When the party inevitably explodes due to internal bickering and/or simply failing to deliver their impossible promises, a new Messiah pops up, propped by the national media, and the cycle restarts.
That being said, the other 80% is somewhat consistent in their patterns.
The issue is that farage and boris have personality, and understand how the media works. Nobody else apart from blair does(possibly the ham toucher too.)
The Farage style parties fail because they are built around the cult of the leader, rather than the joint purpose of changing something. This is part of the reason why I'm not that hopeful about Starmer, as I'm not acutally sure what he stands for, so how are his ministers going to implement a policy based on bland soup?
The problem is that the election before last was a protest vote to keep the incumbents out at the expense of actual Governance - with thoroughly unsuitable Sinn Fein candidates elected as protest votes for 1st preferences, and by transfers in marginal rural constituencies thereafter.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/09/irish-voters-h...
Note that Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA and would be almost unheard of to hold any sort of meaningful majority in the Republic - but have garnered young peoples support in recent years based on fiscal fantasies of free housing and taxing high-earners even more.
This protest vote was aimed almost entirely at (rightly) destroying the influence of the Labour Party and the Greens due to successive unpopular taxes and DIE initiatives seen as self-aggrandizing and out of touch with their voting base. It saw first-timers, students, and even people on Holiday during the election get elected for Sinn Fein.
Fast-forward to today, and it quickly became evident what a disaster this was. Taking away those seats from Sinn Fein meant redistributing them elsewhere - and given the choices are basically AntiAusterityAlliance/PeopleBeforeProfit on the far-left, and a number of wildly racist and ethnonationalists like the NationalParty on the far-right, the electorate voted in force to bring in both 'moderate' incumbents on a damage-limitation basis.
https://www.politico.eu/article/irelands-elections-european-...
Tony Blair said at the 1996 Labour Part Conference:
> Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile
Starmer is a poor copy of Blair. None of them stand for anything. They say things that pleases enough people so they get elected, then they attempt to enact what they really want to do.
> The Farage style parties fail because they are built around the cult of the leader, rather than the joint purpose of changing something.
There is certainly that. However there are interviews with former Reform / UKIP members that held important positions in both parties. Some of said that Nigel Farage sabotages the party just when they are getting to the point where they could actually be a threat. Which leads some people to think that Nigel Farage is more of a pressure valve. I've not seen any proof of it presented, but it is plausible.
Saying that though, most of the candidates for other parties (not Labour / Conservative) are essentially the people that probably would have no cut it as a candidate in Conservative or Labour parties.
There's no world where the fascist checks sources before making a claim.
Just like ole Elon, who has regularly been proven wrong by Grok, to the point where they need to check what he thinks first before checking for sources.
He succeeded with UKIP as the goal was Brexit. He then left that single issue party, as it had served it's purpose and now recently started a second one seeing an opportunity.
Facism is a paranoid carnival that feeds on fear, scapegoating, and blood. That’s the historical record.
Fascism needs violence and racism as tools and moral glue to hold its contradictions together. It’s the myth-making and the permission slip for brutality that gives fascism its visceral pull, not some utopian goal of pure violence, but a promise of restored glory, cleansed nation, purified identity, and the righteous right to crush the other.
Fascism doesn’t chase violence like a dog after a stick. Im fact, it needs violence like a drunk needs a barstool. Strip out the promise of righteous fists and pure-blood fantasies, and the whole racket folds like a bad poker hand. Without the thrill of smashing skulls and blaming ‘the other guy,’ fascism’s just empty uniforms and a lousy flag collection.
Look at Mussolini: all that pomp about the Roman Empire while squads of Blackshirts bashed heads in the streets to keep people terrified and in line. Hitler wrapped his genocidal sadism in pseudo-science, fake grievances, and grand promises of ‘racial purity'...the point was never a coherent plan beyond expansion and domination.
You don't know much about the EU nor about fascism, why do you feel the need to opine on both while clearly showing you have no idea what you are talking about.
Educate yourself, it will make you a better person :)
I'd appreciate if you don't use a throwaway account for that though, I like to interact with people showing true colours, not hiding cowardly.
Yeah I generally meant that there are people who desire violence. Their targets of choice vary, be it along boundaries of race, sex, etc.
Fascism uses this reactionary tendency to amass a following. It's a weapon that is wielded inconsistently. Many Homosexuals were part of the early brown shirts. Hitler publicly said their sexuality wasn't opposed to Nazism.
These brownshirts would attack union meetings, violently break strikes, and generally act as an unofficial arm of violence for the Nazis. Once power had been gained, and enemies squashed, there was now an issue with their sexuality and the Nazi party acted as they are to do.
There's no logic behind the scapegoat. It's fluid and can change on a whim to suit the emotional reactions of whoever they're trying to garner support from.
Plus, even if it was a symbolic hatchet, I don't think many civilians would like the notion of their government mutilating them and feeding them to a fire.
“The coat of arms of Finland is a crowned lion on a red field, the right foreleg replaced with an armoured human arm brandishing a sword, trampling on a sabre with the hindpaws.”
But if it can be symbolic then the axe of the fasces (which, mind you, is a symbol of the Roman Empire, and not a fascist invention) is also symbolic.
Combined with a strong nationalistic and militaristic tendencies, this combination doesn't end in a way other than violence against the scapegoat.
Because fascism is incoherent, there's little to be gained from arguing with their adherents.