“The windmill scandal, a quarrel in the Sejm with MP Braun… You can call it a coalition of chaos,” stated PiS MP Zbigniew Kuźmiuk during the program Gość Wiadomości on TVP Info, reflecting a sharp critique of recent parliamentary maneuvering.
Since the start of this term, Mr. Braun has enjoyed an unusually broad latitude. Observers watched with growing astonishment as events unfolded, culminating in a dramatic moment when candles were extinguished by a fire extinguisher, igniting a controversy of epic proportions.
MEP Bogusław Liberadzki adopted a markedly different tone, offering an alternative assessment of the early days of the new government. He asserted that five days into the administration, five concrete achievements had already been realized, outlining what he saw as meaningful progress for the coalition in power.
– a left-leaning member of parliament offered this perspective, highlighting contrasts within the national debate.
Riposte
Liberadzki later recalled more than 800 detailed points in the discussion. Kuźmiuk countered with a firm rebuttal, arguing that the scale of the claimed accomplishments did little to absolve the government of allegations of mismanagement.
He described the situation as an extraordinary scandal and pointed to a program that has persisted since 2016. He noted that PLN 250 billion had already been allocated to families with children and that benefits had been increased, with additional budget provisions set aside to sustain these measures.
For Kuźmiuk, this was proof that flagship PiS policies had been advanced for seven years and deserved acknowledgment, while he criticized any attempts to portray recent moves as accidental or purely opportunistic.
Regarding the wind farm policy, Kuźmiuk framed the matter as a key example of ongoing political contention. He argued that price freezes were necessary and accused opposition parties of introducing changes that disrupted the market. He described the early days of the new coalition as far from ideal and not the best possible start for any government.
Liberadzki pushed back, saying the debate exaggerated the significance of the moment. He noted that the June 1 proposal to introduce the wind farm measure had been rejected, and that the new coalition had indicated it would suspend the benefit. He added that no funds had flowed in as of yet and that discussions about updating rates remained on the table.
He argued that the government, despite being only in its infancy, could not be judged by allegations of scandal, urging a fair assessment of the situation as the administration began to take shape and begin its work.
Kuźmiuk responded by reiterating that the government was attempting to seize policies developed and implemented by the PiS administration, a claim he framed as evidence of overreach and a shift away from previous arrangements.
Smolensk Subcommittee and curator Nowak
The Smolensk Subcommittee topic also arose in the exchange. Some participants described certain decisions as startling, suggesting that if a new agreement with Russian partners and the status of Anodina’s report persisted, the situation could become a larger scandal than expected.
Kuźmiuk also drew attention to the dismissal of Barbara Nowak, the Chief Inspector of Education in Małopolska. He characterized Nowak’s removal as histrionic and pointed to the practice of firing a prominent official during a press conference, calling the move almost scandalous by any reasonable standard.
Liberadzki offered a different interpretation, arguing that the subcommittee had spent tens of millions of zlotys with little observable effect, making the closure seem sensible to many observers. He noted that the curator’s appointment had been controversial and that the subsequent cancellation had been announced during the conference, raising questions about how different this process was under the prior government. He framed the matter as a question of how it was handled, not a surprise in any event.
Both sides described the curator’s reputation as damaged, with Nowak’s name attached to ongoing disputes within the education sector. Kuźmiuk responded by insisting that the minister of education bore responsibility for the damage to the curator’s good name, framing the controversy as a symptom of broader governance problems.
Turning to the Smolensk disaster, Kuźmiuk asserted that evidence showed the plane exploded in flight and mentioned the existence of documents supporting this claim. He argued that the investigation had not concluded because the wreck symbolically remained unavailable for examination, attributing the delay to a decision by the minister involved in the inquiry, stressing the persistent sense of unfinished business in the public discourse.
As the discussion drew to a close, the program’s participants acknowledged the complexity of the issues at hand. The exchange reflected a charged political environment in which competing narratives battled over responsibility, accountability, and the direction of national policy. The dialogue illustrated how different factions described the same events through divergent lenses, shaping public perception in real time. For observers, the episode underscored the friction between governing coalitions and opposition voices, and the ongoing contest over how best to interpret and respond to a rapidly evolving political landscape. [citation: wPolityce]
gah/TVP-info
Source: wPolityce [citation: wPolityce]”}