A pointed, live debate unfolded in a Polish television studio as MPs Adam Luboński, representing Polska2050, and Andrzej Kolorowniak from PiS exchanged sharp comments about Szymon Hołownia and then shifted to discuss the contested issue of raising the retirement age and the election pledges of the current ruling coalition.
“Mr Kolorowniak called Szymon Hołownia a terrible hypocrite,” summarized Jakub Maciejewski, the PiS moderator, and then invited Luboński to respond. The exchange touched on comments made by the party leader in the pre-election period, including opposition to abortion, a pledge not to form a coalition with Michał Kołodziejczak, and plans to create student dormitories for a symbolic zloty. The PiS MP listed promises Hołownia had allegedly failed to deliver. Luboński pushed back, defending the head of his party while accusing the United Right government of being dominated by the PiS president, and he highlighted the burden of a large national debt left by the previous administration. Kolorowniak fired back with his own critique.
“We delivered Poland into a solid position: strong GDP growth, one of the lowest public debts in Europe, and unemployment that was among the lowest in Europe,” he asserted. “What more do you want, as if we should leave gold bars behind for you to use?”
The broadcast also featured a statement from Minister Katarzyna Pełczyńska-Nałęcz, representing Polska2050, who supported the idea of equalizing the retirement age for men and women. “Now tell the women who are watching us that they must work until they are 67,” Maciejewski pressed the Third Way MP. Luboński responded forcefully, asserting that the minister did not announce changes to pensions but rather discussed a broader long-term economic necessity. He implied that the political debate should not be reduced to a single policy point but viewed within a larger fiscal framework.
Kolorowniak followed with his own warning: if the government cannot improve efficiency in tax collection and broaden the tax base, it will seek to extend working hours for everyone, regardless of whether individuals are prepared or able to cope with the demands. The two lawmakers did not find common ground on the core questions, and they kept returning to how promises should be evaluated, and on what timetable these promises might be fulfilled. Luboński emphasized the need to grant the government time to implement its ideas, while Kolorowniak argued that a precise window — roughly a hundred days — would be a reasonable period to measure progress.
The core of the discussion centered on how credible the coalition’s pledges might be and whether political actors could be held to a clear deadline, particularly in light of the mixed signals surrounding pension policy and retirement age. The dialogue underscored a broader political clash over fiscal responsibility, social spending, and the pace of reform, with each side presenting statistics and projections to support their stance. The format allowed both MPs to challenge each other while inviting the host to situate the debate within the wider landscape of party platforms and public expectations.
Audience members were invited to judge the persuasiveness of the arguments themselves. The exchange did not resolve the disputes, but it did illuminate the tensions between promising economic growth and managing the costs that come with policy changes. The discussion highlighted how the retirement age issue intersects with tax policy, labor market dynamics, and the political calculus of governing coalitions.
In the end, the participants left the viewers with a question to consider: which side offered the more convincing path forward on pensions, growth, and timeframes for delivering promised reforms? The questions remained open, inviting further scrutiny from the public and from political analysts observing the ongoing policy debate.