‹
Economy and redistribution
68
vs. you
›
Closer to broader public services: taxes and redistribution already weigh more than a drive to cut tax.
Position 7: You prefer a stronger safety net to tax relief — for example broader support for parents or healthcare, even with a more visible tax load.
More
A stronger net protects people through hard times such as illness, job loss or caring for a relative. But higher taxes also reach the middle class and can dampen the incentive to start a business or take on extra work. For a city it means more money for social services, outreach workers or respite care for families.
Lower taxes, less redistribution
Higher redistribution, broader public services
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Public finance
46
vs. you
›
Budget balance still leads, but selected investment is allowed if it does not break the whole.
Position 5: You mix balance and selective investment — save where you can, spend only on clearly chosen projects, without an extreme deficit.
More
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 budget
Investment and spending even at a deficit
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Housing
99
vs. you
›
Emphasis is on public construction and regulating the housing market as the main reply to affordability.
Position 10: Affordability is mainly for the state and towns — large public building, strong rent and market rules; developers are not the main answer.
More
This approach sees housing as a basic need rather than mainly an investment asset. Councils would become large landlords managing extensive housing stock, as some Western European cities do. It requires high public spending and good management; otherwise homes may be neglected and waiting lists grow long.
Private construction and looser rules
Public construction and market regulation
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Climate and energy
86
vs. you
›
The stance pushes for faster emissions cuts even when that raises energy prices in the short run.
Position 9: Emissions come first: a more aggressive coal phase-out, heavy investment in renewables and transport; price is a secondary cost.
More
This approach assumes the cost of change will pay back through less damage from drought, floods and heatwaves. The state and towns would invest heavily in grids, storage, rail and public transport. The risk is strong pressure on budgets and households, and possible resistance in regions where jobs depend on coal.
Short-term price and slower change
Faster emissions cuts
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
European integration
81
vs. you
›
The stance rests on deeper shared decision-making in the EU rather than national autonomy.
Position 8: Deeper integration — joint action on the budget, defence, or migration rather than national go-it-alone.
More
The upside is more strength in tackling problems individual states cannot solve alone, such as protecting external borders or energy security. The price is less autonomy for national governments and parliaments. This view usually also means openness to adopting the euro, joint borrowing for large projects, or shared responsibility for arriving migrants.
More decision-making at national level
More shared decision-making in the EU
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Defence and security
66
vs. you
›
Stronger collective defence and higher spending already outrank holding back on the military.
Position 7: Defence spending rises: modernising kit and a more active alliance role weigh more than civilian cuts elsewhere.
More
Modernisation could cover air defence, cyber security or new vehicles for land forces. The gain is higher readiness and a firmer place among allies; the cost is pressure on other parts of the budget and long commitments that outlast an electoral term. It often comes with readiness to send troops to allied exercises and missions.
Lower military commitments and spending
Stronger collective defence and higher spending
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Migration and integration
66
vs. you
›
More open admission and integration support already weigh more than a restrictive approach.
Position 7: More places and more active integration: family and work programmes weigh more than further tightening of visas.
More
Family reunification and work schemes encourage people to stay long-term and take part in local communities. The gain is workers for scarce professions and more stable families; demand rises for schools, doctors and affordable housing, especially in big cities. This view usually also supports teaching assistants for children of foreign families.
Restrictive admission of foreigners
More open admission with integration support
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Social values
80
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward greater individual autonomy and equal rights over protecting traditional institutions.
Position 8: Autonomy and equal rights first — expanding minority rights and a looser tie between state policy and traditional institutions.
More
This position usually leads to opening marriage to all couples and aligning the rights of different family arrangements. The gain is equal standing before the law; religious and conservative groups may feel their view of family loses backing from the state. It often comes with teaching that introduces pupils to different kinds of families.
Traditional rules and institutions
Greater individual autonomy and equal rights
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Education
96
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward strong public schooling and equal access as the main line of education policy.
Position 10: Maximum strong public schooling and equal access — the state network and support for the disadvantaged as the main line; selection by money is not the goal.
More
You see education as a public good that every child should get at comparable quality regardless of where they live or what their family earns. That means high and stable public spending, more uniform rules and probably limits on fee-paying routes. Children from weaker backgrounds may gain; families who prefer their own choice would have less room.
Smaller state role, selectivity, and private alternatives
Strong public schooling and equal access
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
