Talk:People's Party (Spain)

Name of the article
Why isn't this page named after the Spanish name of the party ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.43.42 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2004 (UTC)

On that subject, can we agree on a standard translation of the name? Is is the People's Party, the Popular Party or something else? Estrellador* 20:25, 8 June 2005 (UTC)


 * PSOE is Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. I have no objection to changing it to the Popular Party (Spain) as that would be more accurate, though as it is already a rtedirect an administrator would have to do it, and I ain't one. Popular Party is a redirect to People's Party with parties from all over the world, so someone has made tthat decision at some point, but we certainly don't have to abide by it. We do tend to translate party names into English, which is fair enough as we are an English wikipedia, SqueakBox 22:29, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion the best name for the article would be "Popular Party (Spain)". Does anyone support my proposal? --Checco 20:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for asking (!) but you have already changed the name from People's Party to Popular Party in all the article. You could have waited a little bit...to see what the rest of us thought. Personally, I don't mind but I would keep it as it is, as you see Popular Party (Spain) redirects to People's Party (Spain) anyway. Weak keep Keep People's Party and revert edits of Popular Party in the article.Francisco Valverde 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: If you just write Popular Party, you are redirected to the disambigous page People's Party. One more point to keep it; consistency.--Francisco Valverde 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't change it to Popular Party. In Spanish, "Popular" simply means "of the people". In English, the word "popular" is usually used to mean that a lot of people like something. The PP are members of the European People's Party (which in Spanish is "Partido Popular de Europa". And "People's Republic (of China)" is "República Popular (de China)" in Spanish.

--81.184.168.179 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed weblink
I've removed the weblink gallardon.es because it is not an official site neither is Gallardón representative of the Popular Party policies. mabuimo — Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable members list
Only one woman named in the notable members list? Raystorm 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logopp.gif
Image:Logopp.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ETA Murder victims List
IMO it should be removed and in any case add a redirect to article of ETA murder victims, as including a list only on the PP article is highly NPOV, Members of PSOE, National Police, Journalists, Civil Guard, Armed Forces and even former ETA members have been murdered by ETA over the last 40 years and there is no list in the corresponding articles, including it only in PP make it seem that PP is the only party affected by ETA, that is what many people appreciate as one o PP's main points over the last term.Zape82 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed it would be very suitable that the victims of other parties are also included in other articles, and also in the articles related to terrorism. But that lack of information there does not mean that it needs to be removed from here, ie missing thing in one article does not justify removing it from another. The victims of any political party are very important, and mentioning them does not affect the neutrality so it should be kept. Escorial82 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the list. It is irrelevant and POV considering the PPs use of ETA victims to gain political capital. --Burgas00 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The use by the PP of this thing, as many other parties do, is not a reason for removing real data from the article. Many other things mentioned here are used by opponent parties, for example all the critics to Manuel Fraga Escorial82 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La voz de su amo (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The compelling soundness of your extense argumentation amazes me. Perhaps that's why you left your comment unsigned. Should ever this be turned into a keep/removal vote, I'd vote either keep or link to a list with all people murdered by ETA. As others said, some information being absent from other articles does not justify removing it from this one. Also, I'd rethink the statement about "the PPs use of ETA victims to gain political capital", as it's insulting to the victims. Could you please _prove_ what you are saying? You say "something is POV considering $YOUR_POV" o_O Habbit 10:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ETA has murdered people of all political colours, however only the PP has used terrorism as an element of its opposition in the history of Spanish democracy, and this only since 2003. Adding a list of PP "martyrs" is clearly NPOV because it helps the party present itself as a victim and forms part of an electoral strategy. Should we also present a list of all the members of the PP who have links with the Francoist regime or with extreme right movements or with the Opus Dei? Such a list would be very long indeed... --Burgas00 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, by all means do so if you can document your claims (some are low-hanging fruits, some can prove more cumbersome). This is an encyclopedia, and _objective_ information is never out of place. Also, for the sake of the very NPOV you claim to support, add similar lists in all other parties' articles. I will grant you a kickstart: iIrc, José Blanco (PSOE) had more than obvious connections with the Francoist regime.
 * That was point one. Point two: neither PP members nor all other civilians murdered by ETA were "martyrs", because that word implies that they were captured and semi-willingly sacrificed their lives to promote their causes. The only person that has been near to this definition, because of the social effect his murder caused, has been Miguel Ángel Blanco, but he probably didn't do so willingly. The only "martyrs" would probably be the police/Guardia Civil/army members killed by the terrorists. By the way, I don't quite agree with some of the PP victimism, but I absolutely disagree with the Government's blatant doublethink WRT ETA. Do you remember the T4 bombing? I'm sure you do. What you won't probably recall is that less than 24 hours earlier ZP (yes, our President) was trying to convince us that "he was looking up to the new year about terrorism". Either he was completely fooled by ETA (which is what I want to believe) or he lied to us all. But _even_ in the first case, his behaviour is not excusable because the PP spent whole months trying to convince him that ETA was doing just that. Why wouldn't him listen to people which had tried the very same years earlier with the same result? Pride? Foolishness? (sigh) Habbit 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest the following, which I think it wouldn't hide any information and rather provide more: The chapter of victims is inserted, with a brief description saying that there has been many political victims of all parties with links to the correspondent parties and victims lists. Before doing that I'll personally take charge of adding a similar list in the PSOE's article, with a similar structure and a link between them. A sentence describing how this list is now-a-days frequently mentioned by the PP can be included. Habbit, Burgas00, what do you think? Again let's give and not hide information on all articles. Escorial82 09:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO adding lists to the political parties only magnifies and takes to the partisan, the Basque conflict, I suggest that ETA murder victims, should remain exclusively, to their personal articles (if they have, if not every body is invited to create it), and to articles reffering to ETA and its victims in any case including in that article list include their position and their political party (ie: Miguel Anglel Blanco, PP Councillor in Ermua), if not will end in a nonse debate on weather to add lists to every single spanish articles (why not a list in the Civil Guard of ETA vicitims (as it is the main affected collective) then why not a KIA list while on int'l missions, then why not of those KIA while patrolling the roads.... I have my personal considerations on ETA, the Basque conflict, or the positions of PP, Batasuna, PNV or PSOE, but for that I like to take part on politics fora, lets live the wikipedia a consult toolZape82 00:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this off-topic, but I really can't resist it: Language is one of the most powerfools weapons available to mankind, as is shown by the expression "Basque conflict", which makes it look like there are two sides. There is really only one, ETA, who is killing people on behalf of their political ideals. And no, Spain is no longer the dictatorship under which people (Basque or not) could be repressed for expressing their ideas. Just look at Catalonia, where people with similar (seccesionist) beliefs are part of the regional government and talk _openly_ about their final purposes. In a democracy, an organization like ETA has _no_ place. There is no "Basque conflict".
 * Let me explain this further, though this argument does not belong here: there can be legitimate seccesionists, and their ideas may finally succeed (though it is difficult since the constitutions of virtually any state will shield itself against seccesionism). This is also good - I would not accept any territory seceding on the grounds of a 51% yea referendum: the majority would have to be overwhelming (67%? 75%) to justify such a change. I think that if a real majority of Basques want out of Spain, then the Spanish state would ultimately give them what they want (because a democracy _can't_ repress citizens demonstrating). So, as I said, there are only political ideas (by the way, I consider nationalism a rather obselete, XIX-esque mentality in the era of the EU, but...) and there is _no_ thing as a "Basque conflict". There is the people of the Spanish _state_ (stress for those who don't _feel_ Spanish in nationality), who has been more than 30 years sufferering the dictatorship of terror imposed by ETA, a bunch of extorters who just want to gain power through murders. Period. Habbit 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AVT "alliance"
Some regular changes on the comments referring to the government's negotiations with ETA and PP's posture wrt it have been made; the AVT is now described in the article as an ally to the Party. I think it is very important to change that term. The AVT supports the Party in its posture against the negotiations, organised manifestations with their support and vice-versa (I also think this was done by other associations so I would mention them as well). Nevertheless they've always insisted that they are not an ally of the party, and those two words are not synonyms, and the Association has criticised the party in many other things (eg their negotiations with ETA in 1997 or the war in Irak). I would therefore suggest to change that. That topic is still important, as negotiations are still being mentioned regularly by many parties, although its true that it's now less stringent. This is due to the accusations of such still being made / considered for the near future. As ETA is still mentioned daily I think it is therefore correct to keep it in the article. Escorial82 08:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "allies" implies they have a common political goal: that is to attack the Socialist government. It does not mean they are subordinate to the PP. The language used is thus perfectly correct.
 * Furthermore, the AVT's criticism of the PP for its 1997 negotiations with ETA was tepid at best, and nothing compared to last years campaign against the socialists. Ideological affinity and political alliance is self evident. --Burgas00 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not strange that each time that a Government tried to negotiate with ETA, only to be once again fooled by the terrorists, victims' organizations become angrier. Especially when the current government has been _warned_ about ETA's intentions. Habbit 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The common goal in this topic is to prevent negotiations, not to attack the Socialist government, again referring to the past shows it and indeed the more it occurs the stronger the opposition is. Also, it is the opposing politicians / media that have described the AVT as an ally of the PP, in a rather insulting way, and it has been rejected by both the Association and the Party. Many members of the AVT have criticised the political situation between the 11 and the 14 of March 2004, criticising all parties including the PP.
 * And the association has never shown its support to most of the other topics the PP has based his opposition upon (EpC, gay marriage, massive illegal-immigrants legalisation, etc).
 * I therefore think that using that term as the main adjective is not neutral and rather insulting. I suggest to put something with a structure of this type: ...a supporter of the PP in the campaign (some politicians describe the AVT as an ally of the PP).... If no constructive comment is made I'll change it by the evening. I'll also mention the Foro de Ermua, Fundación Miguel Ángel Blanco and others that also supported the PP in this topic. Escorial82 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember the AVT's official stance on the 11th of March attacks is that they want to know "the truth" of "what really happened". This aligns it with the more hardline sectors of the Spanish right who are still clinging on to the so-called conspiracy theories. I could give you dozens of examples of the symbiosis between the PP and the AVT.

Nevertheless, the term ally is in no way derogative. It is perfectly legitimate for a political association to ally with a political party. What would be derogative would be a term like puppet, instrument or "tool".

I don't think you should add the other groups because the relationship with the PP is not as close nor have their political strategies been so coordinated as the AVT. --Burgas00 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed they've said how the want to know "what really happened", ie everything to be clear, rejecting the posture of the government when it occurred insisting that ETA could be involved and that it wasn't sure if it had been Islamists. Nevertheless, since the term of "ally" has been rejected by the two organisations, and not "supporter", which according to you it means the same, wouldn't it be better to use it? It would remove this conflict (similar one occurring in politics), and keep the same meaning. The objective of Wikipedia is to give information in the most neutral way without offending anyone. Escorial82 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Woudnt "supporter" imply that the AVT is subservient to the PP? What do you think of this last edit? I have modified the term allied from adjective to verb form. They are not allies but are/were allied at least during the ceasefire.

As for the 11-M, we both know that when you ask for "everything to be clear" you are making an accusation to the government (and other bodies of the state, judiciary, police etc..) of hiding the truth. I really don't remember the AVT rejecting the posture of the PP during the 3 days after the bombing. Maybe Im wrong though. Was Alcaraz already in office by that time? --Burgas00 10:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems slightly better as you put it. I would nevertheless change one thing, and put it like this (keeping ally): AVT has been allied to the PP with respect to the government's actions concerning ETA's ceasefire (now wrote it quickly, I'll make small grammatical modifications). This is to clarify that the common position was wrt the negotiations, de Juana, etc and not other political topics. Escorial82 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree with you on that.--Burgas00 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing or conservative?
The definition of the PP as a right-wing party is generally done in a pejorative way by those who criticise it. In all its statements it describes itself as a central party with, generally speaking, conservative ideas. Its international alliances are with other parties or groups that are conservative-central (Centrist Democrat International). Right-wing is used when the party is insulted in manifestations or criticised by rival parties. Having that in the first sentence of the article is not neutral (as people who read it get what many people consider insulting information). Maybe this right-wing consideration can be mentioned later in other points of the article, but therefore not in the introduction. Escorial82 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are right-wing.--La voz de su amo (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To "La voz": Your argument was so elaborated, convoluted and deeply phylosophic that I couldn't follow throughout. Please try to write less the next time o_O Habbit (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Although in Spanish the term "right-wing" is used as an insult on a par with, or near to, the term fascist, in English it isn't. You can't say to someone, "You're right-wing" as an accusation or insult, anymore than say to someone (in the UK) "You're left-wing". 88.5.156.237 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In Spain’s political spectrum, the Partido Popular is a center-right party. Right wing and far-right are other parties (Democracia Nacional, España 2000, Derecha Navarra y Española). Wikipedia in Spanish holds that the PP is a center-right party, and so does the French Wikipedia. You should at least try to cite a scholarly decent paper in Spanish to support the idea that the PP is a right wing party, instead of biased British articles.--Rivet138 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the cited sources is British. They are three articles from reputable international media (France 24, Canadian Globe and Mail, and Irish Times). If you doubt the reliability of these sources, please let them be checked at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. By the way, "because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (WP:NOENG), so Spanish sources are not preferrable over English-language ones. --RJFF (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, the language and the origin are not important but at least try to support that idea with a scholarly decent reference. I am sure that North American and European Universities have written extensively on Spain’s party system. But sorry, an online press article is simply not enough to make that claim.--Rivet138 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. A party with roots in Francoist Spain would never be right-wing. How silly. 99.54.188.176 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PSOE (their left equivalent) has roots in communism. Volkswagen in Nazism. Shall we also call them that by those standards? Again, anything that is not a genuine scholar article cannot be taken as fact. 213.229.176.26 (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

policy
almost nothing about the policy or platform of the party, only general speacking in the introduction. --Hasam (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism?
In what meaning is liberal conservatism listed here? As Conservative on moral and social issues, or as more libertarian, promoting individual liberty with economic freedom? Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As Conservative on moral and social issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.57.202 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think PP is not properly a liberal party in economic terms. In theory they consider themselves "centre" o "centre-right" but in practice PP has increased Public Debt (99% GDP), taxes (VAT and Income Tax) as well as promotion of other regulations. The last liberal pro-market policies taken by PP were in Aznar era 1996-2000, but since 2004-05 I would mark PP as social-democrat conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptwsm17 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The Aznar years
This article looks to me absolutely apologetic and non-critical, notably as regards the Aznar years, which were highly controversial.

To give only some examples, there is no mention to Aznar's strong support to the Irak invasion by the USA, which provoked a massive public contestation and the largest demonstrations ever in Spain; neither to his laissez-faire, hardcore liberal policy in the Real Estate sector that originated an unprecedented speculative bubble, partly originating the current economic crisis in Spain; neither of his arrogant attitude towards Catalonia (especially in his second mandate, in which he did not need the support of Catalan parties)... Looking at the description of his mandate you would say he was simply a perfect President, which is arguable.

I would also like to know where this "19% reduction of unemployment" figure comes from, since from what I know Spain had an unemployment rate of 22% at the worst moments of the 90's crisis, and has never gone below 7-8% in the best moments of the ecoomic bubble.

In sum, I would like this article to be better balanced and also take stock of criticisms. Thank you, Pep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.24.121.123 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Spokesperson
I changed the name of the spokesperson from "Eduardo Gonzales Pons" to "Esteban Gonzalez Pons". Now the link directs to the correct page.128.135.198.152 (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the same image twice.
There is a cropped image of Aznar, then below it the same image with him, Bush and part of Blair. I Don't understand why the Foreign policy section needs another photo, much less the same one twice. I am removing the second photo as redundant.

184.210.203.236 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Moi

Add Controversy/Scandal section
Is the Spanish PP an objective and serious political party? I don't know...

Is wikipedia objective and serious? I don't know either, it should be though. If yes, is it possible someone adds a controversy section about PP (Spain)?

Articles related to PP:
 * Palma Arena case (es:Caso Palma Arena)
 * Brugal case (Caso Brugal; Caso Brugal. El País)
 * Fabra case
 * Castellón Airport, and "Ripollés' sculpture"(Aeropuerto de Castellón, El País; Ripollés, El Mundo A symbol of ruin at an airport to nowhere, The New York Times)
 * Gürtel case (Caso Gürtel)
 * Special Events (es:Special Events)
 * Pasadena Viajes, S.L. (es:Pasadena Viajes, S.L.)
 * Easy Concept (es:Easy Concept)
 * Good and Better, S.L. (es:Good and Better, S.L.)
 * Orange Market (es:Orange Market)
 * City of Arts and Sciences, Valencia
 * Visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Valencia (Cuando Gürtel 'estafó' al Papa, El Mundo)
 * Formula 1, Valencia
 * (Caso de la Ciudad del Golf)
 * Operación orquesta (Operación orquesta)
 * ¡Que se jodan! (Fuck them!), a sentence pronounced by Andrea Fabra, daughter of Carlos Fabra (indicted PP politician; Carlos Fabra, Carlos Fabra)... (es:¡Que se jodan!)

Indicted (imputados) PP politicians
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.56.132.215 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Francisco Camps (PP), Valencia, INDICTED: Gürtel Case.
 * 2) Ricardo Costa (PP), Valencia, INDICTED: Gürtel Case.
 * 3) José Manuel Tortosa (PP) Parlamento Autonómico Cuenca, INDICTED: breach of legal duty (corruption) and forgery.
 * 4) José Manuel Traba (PP), Fisterra Galicia, INDICTED Operación Orquesta.
 * 5) José Manuel Santos (PP) Mazaricos Galicia, INDICTED: Operación Orquesta.
 * 6) Ignacio García de Vinuesa (PP), Alcobendas Madrid, INDICTED: embezzlement of funds, breach of legal duty (corruption) and forbidden business.
 * 7) José Ignacio Fernández Rubio (PP), Las Rozas Madrid, INDICTED
 * 8) Miguel Rodríguez Bonilla (PP), Guadarrama Madrid, INDICTED: breach of legal duty or (corruption) and embezzlement of funds.
 * 9) Míriam Rabaneda (PP) Pinto Madrid, INDICTED: breach of legal duty (corruption)
 * 10) Luis Partida (PP) Villanueva de la Cañada Madrid, INDICTED: General crimes
 * 11) Antonio Martín Lara (PSOE, before PP) Ronda, Málaga, INDICTED: Urban Planning Corruption, Brivery, breach of legal duty (corruption), falsedad documental, tráfico de influencias, malversación y blanqueo de capitales; actualmente detenido junto con otros tres ediles.
 * 12) Raúl López (PP) Coslada Madrid, INDICTED: General crimes.
 * 13) Íñigo Henríquez de Luna (PP) Madrid
 * 14) José Joaquin Ripoll (PP), Alicante Valencia, IMPUTADO caso Brugal.
 * 15) Carlos Fabra (PP), Castellón Valencia, IMPUTADO caso Fabra
 * 16) José I Fernández (PP), Las Rozas Madrid, IMPUTADO delito contra la ordenación del territorio
 * 17) Clara Torre (PP), Torres de la Alameda Madrid, IMPUTADA malversación
 * 18) Míriam Rabaneda (PP,) Pinto Madrid, IMPUTADA prevaricación
 * 19) Raúl López Coslada (PP), Madrid, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 20) Luis Partidad (PP), Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, IMPUTADO tráfico de influencias
 * 21) Ana María Pinos (PP), Belmonte de Tajo, IMPUTADO delito contra la ordenación del territorio
 * 22) Ángel García (PP) Guadalix de la Sierra Madrid, IMPUTADO negociaciones prohibidas
 * 23) Íñigo Henríquez de Luna (PP), Madrid, IMPUTADO tráfico de influencias
 * 24) Roberto Vázquez Souto (PP) Portas, Pontevedra, IMPUTADO falsedad documental
 * 25) Cristina González (PSOE) Getafe Madrid, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 26) José María Fraile Parla (PSOE) Madrid PSOE prevaricación
 * 27) Manuel González Rojo (PSOE) San Fernando de Henares Madrid, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 28) Hans Antón Bock Galapagar (PSOE) Madrid IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 29) Jesús Dionisio (PP) Madrid, IMPUTADO prevaricación y tráfico de influencias
 * 30) Jaume Matas (PP), Baleares, IMPUTADO, Caso Palma Arena
 * 31) Cristina Almagro (PP) Granada, IMPUTADA por falsificación de documentos
 * 32) José Manuel Santos Maneiro (PP), Galicia, IMPUTADO por corrupción en la adjudicatura de obras públicas
 * 33) Tamara Rabaneda (PP) Pinto, Madrid, IMPUTADA prevaricación
 * 34) Raúl López Vaquero (PP)  Coslada, Madrid, IMPUTADO prevaricación y malversación
 * 35) Ramón Polo (PP) Torres de la Alameda, Madrid, IMPUTADO malversación
 * 36) Manuel Tello (PP) Torres de la Alameda, Madrid, IMPUTADO malversación
 * 37) Pilar Algobia Aparicio (PP) Colmenar de Oreja, Madrid, IMPUTADA delito urbanístico
 * 38) Agustín Padrón Benítez (PP) El Hierro, Canarias, IMPUTADO malversación
 * 39) José Fernández Amador (PP), Sorbas, Almería, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 40) Pedro Antonio Sánchez (PP), Murcia, IMPUTADO prevaricación, delitos urbanísticos, malversación
 * 41) Daniel García Madrid (PP), Torre Pacheco, Murcia, IMPUTADO prevaricación, ordenación del territorio, malversación
 * 42) María Antonia Conesa (PP), Fuente Álamo, Murcia, IMPUTADA cohecho
 * 43) Pedro Angel Hernández (PP), Parlamento Valenciano, IMPUTADO tráfico de influencias
 * 44) Juan Martín Serón (PP), Alhaurín el Grande, Granada, IMPUTADO cohecho y prevaricación
 * 45) Cristóbal Bonilla (PP), Alhaurín el Grande, Granada, IMPUTADO delito urbanístico
 * 46) José Antonio Robles (PP), Güejar Sierra, Granada, IMPUTADO presunta compra de votos
 * 47) María Victoria Molina (PP) Maracena, Granada, IMPUTADA cohecho, caso “Morelábor”
 * 48) Reyes Maestre (PP) Pinto, Madrid, IMPUTADO corrupción urbanística
 * 49) Gerardo Pérez García (PP) Navas del Marqués, Málaga, IMPUTADO caso “Ciudad del Golf”
 * 50) José Antonio Arrojo (PP) Casar del Palomero, IMPUTADO delito electoral y prevaricación
 * 51) Salvador Álvarez (PP) Calamonte, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 52) José Manuel Cendán (PP) Ares, Galicia, IMPUTADO delito electoral: alteración del censo
 * 53) Manuel Taboada (PP) O Pino, La Coruña, IMPUTADO delitos urbanísticos
 * 54) Jesús Vázquez Almuiña (PP) Bayona, Pontevedra, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 55) Alfonso Puente (PP) Barreiros, Lugo, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 56) María del Carmen Castellano (PP) Telde, Gran Canaria, IMPUTADA malversación y cohecho
 * 57) Francisco González (PP) Mogán, Gran Canaria, IMPUTADO prevaricación, “caso Góndola”
 * 58) Luis Díaz Alperi (PP) Parlamento Autonómico, Alicante, ex-mayor of Alicante, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 59) Joaquín Villanova (PP) Alhaurín de la Torre, Málaga, IMPUTADO malversación
 * 60) Antonio Torres (PP) Béjar, Málaga, IMPUTADO delito contra la ordenación del territorio
 * 61) Ana Mula Redruello (PP) Fuengirlo, Málaga, IMPUTADA falsedad documental
 * 62) Javier Trujillo Bernal (PP) Cabildo Gomera, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 63) Jorge Bellver (PP) Parlamento Valenciano, IMPUTADO prevaricación
 * 64) Esteban Bethencourt (PP) Valle Gran Rey, Gomera, IMPUTADO malversación
 * 65) César Manrique (PP) Ciudad Real, IMPUTADO cohecho y falsedad documental
 * 66) Sonia Castedo (PP), Alicante, INDICTED. Urban Planning Corruption,

WHAT IS SPANISH UNIONISM ?
I am Spaniard and this term in my country doesn´t exist. It is invented!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokiroki (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am removing the term of Spanish unionism as it is just a mere derogatory term used by peripheral nationalism to create the idea of a conflict about the definition of Spain. Therefore it is not in anyway neutral or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Describing the PP with this term is absurd in the same way that it would be absurd to claim that the CDU and the SPD are German unionists, the French Republican Party and Socialist Party are French unionists or the PD, Forza Italia... are Italian unionists for being oposed to the independence or the right of self determination of Bavaria, Corsica/Brittany or Padania respectively. (90.173.180.217 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Edit: The first quoted line was not written by me, it was already there unsigned when I wrote the above paragraph in response to the person who open this discussion.90.173.180.217 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"a mere derogatory term used by peripheral nationalism to create the idea of a conflict about the definition of Spain" This is un-sourced and partisan. I have restored the content with a reference. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you take the time to read the fully sourced Wikipedia page on the term Spanish Unionism you may check that the statement is neither un-sourced nor partisan, but the exact definition of its use in the Spanish political context. I quote it below to save you the effort. Guessing that you can speak Spanish, I ask you please to read the reference allegedly supporting the restored content and verify that on it neither the People's Party nor any other non-independentist party is quoted using the term "unionista" to describe the position of the PP. In fact, this word is never used in the whole article outside the headline. In any case this source would fully support my claim since it is an article from Eldiario.es, a self-defined left-wing newspaper whose founder and editor, columnists and readers have repeatedly expressed their support to the self-determintion of Catalonia and the Basque Country. In the headline the author makes use of the term "unionista" to derogatorily summarize the words of the PP representative who was claiming that this is the only party trully opposing the independentist movement in Catalonia. Therefore, I do not believe that it is a valid reference.
 * "Spanish Unionism" is a term employed by the supporters of the independece to try to assimilate the Spanish situation to that of the UK, making a parllelism with Northern Ireland. The aim of this is to identify with the Irish republican rethoric in order to reinforce their belief that Catalonia/Basque Country is a sperated entity currently united against its will with Spain. I am not discussing the validity of this claim, which I clearly found inaccurate. I am just saying that "Spanish Unionism" is a non-neutral term whose use corresponds to the agenda of a certain policial movement and therefore inadequate for an encyclopedia. Additionally, there are many parties in many unitarian or federal states opposed to the self-determination or independence of parts of their countries and their Wikipedia page does not apply the term unionism to them. Therefore, there is no need to use this non-neutral label in the infobox.

"Spanish unionism is a label used by Galician, Basque and Catalan independence movements to refer to the political attitude which favours the continuity of the Kingdom of Spain as a single united nation-state. The expression Spanish unionism has only been used for the last 10 years in the context of the Catalan independence movement.[1] Prior to this, usage of the term was limited to Basque nationalism.[2] The importation of the term unionism into the Spanish context and its usage with pejorative meaning is related to the nationalist attempts to introduce the terminology of the Irish republican movement, the English independence movement, the Scottish independence movement, and Welsh independence movement to the Galician independence movement, the Basque independence movement, and the Catalan independence movement.[3] In this way, Spanish unionism is considered by Galician, Basque, and Catalan nationalist parties as a political ideology identified by its denial of the exercise of the right of self-determination of the peripheral nationalities of Spain or sometimes by the simple defense of Spain as a nation.[4] Therefore, the label has been applied to parties such as the People's Party,[5][6] Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE)[7] (however sometimes PSOE is seen as more sympathetic to Spain's nationalist movements[8]), Union, Progress and Democracy (UPYD) and Citizens-Party of the Citizenry (C's)." TheBiscayne (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Spanish nationalism - really?
Whilst the PP is undoubtedly pro-Spain, I don't really see how it's a nationalist party. Anyone care to clarify? --Cymru123 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cymru123

Obviously this whole article is a big joke. First, the information is very badly exposed; second, it has been infiltrated by left wing spaniards.

I, as a moderate, find the designation of the party as right-wing as absurd; the party is not sufficiently liberal or libertarian to be considered more right wing than the following european parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate_Party_%28Sweden%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_%28UK%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_%28Germany%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_a_Popular_Movement

All of which are designated as center-right. Why? The People´s Party is another center-right party as those, and the party is to the left of Thatcherism without a doubt, and surely to the left of CSU and Sarkozy´s wing in the UMP. That´s my opinion, but i think we can agree that the party is no different that the ones i mentioned. There is not an historical or current example that can be used to justify that this party is more right wing than those parties.

In the article, the references to this affirmation are newspaper articles who use the term right wing in a colloquial manner for center-right, and not proper studies.

The party is undoubtedly liberal-conservative center-right, like other members in the European People´s Party, and proper references should be used.

As for the term "Spanish nationalism", the reference is another joke, an article by a catalan nationalist written in spanish. The english wikipedia should use proper academic references and not political writings coming from Spain. The articles have to express a universal worldview and not the worldview of spanish politics.

I wont change or delete anything, but i expect changes from more illustrious wikipedists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaxtelemonio (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There are some elements of Spanish Nationalism in PP; e.g. big national flag in Colon, Madrid (ok, it is a flag, nothing nationalist, BUT it is a falg with enormous dimmensions (300 sq. meters), there are Spanish flags all around in Com. Madrid (I know the place because I live there) in many roundabouts, and Castille and Leon, there are more aspects, unionism, centralism, monarchism, support og traditional but not modern tradition of tauromaquy etc. I know that´s not a nationalism itself, but if you consider the rest of parties and the history of Spain, you can see that there is in fact some Spanish Nationalism in PP, which I think might be included in the description of the ideology of the party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, PP is one of the historical governing parties in Spain. Saying it's "Spanish nationalist" would be a bit redundant in itself, unless "nationalism" in itself was a key feature of the party's policies (which isn't, at least when in government). For comparison, the Union for a Popular Movement, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, the New Democracy (Greece) or the Conservative Party (UK) are not considered as "nationalist" despite their extensive use of their countries' symbols. Impru20 (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me say (as spaniard I am) that to compare PP with conservative parties of Greece, Germany or France are not the same. From my            point of view, PP is a Spanish Natioalist party, and I´ll try to say why. Te main reason is the nationalisms in the territory of Spain, such as Catalonia or Galicia. Spain has different peoples with nationalisms, (not the same case as France, Germany or Greece) is only comparable a little bit with the UK (England and Scotland), and each party in Spain takes positions in order to this; PSOE or IU are some kind of federalists, nor nationalists because they accept more or less the other national autonomies, ERC in Catalonia or PNV in Euskadi and nationalist but from their territories; PP in the other hand, is Spanish Nationalist, oppose the national rights of Catalonia, Galicia and Euskadi,(mainly), has said that thei statutes of Catalonia or Andalusia are INConstitutional, defends a single unity of the territory of Spain, when  historically Spain has been in fact a union on different kingdoms, with different peoples, and different nationalities.

It is the history and ethniticy of Spain which makes the country different from other European countries, and parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

question?
In what way is the party liberal and conservative at the same time? Is it, for example, liberal on social issues and fiscally conservative? Or, maybe, the other way around? 74.96.73.247 (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the label liberal is used here in the Continental European way. Meaning that it is a party that supports the values of liberal democracy, individual freedom and free-market. In no sense PP is a liberal party in the anglo-saxon meaning of the word, since it is not socially liberal (e.g. technically it is against public funding of abortion, using the term "marriage" for homosexual unions...) and not fiscally liberal (e.g. it is favorable to a lower state intervention in the economy, balancig the budget...). Broadly speaking it shares the main ideological features of the other members of the European People's Party. 90.173.180.217 (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes
Could someone iron out the following? I noticed the changes but don't have time to look at it. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Investigations in Valencia
in the Valencian Community various leaders have been investigated for cases related to their positions in public administrations. This is the case of Francisco Camps, former president of the region, and other political offices allegedly linked with associations in the provinces of Castellón, Valencia and Alicante.

Possible update to the opening paragraph and the ideology section in the infobox
I think that liberal-conservavism label should be removed from the opening parapgraph and the infobox. It is cited in the Leadership of Casado and 2019 election section that the party shifted further to the right in 2018. Both sources that cite the party as liberal-conservative are years before this (one is from 2014 and one is from 2005). This is when the party was under different leadership and not as far to the right as it is today. I have seen no sources since Pablo Casado became the leader of the party that describe it as liberal-consevative, so I would say this is out of date and should be removed. However, this is cited information, so I'm looking to form a consenus here before removing it. Please leave any and all thoughts below. Helper201 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "Liberal" means different things to different people. See Classical liberalism. No position on your question.Adoring nanny (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason (based on sources) a "Liberal-conservative" label could not apply to a right-wing (even a hard-right!) placement in the spectrum? I don't think the lib bit of the liberal-conservative label related to anything connected to progressivism before the party swing to the right. Accidentally I happen to think the infobox/lede of a mainstream Spanish political party needing updating is Citizens-Party of the Citizenry.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article seems not to follow NPOV. It gives undue weight towards the Party's financial and corruption scandals. The lead section's largest paragraph is all about (recent developments in) a corruption case. There are two sections in the body also devoted to scandals, one of which consists almost exclusively of links to articles on the Spanish wiki. I propose that most of the content in the Gürtel case paragraph of the lead be moved to the "illegal financing" section, and that the "Political corruption scandals" section be deleted entirely (I'll delete it after posting this).

On an unrelated note, this article could use a section on the ideology and views of the People's Party. Erinius (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

People's Party it's not Popular's Party
It's a mistake referred on this way in this article and you can read in Oxford reference (Popular Party) or Britannica (Popular Party) the correct name of the Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah.stolen (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, "People's Party" is more commonly used in English reliable sources than "Popular Party", as you can check in Ngram or in raw Google searches (848,000 vs. 299,000, not including Wikipedia results). Both terms are correct, but People's Party is the name to go as the article's title as per WP:COMMONNAME.  Impru 20 talk 18:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Party colour
I think the party's colour should be updated to the current logo and website. In order not to associate the new colour with previous elections, "People's Party (Spain, 2022)" with the hex colour #17589D. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously no. This is not a "new" colour; the PP uses (and has used) a variety of blue shades for decades, including dark blue shades (mixed with light or sky blue shades). Sometimes they update their main website and logo with one or the other, but this is not a radical change or a rebranding. Accepting a change like this would require us to change the party's specific shade yearly or even monthly as they update their website, with the party having a different colour shade for each election, which is absurd. The current colour represents an established shade encompassing all of these: it is neither too light nor too dark, is easily recognizable and distinguishable and does not cause any issue at all. A change motivated by a personal preference based on a particular shade shown in their website at a particular time is not enough reason to change the party's colour here in Wikipedia and would create many more issues than it would solve.  Impru 20 talk 11:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This applies not just to the PP,, but to other parties across the world as well. There may be situations where a party has radically changed their colour as part of a new rebranding (Austrian People's Party, Proposta per les Illes or even Podemos), which makes a change acceptable. But in many other cases, parties typically conduct minor changes of their shading as a customary practice, or just use a different shade of their main colour for a specific situation.
 * One visible case is Moderate Party, whose main colour you changed despite the party using a variety of blue shades (their current colour in Wikipedia is a shade that is somewhere in-between, in a similar situation to that of the PP, and because dark blue in Sweden is typically associated with the Liberals and the Christian Democrats). Another one is Christian Democratic Union of Germany: the party's official colour is orange, but is customarily represented with black (or Die Linke, whose main colour is red but is customarily represented with purple, even at government level). Or one of the most obvious examples, the US Democratic Party, which has always retained the same blue shade in Wikipedia despite the large variety of blue shades it has been depicted on in their own website and in media sources. There are plently of similar examples, and changes (specially for large parties in well-established parliamentary democracies) should be analyzed in a case-by-case basis. Some changes may be obvious and would need no discussion, whereas other changes are unlikely to proceed even if minor discussion ensues as the impact of the change may need a Wikipedia-wide consensus to be reached.
 * We are not required to use the colour at use at the party's website at any given time; these can be indicative or even be the party's official colour in many cases, but there are many other situations in which customary, well-established shades are used (either for sticking to a more permanent shade, or to help differentiate with other parties in the same country using similar shades, etc.).
 * I hope this insight on the issue comes as useful for the future!  Impru 20 talk 12:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay then. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Unprotected
I protected this for a week per a request at WP:RFPP. It's now unprotected. If there are further disputes, please bring them to talk in the first instance - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

PP is socialdemocratic, not "conservative"
As a Spaniard interested in politics, when I opened the page and the first thing I read is that the party is "conservative and Christian-democratic" I am very surprised. I don't want to extend myself too much, but I think "socialdemocratic" is a much proper label and/or just "right-wing" for the following reasons.

The party greatly supports statal industry and services like healthcare, subsides, pensions, etc. Compared with the leftist party, PSOE, lets say PP is just more "reasonable" and more willing to make budgets more balanced. On a cultural plane, the party can be labeled as "technocratic" instead of "conservative", since their members keep a low profile on cultural issues instead of trying to impose a "conservative" agenda.

Finally, I think the labels "conservative and Christian-democratic" fit much better Vox, an actual conservative party with a conservative agenda like imposing inmigration restrictions, reducing the size of the state, defending conservative values like the life of a baby over abortion, bullfighting, just to name a few. So I request a change on the incorrect description of the PP party. 212.106.238.163 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, here your arguments do not matter anything, no matter how reasonable they are, if you can't support them with reference to good reliable sources (WP:RS). Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * We literally have seven academic sources referring to the party as conservative cited in this article. Helper201 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah... well, they all pre-date the last internal crysis in the party and the change of PP's national leadership team, so revisiting where the party stands now is not a non-sense. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I've seen no reliable sources that have stated the party is no longer conservative after its internal crisis or change of leadership team. We'd need some strong evidence for this to overturn 7 academic sources saying that's what the party is. Helper201 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)