A friend and I discussed this in the synagogue last week. He was born in Hungary and my (mother's) family comes from Hungary (Transylvania).

The rise of the far-right Jobbik party is a problem. 68% for the conservative (not right-wing) party is good news but 12% for a right-wing party like Jobbik is a big problem.

15% for the Socialists it not good news. It's really not good news. It means that there is no balance at all between the two normal wings of European politics and this usually results in the minority party to become more radical, which in turn legitimises more radical parties who in turn become more powerful. And they are not good news!

The current situation in Europe is getting worse. While conservative parties enjoy a rebirth and stable leadership (Angela Merkel did miracles with the German Christian Democrats and remains one of the most popular politicians in Germany and Israel), the traditional social-democratic parties have fared badly. Instead of aggressively pushing a social-democratic agenda they have started turning to the far-left and have then lost votes to the newly-legitimised communist parties.

And between the communist and fascist parties in Europe we now see more than 30% of voters turn to the radicals. Hungary is a special case because the Socialists there have apparently skipped the step of simply losing elections and went right through to irrelevance.

If major socialist parties in Europe fall under 30% it doesn't mean that Europe becomes less socialist, it merely means that moderate parties no longer command the votes of crazy people. In Hungary's case many socialist voters turned to the conservative party, probably after seeing their social-democratic party becoming too radical. (The socialist party only got 18% of the vote in the European elections in 2009, so this is not a one-shot thing.)

While I consider a 68% victory for the conservatives a good thing, I cannot say that only 15% for the social democrats is good at all, and neither is any percentage of votes for the fascists.

Ideally the conservatives should have managed to steal voters from the fascists by presenting them western, European and Hungarian patriotism as a better choice than Hungarian ethnic nationalism. But they failed to do that. Instead they stole voters from the social democrats.

(But all-in-all 83% for conservatives and social democrats is good news.)

Agreed. The danger there is the winning party to become arrogant and overly powerful. That always lead to corruption and abuse of their mandate.

But I think the rise of right-wing parties in Europe is because of the increase number of immigrants, promoted by the economical elite, that clashes with the economical difficulties of the common worker (and thu, common voter), who feel robbed of their job.

Got a hard time projecting how that will influence the geopolitical area, however. Somebody knows the foreign policy difference between the ousted and the ousters?

What 'agenda' needs pushing?  Agendas are the problem, if you ask me.

It's a mixture of continental arrogance (immigrant stealing jobs is nonsense but a good excuse for one's own laziness) and misbehaviour of immigrants (but not of those who "steal jobs").

However, that's not where those right-wing parties recruit their followers.

The particular type of nasty immigrant who makes people become xenophobic is NOT opposed by the fascist parties and in fact open support for extremist Islam and terrorism is completely normal among fascist (and communist) parties.

And those who become tired of the increasing number of immigrants usually have nothing against, say, Vietnamese or Korean  immigrants and wouldn't vote for a party that, like the fascists, opposes those. Instead they want working immigrants (there is no fear of job-theft among those voters) and reject non-working immigrants (who don't "steal jobs" and) who bring their "own" culture (and laws).

Jobbik is an anti-Semitic party, not a anti-foreigner party. Their hatred is for Gipsies and Jews who have lived in Hungary for over a thousand years, not for recent immigrants that might have caused "unemployment" or "economical difficulties" for the "common worker". Hungary doesn't even have many immigrants; not compared to Germany or Britain anyway. And in both Germany and Britain support for fascist parties is much, much lower.

I don't know why people confuse fascists and anti-immigration parties. The Nazis in the 1930s were not against immigrants, they were against people who had been living in Germany for over a thousand years. They did not act against immigrants or even illegal immigrants, they acted against natives.

Similarly white supremacists (the American version of fascists) are not against immigration to the US, they are against non-whites, whether immigrant or native. It's too completely different ideologies.

Not a lot.

The socialists were in power in 2003 and supported George W. Bush. Both parties are generally pro-American. Jobbik is anti-American. I wouldn't expect major changes.

You know, I am trying to put those words as if you were talking about the immigration issue in the USA. The worst part is, it's not that hard.

I don't know what that means.

The latino immigration (legal or not) problem in the southern part of the USA. Much is said about the so-called high criminality among those aliens, and the fact that they steal job from the native workers.

And off course, some politicians use the issue as a battlehorse.

I don't think they steal jobs. How can anyone steal a job?

Anyway, there is a difference between being against liberal immigration laws because they might allow criminals go get in and being a fascist.

As they should.

But that's not what the Hungarian situation is about. Neither the conservatives nor the socialists are really for or against immigration in any extreme way. And Jobbik is not specifically against immigrants but against anyone who is not Hungarian (or German).

Yhea, sorry for distracting the argument.

anyway, someone knows what were the main issues involved in this election? Corruption?

First, Thanks to Leauki for an excellent analysis of the Hungarian elections.  (I will get back to that).

But second, and most pressing is the misconceptions contained in the statements above.  Clearly the problem is not is not isolated to the southern part (it is the entry point so is the most reported).  It permeates every state in the union (with the possible exceptions of Alaska and Hawaii due to their limited accessibility).  Second, a few thousand immigrants cannot compare to the 20 million in the USA and more coming in daily.  I cannot speak to the crime issue in Hungary or Germany, but the fact that almost half of the population of the prisons in California are illegal immigrants clearly demonstrates that there is a large criminal element in the 20 million.

Finally, while the issue of "stealing jobs" is a valid one, it is hardly the root of the movement to stop the inflow.  Due to the non-existence of health care and social programs in the USA, it is clear they are coming here for that, and that is the reason they are costing taxpayers about $200 billion annually.  The cost is born un-proportionally by the border states where they enter, to the degree that some localities and institutions have gone bankrupt (or are headed in that direction).

Finally, it is not about them "taking jobs" of Americans (again that is a part, but not the core issue), but due to their burden on the budgets of state and local governments (which unlike the bottomless pit of the federals, they are required to maintain balanced budgets), which causes those governments to lay off workers (they do not ask the nationality before firing them) that would normally be used to educate children or maintain the infrastructure.  Those are the lost jobs that most refer to. 

That is why the "immigration" problems in Europe are hardly comparable to the US.  Unless comparing a paint ball game with live ammo is valid as well.

Ok to the issue.  So then what becomes of those looking for the socialist alternative?  If the party is dragged to the fringe, would most of them not then go with the mainstream?  And in so doing, fracture that party into a left and right?  That appears to be the usual case, not of the now fringe party all of a sudden gaining some type of massive mandate.

I really tried to find that "fact" over the net, and yet, the highest figure I could find was 25%

Edit: And the majority of those were in prison for, guess what, violating immigration laws.

Cities with higher % of illegal immigrants have lower crime rates.

They split up.

Some vote for parties right of the former social democrats, some stay with the reformed (more left-wing) social democrats and some vote for a party left of the social democrats because that party has just been legitimised by the social democrats' move left.

Instead of 40% for a centre social democratic party (which was normal in Europe) you instead have 13% who switch their allegiance to communists, 13% who remain with the moved-left social democratic party and 13% who start voting conservative.

Sometimes the party fractures. In Germany the SPD lost thousands of members to a new group which ultimately combined with the east-German communists to form a "new" party (the third time that party gave itself a new name since the end of communism in Germany).

This fracture happened shortly after the SPD started moving left.

In Hungary, an east-European country, there was no group to the left of the socialists/social democrats and hence that part of the division did not happen and the voter base split two-ways instead.

So I assume that voters moved from the socialist party to the conservative party. The 11% for the right-wing radicals (Jobbik) came from people who usually don't vote or were simply not bright enough to decide for one of the two normal parties. But I don't think there was a specific movement of voters from socialist to Jobbik or from conservative to Jobbik.

Violating Immigration laws is a federal, not a state crime (except Arizona), so they may occupy a lot of the federal cells in California for that, but not the state cells.

And your last statement begs the question - where did that stat come from?

Still, with such a commanding majority (68% is veto proof in the states), you would expect the intra-party squabbling to eventually split it back into a left and right wing.  That would marginalize the kooks on either side (they would grow weaker, not stronger).

But we shall see.  Hungary is one of the strangest countries in Europe from what I read.  They do not know where the people came from as they do not seem to be slavic, or germanic and their language is the closest thing to Klingon on the planet!

In Europe, strength usually binds together.

Hungarians came from Siberia, with the Finns, Samis, and Estonians. The name we gave them is related to the word "Huns". In fact the vice chair of the socialist party's name is "Attila".