The Parliament's vote to reduce the wellness contribution was not due to the deep conviction of KO, Poland 2050 and PSL that it is something that the state most needs present – although any part of the ruling coalition will favour the processes of creeping privatisation of wellness care, which will strengthen this decision – and that the government majority considered it beneficial to itself in the context of the presidential campaign.
The hoard was desperate for success
All those voting for the simplification of the contribution are liable for this political responsibility, but the political force most determined to bring about the change was the 3rd Road, especially Poland 2050. Again, it was not due to the fact that the Holowna organization – apart from exceptions like Richard Petru – is part of the government coalition, whose ideally closest is liberal populism and the desire to privatize public services, and due to the fact that it desperately needed any success, showing its impunity in the ruling coalition.
Because although it is fresh Left that most frequently collects punishments for deficiency of perpetuity in the government – and in the course of discussions about the contribution will collect again – it can at least boast of transportation free Christmas Eve is widow’s pension. There is uncertainty whether the first change is besides insignificant to announce a large political success around it, and whether the second 1 is indeed a good solution, but if not looked, they managed to do something. Poland 2050 has no akin success.
It may have been the “accidental Act” of Holownia, proposing a compromise on who in the ultimate Court is to regulation on the validity of the elections. However, she was vetoed by president Duda. If it wasn't for that, the Holovnia could now introduce itself as a statesman, a character of a truly presidential format, capable of guarding the Constitution, ascending above petty organization logic. Meanwhile, Duda's decision reinforced Holownia's desperation and his formation on the contribution.
Voting a simplification by the Sejm is the success he needed for Holownia. It is all the more crucial that Hołownia – like Zandberg – is positioned in this election in a contra to Sławomir Mentzen. Zandberg presents himself like anti-Mentzen, Hołownia – as a better Mentzen. Like Ryszard Petru in his run in 2023, Poland's leader 2050 tempts free marketplace voters, showing that he understands their desires and fulfills many of them without all the madness with which free marketplace solutions go in the Mentzen package.
What was the biggest game?
The Civic Coalition wanted to reduce the contribution for somewhat different reasons, although besides related to the optimization of the run strategy. Reversing the Polish Deal and eliminating the burden on entrepreneurs was 1 of the KO's promises in the elections. Entrepreneurs have a crucial representation in the electorate of this formation, and liberal populism inactive appeals to many non-elected voters of Platform and Coalition. It is worth remembering that the PO began its political life as a moderately conservative worldview anti-state party, free marketplace populism. The decision to cut the contribution so fits into the historical identity of the organization and surely will not harm Trzaskowski in the campaign, at least in the first round.
From the KO point of view, the script in which the Holovnia strengthens somewhat at the expense of Mentzen is besides not the worst. The Marshal of the Sejm will almost surely support the second circular of Trzaskowski, Mentzen will most likely not do so. The electorate, who will vote for Hołownia in the first round, will have a shorter way to defeat in order to support Trzaskovsky in the second circular than he would if he had supported Mentzen.
The PiS voted against a simplification in the contribution. Kaczyński raised very reasonable reservations about this issue, arguing that this change would make the Polish taxation and contribution strategy more regressive, contrary to the standards prevailing in practically all European countries.
Appreciating – I compose without irony – the words of the president, it is worth remembering that the PiS is cut off present from Polish Deal, in peculiar the changes it has made for entrepreneurs. This was 1 of the 3 main reasons for the decision to put in the presidential run not on Mateusz Morawiecki (who besides associated with lockdowns and The Green Deal), only on Karol Nawrocki. In fresh months, the Law and Justice have repeatedly made it clear that, in pursuit of the Confederate electorate, he is able to cut himself off from almost everyone – apart from household witnessing – pro-social solutions from 8 years of his rule.
The Law and Justice did not support a simplification in the wellness contribution not in defence of taxation progress, but in order to hinder Tusk's fulfilment of the electoral promise. 1 might wonder whether the absence of any Members during the vote was not strategic. The situation where the simplification of the contribution passes with opposition to the PiS is comparatively convenient for this party. If the Law and Justice organization together with the fresh Left blocked the change, Nawrocki would gotta explain in a dense way why the power behind it does not want to relieve entrepreneurs. His campaign's in adequate problem without it. For the Law and Justice, it would be best if Duda signed the bill so that the subject would fall from the afisz before the election.
Open to Zandberg?
So far, lowering the contribution is the biggest problem for Magdalena Biejat And the fresh Left. The organization has not survived specified a social media crisis and has not collected specified whips from its engaged commentariat since agreements with the Law and Justice on voting in favour of the European Recovery Plan.
The simplification in the contribution seems to confirm Adrian Zandberg's communicative of the failure of fresh Left in government. What is the point of this arrangement, since the fresh Left cannot block even the most antisocial moves of the government coalition? Biejat announces a fight to reverse changes in the Senate, but it is doubtful that it will be able to play anything here – attempts can further strengthen the impression of powerlessness of the organization and its candidate.
Zandberg's got quite a few work to do. He's already called on the president for veto. He should publically request a gathering with Andrzej Duda to be able to present his reasons to him. If the president meets him, it will strengthen the candidate's profile together. If he refuses and signs the bill, Zandberg will be able to attack the starving country's po-PiS duo, closing to the voices of the public. Together, there are no 69 Members to file a motion for a vote of distrust against the Minister of Leschina, and it would be risky to jointly submit it with the Law and Justice, but if the proposal had appeared in the Sejm before the elections, Zandberg would have had the chance to harass not only KO but besides his competitor from the fresh Left.
At the same time, the possible for specified mobilisation is limited by the popularity of the change voted by the Sejm. According to an IBRiS survey for “Rzeczpospolita” last November, as many as 72.8 percent of respondents support a simplification in the contribution to entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the top enthusiasm for this is among voters declaring... leftist views. It is powerfully supported by 22% of them, or alternatively by 61.7 percent. Only 9% are against, and 0.9% are against.
They are not necessarily the same people who voted for the Left in 2023. Investigations CBOS showed at the time, for example, that as many as 46 percent of KO voters declared leftist views. In Poland, the electorate declaring to be left-wing truly has liberal views.
The fresh Left electorate will be more skeptical of the simplification in contributions than a wider group of voters declaring left-wing views. For any part, the powerlessness of the fresh Left on this issue may be an argument for the first circular to vote in protest on Zandberg. But candidate Together should remember that active left-wing commentariat is not a broad left-wing electorate.
Right and swords
The decision on the contribution gives Zandberg a good excuse not to support any candidate in the second circular – especially if Duda signed the bill and Trzaskowski fought in the overtime with Nawrock. At the same time, it hinders the support of Trzaskowski Biejat.
For any of the left-wing voters, the premium plus suspension of the right to asylum that is adequate reason to resign from voting in the second round. Is that gonna endanger Trzaskowski? KO doesn't seem to care about this scenario. With a large advantage over Nawrock, the voice of a small, most progressive electorate may not matter, and it may be possible that this 1 will yet mobilize against the PiS candidate. Especially since it's hard to find any pro-social accents in his campaign.
Left – and this Biejat, and this Zandberg – is right in its criticism of wellness contributions. Unfortunately, it's not going to work politically.
