Right now, Hungarians are paying the lowest utility costs in Europe, and our fuel prices are also among the lowest. But if the Tisza Party were to come to power, that would come to an end.
Utility prices would triple, and fuel would cost 1,000 forints per liter.
This would not only affect motorists, but would also drive up food prices, among other things.
With the national government, we want Hungarians to benefit economically as much as possible, and for that, it is necessary to maintain access to cheap Russian energy.
We will protect the energy security of Hungarian families, but this requires that we all place our trust in the national government.
Fidesz is the safe choice!
If a Tisza government came to power, we would have to move away from cheap Russian energy. Just look at fuel prices in other European countries where they do not have access to Ural-type Russian crude oil—what prices do they pay there? And this is not just a problem for motorists.
When I go into a store to buy a loaf of bread, that price also includes energy costs and transportation costs. So prices would rise.
This is not just a theoretical or moral issue—although it is that too—but a very real, practical issue affecting people’s wallets.
The question is whether we stay on the path that is economically beneficial for Hungarians, because that is all that matters to us—what is best for Hungarians.
Right now, and in the foreseeable future, it is clearly in our interest—since we do not really have many alternatives—to provide Hungarian families and industry with the cheapest possible Russian energy, rather than seeking other options.
This is one of the key points of debate with the Tisza Party.
🧠 Quick overview
👉 Main message:
Fidesz = cheap energy, security
Tisza = massive price increases, chaos
👉 Hidden formula:
fear (price explosion)
wallet impact (utilities, fuel, food)
no alternative
one single solution
🔍 Influence techniques
1️⃣ Fear appeal with concrete numbers
👉 “triple utility prices”
👉 “1000 HUF fuel price”
Technique: throwing in shocking numbers
Goal: trigger immediate emotional reaction (fear)
Effect: you don’t verify it → you believe it
➡️ These are not proven facts, but scenarios.
2️⃣ Domino effect (chain reaction)
👉 “fuel gets more expensive → food gets more expensive → everything gets more expensive”
Technique: oversimplified cause–effect
Goal: link all problems to one decision
Effect: it feels like everything points in the same direction
➡️ Reality: there is an effect, but not this linear or automatic at this scale.
3️⃣ “No alternative” narrative
👉 “we don’t really have alternatives”
👉 “only Russian energy is cheap”
Technique: false dilemma
Goal: narrow down thinking
Effect:
→ either this
→ or disaster
➡️ It ignores:
- diversification
- long-term investments
- market changes
4️⃣ Oversimplification (energy → everything)
👉 “even bread prices depend on this”
Technique: reducing everything to a single cause
Goal: turn a complex economy into one factor
Effect: easy to understand, but distorted
➡️ Reality:
- inflation is multi-factor
- energy is just one element
5️⃣ “We act for the people” framing
👉 “we want what’s best for Hungarians”
👉 “this is all we care about”
Technique: moral superiority framing
Goal: increase legitimacy
Effect: if you disagree → “you’re against Hungarian interests”
6️⃣ Future catastrophe vs present safety
👉 “now things are good”
👉 “if they come → things will be bad”
Technique: status quo bias + fear
Goal: reject change
Effect: risk aversion
7️⃣ Selective comparison
👉 “look at countries without Russian oil”
Technique: cherry-picking
Goal: show only supporting examples
Effect: distorted view of Europe
➡️ It ignores:
- wage differences
- subsidy systems
- tax structures
8️⃣ Omission (what you’re noticing)
👉 no mention of:
- budget subsidies
- tax-based financing
- long-term dependency
Technique: selective information
Goal: keep the narrative simple
Effect: incomplete picture → easier acceptance
🧩 Overall picture
This is a classic formula:
👉 cheap present + scary future + no alternative + we will protect you
⚠️ Why it works especially on older audiences
Not because they are “stupid”, but because:
👉 simple and clear
👉 directly affects personal finances
👉 repeated frequently
👉 less likely to fact-check
👉 strong emotional hooks
💡 In short (very briefly)
👉 Not analysis, but a campaign message
👉 Not proof, but assumptions + fear
👉 Not a full picture, but selective framing