

Two October surveys listed by polling aggregator ewybory.eu put Civic Coalition at 31.9%, Law and Order at 17.7%, the far-right Confederation at 14% and another far-right grouping, the Confederation of the Polish Crown, at 8.3%.

Of Civic Coalition’s three government allies, only the Left, at 7%, would exceed the 5% threshold for parliamentary representation, dimming the administration’s prospects of retaining power.

This article has been updated to include the official results.

PARIS — Raphaël Glucksmann won France’s center-left primary on Sunday, securing the backing of the Socialist Party and its allies for next year’s presidential election, organizers said.

Glucksmann, a member of the European Parliament, won the contest outright with over 66% of votes, beating Socialist Party leader Olivier Faure and three other candidates in the first round. More than 120,000 people voted Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

The leader of the small center-left Place Publique party entered the contest as one of the favorites. He now emerges strengthened from the primary, with access to Socialist Party funds and having built a broader base for his candidacy.

“This result expresses something strong: that a left that is faithful to its values can unite, govern and win,” the MEP wrote online.

“We are here to win the presidential election: Turn the page on Macronism, stop the far right and change our lives,” he added.

But Glucksmann, a staunch supporter of Ukraine and a critic of China, now faces a much greater challenge: how to beat the far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The head of the France Unbowed party is surging in the polls, with the latest Ifop survey giving him 14% to 17% support, compared to 11% for Glucksmann.

In recent weeks, Glucksmann campaigned against forming an alliance with the far-left leader.

Three other candidates ran in the primary, including former minister Ségolène Royal and lawmakers Jérôme Guedj and Emmanuel Maurel.

Some 140,000 people were registered to vote in the primary — including, 80,000 who paid €15 to take part but weren’t members of any of the parties whose candidates were running — raising uncertainty over the outcome.

The online voting platform was also targeted by a cyberattack shortly after opening, organizers said in a statement on Friday, but “was never disrupted” and “the integrity of the recorded votes has not been compromised.”

The growing popularity of far-right parties across Europe is sparking worries in NATO that they could weaken public support for rearmament and military aid to Ukraine as risks grow of a confrontation with Russia.

In France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Poland and Romania, these parties are looking to turn voters’ cost-of-living concerns into opposition to aid for Kyiv, and rejection of higher national defense budgets and a greater role for the EU in defense — although each party has often sharply diverging views on those issues.

France’s National Rally leader Marine Le Pen last month called for limiting aid to Ukraine, saying: “financially, we can’t do it anymore.”

Roberto Vannacci, a former general and MEP who leads the far-right National Future party, which is increasingly challenging Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, called for a rethink of defense spending. “Let’s evaluate whether this military spending is justified: in my opinion, it isn’t, especially at a time when commodity prices are hitting record highs,” he said last week.

The challenge for Europe’s mainstream parties is how to sustain support for higher defense budgets even if that means competing with welfare and other priorities.

“People are struggling with the rising cost of living across the board … so there’s room for populistic rhetoric about how much should we support Ukraine financially, or how much should we invest in defense,” said Janne Kuusela, permanent secretary at Finland’s defense ministry.

The dilemma is sharpening as several large NATO members, including France, Italy and Poland, face elections in 2027, when far-right parties stand a real chance of coming to power. Many countries are also beginning talks on next year’s budgets.

For NATO, a spending slowdown would complicate efforts to meet the alliance’s target of spending 5% of GDP on defense and security by 2035. Four NATO diplomats, granted anonymity to speak freely, said the risk is a growing concern, though some said its effects may not be clear until next year’s budget cycle.

“We’re already in a situation where we need to catch up” with Russia, said a NATO military official. “So far, we’re on a positive trajectory — if someone closes the faucet, there’s a risk of losing capabilities.”

Turning the tide

European countries and Canada are expected to spend $634 billion on core defense needs this year, an 11% hike relative to 2025. But public support has limits.

In eight European countries, an average of 46.2% of respondents said they would not back higher defense spending if it meant higher taxes, while 35.5% were in favor, according to an August poll assessed by the European Council on Foreign Relations and shared with POLITICO. More people were opposed to increasing taxes to finance military spending in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland. Respondents in the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K. were more likely to accept higher taxes for military spending.

Protests against higher defense spending have taken place in Rome, Brussels and Madrid this year, with demonstrators criticizing cuts to funding for hospitals, universities and social services.

Support for Ukraine is declining as well, according to NATO’s internal polling from this spring, falling from 59% in 2025 to 55% this year, with lethal aid the least popular form of support.

Far-right pushback on defense varies across Europe and falls broadly into three categories: opposition to military aid for Ukraine; rejection of EU-level defense projects; and criticism of defense spending more broadly. Yet all threaten to halt the continent’s effort to rearm rapidly and jointly — and limit Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

France’s National Rally and Romania’s Alliance for the Union of Romanians oppose aid to Kyiv. Poland’s Law and Justice and the Dutch Party for Freedom resist EU-level defense projects. Alternative for Germany and Italy’s National Future criticize increased spending more broadly.

The right’s political foes warn that opposition plays into the Kremlin’s hands. “The pressure from the right doesn’t actually come from the right, but largely from Moscow,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said. Parties such as National Rally and the AfD have longstanding ties with Russia, though they have sought to shake off their links in recent years.

Defense spending pressure

The political risk varies by country. Le Pen is a front-runner to become French president, while the AfD has made gains at the regional level but is unlikely to take national office soon.

Far-right gains are putting centrist parties under pressure to defend higher spending or consider cuts to retain public support.

“There is a risk that the formally pro-European mainstream across Europe might be too timid to spend … as would be necessary on defence,” said Paweł Zerka, senior policy fellow at the ECFR.

While Le Pen’s National Rally has indicated that she would respect France’s current trajectory of increasing military spending, Italy’s Meloni last week proposed spending €8 billion less on defense than the government’s initial proposal amid pressure from her far-right coalition partner, the League. Meloni last week proposed spending €8 billion less on defense than the government’s initial proposal amid pressure from her far-right coalition partner, the League.

“You can’t spend on weapons what you can’t spend on pensions, excise tax relief, or utility bills,” Claudio Borghi, a League senator, said last week.

In Poland, President Karol Nawrocki, backed by the right-wing Law and Justice party, tried but failed to block access to nearly €44 billion in EU SAFE defense loans, saying the scheme risked making Poland dependent on Brussels and saddling future generations with debt.

Pressure to rethink defense spending could make it harder for NATO members to fund the capabilities officials say are needed to deter Russia, as capitals begin talks this month on determining the alliance’s war plans, which are due by 2029.

A slowdown by larger members such as France and Italy would have broader effects because they account for a greater share of defense investment and aid to Kyiv, one of the NATO diplomats said.

“If bigger countries stop making progress, then NATO will stop making progress,” the diplomat said. “You weaken NATO, you weaken Europe’s ability to defend itself, and you make Ukraine … more vulnerable.” 

It could also affect the sum earmarked for defense in the EU’s next long-term budget if talks stretch on into next year, said Guntram Wolff, a senior fellow and defense economics analyst at the Bruegel think tank.

“Nationalists are all only interested in their country, they don’t want to work together with other European countries,” said German lawmaker Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, who chairs the European Parliament’s defense committee.

This article has been updated.

MADRID — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has finally done something the far right approves of — calling a snap election on Nov. 29 that the anti-immigrant Vox party is hailing as “Spain’s last chance to be Spain again.”

Polling third in the race, Vox is Spain’s leading nationalist, euroskeptic force and it sees next month’s contest as its prime opportunity to remold the country after eight years of Sánchez’s socialist premiership by getting its people into top ministerial jobs.

Party leader Santiago Abascal greeted Monday’s election announcement as “excellent news.” His delight is hardly surprising given that polls suggest Vox is on track to make the biggest gains of any major party.

While the center-right People’s Party is expected to come first — with about 33% of the vote, according to POLITICO’s Poll of Polls — it will almost certainly have to team up with Vox, which commands support of about 18%, to build a stable coalition.

Abascal will then be able to demand the inclusion of key elements of Vox’s agenda as its price for that partnership. Its goals include deportations of undocumented migrants, a benefits preference for Spaniards over foreign nationals, slashing EU health and safety rules in the farming sector and rolling back support for gender equality and the LGBTQ+ community.

Vox secured 33 of the 350 seats in Congress in 2023, but is now set to double that. Under the PP’s coalition leadership, it should be able to form part of a comfortable majority.

“This time round, Vox is much stronger,” José Antonio Fúster, spokesperson for the party and a member of the Madrid regional parliament, said. “We are going into a very important election, not so much for us, as for Spaniards … This is the last hope for Spain to be Spain again.”

Fúster would not be drawn on which ministries his party has set its sights on, warning against “selling the bearskin before it has been hunted.”

Pointing to talks with the PP in recent months in four regions where the two parties now govern in coalition, he said the shaping of policy was being prioritized ahead of institutional power. “That is the last thing we negotiate because it is the least important,” he said.

Pet portfolios

In August, Vox MEP Jorge Buxadé told POLITICO that forming part of the government was not the only option open to his party, but that in a hypothetical coalition with the PP, his party would seek a number of ministries “in proportion to our vote share.”

That would amount to a significant percentage. If current polls translate into results in November, Vox would be in a position to claim about a third of ministerial posts.

Analysts expect Vox to press for portfolios that focus on its pet policies, such as agriculture, domestic policy, immigration and industry. The culture and education portfolios could also be of interest to the party, given their relevance in the hard right’s campaign against so-called wokeism.

The regions where the PP and Vox currently govern together — Andalusia, Aragón, Castile and León, and Extremadura — offer clues: The government departments that Vox controls are mainly linked to agriculture, welfare benefits and the family.

The party is heading into the election campaign espousing three main ideas: the concept of “national priority” — ensuring that Spaniards have access to public services and benefits ahead of foreign nationals — a clampdown on immigration and broad deregulation.

Although Vox’s rise to prominence was driven by its fierce stance against Catalan nationalism nearly a decade ago, that debate has faded from the political arena. Now, its focus is, like its European far-right counterparts, more firmly on immigration-related matters.

“Before, Vox talked about immigration, but it wasn’t the nuclear issue it has become,” said Guillermo Fernández Vázquez, a political scientist at Carlos III University and author of a book about the European far right. “Now, when Vox talks about social security payments, it talks about immigration; when it talks about the economy, it talks about immigration. Immigration is the issue that dictates everything.”

Vox also subscribes to the “remigration” policy being touted by many far-right parties, under which undocumented migrants and those who commit crimes would be deported. The PP has appeared to respond to Vox’s hard line by toughening its own stance, calling for the expulsion of foreign criminals and opposing a government migrant legalization program.

In each of the regions where the two parties are in coalition, Vox has ensured that its senior partner agreed to formally include the national priority principle in their governing agreement.

“But when it comes to national priority, the PP has added the caveat that it has to be implemented in line with the law,” said Miguel González, a journalist at the El País daily newspaper and author of a book about Vox. Legislation prevents discrimination against foreign nationals when it comes to accessing public benefits and services, meaning the policy is currently little more than symbolic in those regions. 

“In reality, in order to implement this properly, you’d have to change the immigration law,” González added.

Vox is eyeing an overhaul of that legislation to make it a workable policy.

“It’s very possible to change laws that are bad for Spaniards, so we have to roll them back and introduce new laws, making sure that Spaniards are not last in line,” Fúster said.

Deregulation nation

Deregulation also offers a platform from which to attack EU health-and-safety norms that are reviled by the farming sector, one of Vox’s main voter bases.

Fúster accepted that this could lead to clashes with the European Commission, but insisted that pressure from what he described as a rising tide of European parties sharing Vox’s values would “make sure that Brussels returns to the path of common sense.”

PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo has criticized phytosanitary restrictions on farmers but has shown little appetite for conflict with European institutions.

In social policy, González said Vox might use the broader notion of deregulation to dismantle funding for gender equality and LGBTQ+ departments and projects, as it has done on a local level. Fúster was reluctant to be drawn on this: “We believe in the equality of Spaniards,” he said. “We don’t believe that anyone should have privileges above others.”

Fernández Vázquez of Carlos III University said that the origins of Vox suggest a bumpy ride for the PP. Vox would be the first far-right party to enter government in half a century since the death of Francisco Franco in 1975 — and there would likely be clashes.

The far-right party formed in 2013 as a breakaway from the conservatives in frustration at what its founders saw as the pusillanimity of the PP in the face of Catalan separatism. 

“I think the relationship between Vox and PP [in government] will be a bad one,” the researcher said. “Abascal and his colleagues are going to enjoy showing up Feijóo whenever they can, portraying him as lukewarm and weak.”

Fúster accepted “it could be a difficult relationship,” adding that the PP “don’t see things the way we do and we don’t share their vision.”

“We’re not willing to make concessions, we’re willing to have a frank, open and reasonable negotiation.”

But for now, the priority is simply to remove the Socialists. In his traditionally combative style, Abascal insisted the election was a chance to hold on to “the peace, prosperity and freedom that a mafioso government wants to snatch from us forever.”

Max Griera contributed to this article.