‹
Economy and redistribution
99
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward higher redistribution and broader public services, even when that means a heavier tax load.
Position 10: Maximum redistribution and public services — high taxes fund a wide safety net, healthcare and schooling; cutting taxes is not the goal.
More
This model rests on the idea that society shares risks: those who are healthy and earning chip in for those who currently cannot. It means high contributions from higher earners and businesses, but also low charges at the doctor and strong social services. The risk is that some businesses or skilled people may move to countries with lower taxes.
Lower taxes, less redistribution
Higher redistribution, broader public services
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Public finance
58
vs. you
›
Investment and spending weigh more; a deficit is an acceptable price for concrete goals.
Position 6: Investment already weighs more — new infrastructure or crisis spending yes, even when the budget sometimes ends in a mild deficit.
More
This approach assumes good investment can pay back through economic growth and higher tax revenue. The price is higher interest costs and a thinner cushion for the next crisis. For towns it can mean easier access to money for modernising stations, sewers or sports grounds.
Priority on a balanced budget
Investment and spending even at a deficit
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Housing
100
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
82
vs. you
›
The stance pushes for faster emissions cuts even when that raises energy prices in the short run.
Position 8: Faster emissions cuts first — stronger support for renewables and tighter standards, even if energy costs rise short-term.
More
This view usually leads to stricter building standards, support for public transport, and limits on high-emission cars in cities. People working in clean energy gain, as do future generations facing lower climate risks. Those relying on a car or an old boiler will bear higher costs unless compensation schemes exist.
Short-term price and slower change
Faster emissions cuts
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
European integration
11
vs. you
›
Key decisions are preferred at home — shared EU policies are treated cautiously.
Position 1: National room clearly comes first: tax, farming and migration more in Prague than in Brussels; shared policies only where they must.
More
This approach preserves the ability to fit rules to local conditions, for example in supporting farmers or setting business taxes. On the other hand, it can be harder to make headway in EU negotiations when a country repeatedly stands aside. This view usually also leads to insisting that major EU changes require unanimity.
More decision-making at national level
More shared decision-making in the EU
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Defence and security
5
vs. you
›
Military commitments and spending stay low — collective defence is not a top budget priority.
Position 1: Military spending stays low; new foreign missions and large weapons buys feel like a burden, not a priority.
More
The savings show up mainly in big contracts — aircraft, armoured vehicles or radars — which would be postponed or cancelled. Civilian ministries and local councils could gain, for example for fire-service equipment or flood protection. The risk is ageing equipment, and catching up later tends to cost more. It also usually means reluctance to send troops abroad.
Lower military commitments and spending
Stronger collective defence and higher spending
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Migration and integration
12
vs. you
›
Admission of foreigners is framed with stricter rules and lower numbers rather than more open gates.
Position 1: Admission is clearly restrictive: low quotas, hard visa conditions and few new places; integration only for those already inside.
More
Authorities would focus mainly on screening and returns rather than expanding programmes. Towns would have fewer new residents needing school places or housing, but there could be gaps in construction, healthcare or social care. Families of foreigners already living here could find reunification harder.
Restrictive admission of foreigners
More open admission with integration support
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Social values
21
vs. you
›
It leans on traditional rules and institutions — changes in the name of individual autonomy are treated cautiously.
Position 2: Traditional rules and institutions — for example caution about changes to family law or the public role of churches.
More
In policy this leads to prioritising families with children and protecting established forms of partnership in law and in tax relief. For some people this means security and a clear framework; for others, such as same-sex couples, less equal treatment. It often comes with caution on issues like changing gender in documents or sex education in schools.
Traditional rules and institutions
Greater individual autonomy and equal rights
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Education
84
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward strong public schooling and equal access as the main line of education policy.
Position 8: Equal access as the main line — a strong state network, support for disadvantaged pupils, less selection by money.
More
Typically this means limiting selective places at an early age and raising the quality of catchment schools so parents have no reason to travel for a better one. The gain is less sorting of children by background; the downside may be fewer challenges for the most gifted if schools can't handle different paces. The state and regions carry most of the cost.
Smaller state role, selectivity, and private alternatives
Strong public schooling and equal access
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
