Tap an axis on the radar and use the slider to show where you lean between two poles. It is a position, not a grade.
Scale 0–10: 0 = pole A, 5 = centre, 10 = pole B.
Your radar
Click an axis on the spider. The polygon only includes axes you have answered — unanswered axes are not drawn as the middle.
You
5not set
Lower taxes and broader services balance for you — some money stays with people, some funds accessible public services, without an extreme either way.
In practice this means looking for a compromise on each budget line: cutting a tax here, keeping a proven service there. This approach is often politically workable, but it requires constantly revisiting what the state should and should not pay for. The result is usually gradual adjustment to circumstances rather than sweeping reform.
Lower taxes, less redistributionHigher redistribution, broader public services
5not set
You mix balance and selective investment — save where you can, spend only on clearly chosen projects, without an extreme deficit.
This approach requires being able to say which projects go first and which wait, and to defend that choice. The upside is flexibility: save in good years, invest more in bad ones. The risk is that without a clear rule the budget easily drifts one way or the other under the pressure of the moment.
Priority on a balanced budgetInvestment and spending even at a deficit
5not set
Private and public paths complement each other — developer projects and municipal flats, without strong rent caps or full laisser-faire.
In practice new neighbourhoods might be built by developers, with the council reserving some flats for teachers, nurses or young families. The upside is having several tools at once; the downside is slower decision-making and disputes over who should build how much. This view usually goes with close cooperation between the city and investors.
Private construction and looser rulesPublic construction and market regulation
5not set
Energy price and emissions goals balance — a gradual fossil phase-out without cheap-energy-at-all-costs or a rapid price spike.
This approach looks for measures that cut both emissions and costs, such as energy savings in public buildings. The upside is predictability for firms and households, who can prepare for change. The risk is that a compromise pace may fall short of commitments and satisfy neither those who want cheap energy nor those who want rapid change.
Short-term price and slower changeFaster emissions cuts
5not set
Membership with a balanced share — some things together in the EU, sensitive topics stay at home, without pushing to one side.
In practice this means judging each area separately: for example joint action on external borders or energy, but domestic decisions on schools or social policy. The upside is pragmatism; the downside is uncertainty about exactly where to draw the line. This view tends to stay open to discussing the euro and further steps based on concrete benefits.
More decision-making at national levelMore shared decision-making in the EU
5not set
Mid-level commitments and spending — the army works and alliances hold, without cutting to the bone or jumping to 2% of GDP at all costs.
Defence competes for money with other ministries, and its share is set by a long-term plan rather than the mood of the moment. The upside is stability for both the military and civilian investment; the cost is that no side of the debate gets everything. In practice this means gradually replacing equipment while keeping up spending on schools, healthcare and transport.
Lower military commitments and spendingStronger collective defence and higher spending
5not set
Managed admission with a middle openness — clear entry rules and integration support, without full closure or wide opening.
This approach usually rests on a clear mix of rights and duties — permits based on labour-market needs, alongside courses and advice. The upside is predictability for employers and towns; the cost is that people wanting a stricter regime and those wanting a looser one both stay partly dissatisfied. It often includes efforts to speed up official procedures.
Restrictive admission of foreignersMore open admission with integration support
5not set
Tradition and individual autonomy balance — limited rights expansion yes, without tearing down traditional institutions or jumping to maximum freedom.
You tend to decide case by case: where a change solves a concrete problem you support it, where it would alter the symbolic basis of institutions you hold back. The upside is less polarisation; the cost is compromises that fully satisfy no side. In practice this might mean extending the rights of registered partners without necessarily changing marriage.
Traditional rules and institutionsGreater individual autonomy and equal rights
5not set
Public schooling and private alternatives complement each other — choice and basic equal access, without extreme selectivity or flat levelling.
Decisions would often be pragmatic: build public schools where places are short, and don't block alternatives where there is interest. The upside is variety without big swings; the cost is a compromise that may satisfy neither supporters of selection nor supporters of full equality. In a big city this may mean new municipal schools running alongside private projects.
Smaller state role, selectivity, and private alternativesStrong public schooling and equal access
We only store cookies required to run the site and keep your Find a match answers. Visit counts use our own Plausible, with no cookies and no other processors. Details