The discussion centers on political strategy and public policy in Poland, with Deputy spokesperson Urszula Rusecka from the ruling party weighing in on campaign dynamics and governance. She argues that real influence rests with voters at the ballot box, rather than with a leader who has already served two terms and whose pro-family policies faced criticism from the National Inspection Office led by a Platform member. She notes a lack of consistent support and accuses Donald Tusk of adopting a populist tone today.
Tusk “controls” PiS
The Civic Platform leader, Donald Tusk, aims to speed up the government’s rollout of the PiS 800+ program. He urges that the ruling party announce the plan during a weekend convention on Children’s Day, instead of the timing proposed by PiS president Jarosław Kaczyński for early 2024.
– Yaroslav, I’m checking you today – said the PO chairman to the PiS leader.
READ ALSO: Tusk’s populist move — instead of proposing his own idea, he announces the 800+ project will be submitted in June.
“put against the wall”
Requests for comment on the matter were directed to PiS deputy spokesperson Urszula Rusecka. She contends that it is bold for Civic Platform to claim capabilities for a major program they previously could not deliver. She suggests the claim comes from a former prime minister aware of the state budget realities.
She emphasizes accountability, noting that Law and Justice manages the budget conservatively. She recalls that under the PO, state assets were sold to fill the budget gaps, and pension funds were partially drawn to meet obligations. She argues against a narrative that would pit Law and Justice against the public’s interests.
Rusecka points to her past involvement in the first reading of 500 Plus and recalls how Civic Platform at the time commented on the funds, including remarks attributed to Donald Tusk about money being buried in Zakopane, which she views as an outdated perspective.
She observes that her party’s convention included experts and practitioners who contributed to a solid program for Poland, contrasting it with the impressions from Donald Tusk’s Krakow meeting, which she says offered nothing new beyond references to their own programs and the phrase “I’m checking.”
Rusecka reiterates that real governance should come from the public’s choices, not from political rhetoric or populist messaging, and stresses that the focus should be on responsible stewardship of the state and the economy.
“Pro-family policy,” said the Tusk administration
Rusecka references a National Audit Office report on pro-family policy from 2015, during a period when the chamber was led by a Platform figure. She asserts that the prior administration weakened the pro-family program and oversaw policies that excluded millions from support. She notes the poverty threshold as a key determinant of eligibility and argues that the prior approach did not adequately assist households in need.
She expresses astonishment at the perceived gap between the current party’s program and Tusk’s Krakow gathering. She notes that the current convention drew not only politicians but also experts, with a collaborative effort to craft a robust program for Poland, in contrast to the other event, which she views as lacking substantive new proposals.
Rusecka maintains that control should be in the hands of the voters, not in the hands of a former prime minister who previously governed with a different policy stance. The emphasis remains on strengthening families and ensuring budgetary discipline while pursuing pragmatic economic growth.
She highlights the economic context, including post-pandemic recovery, the war in Ukraine, and energy challenges, as essential factors shaping policy decisions. She notes that the economy has experienced substantial gains in various metrics and argues that the government has protected jobs and supported households during challenging times.
Rusecka adds that contemporary discussions around welfare programs should be grounded in real outcomes rather than rhetoric, pointing to unemployment rates and the administration’s efforts to sustain employment during economic stress. She implies that political opponents may mischaracterize social programs to appeal to a specific audience, rather than presenting a constructive plan for national progress.
The discussion closes with a reminder that political messaging often aims to influence perceptions about who benefits from social policy, and that substantive policy design must stand up to scrutiny and deliver tangible improvements for families and workers alike.
— attribution: wPolityce