‹
Economy and redistribution
34
vs. you
›
Closer to lower taxes — redistribution is more targeted than universal, and broad services are not the main emphasis.
Position 3: Taxes stay modest; redistribution targets low incomes, not universal free services for the whole society.
More
Discounts and allowances would go mainly to low-income households, for example help with rent or school meals. People on middle and higher incomes would pay extra for some services. Such a system tends to be cheaper, but it requires means-testing and paperwork, and it can deter people who need help but feel ashamed to ask.
Lower taxes, less redistribution
Higher redistribution, broader public services
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Public finance
25
vs. you
›
A balanced budget and spending restraint come first — a deficit is treated as a problem, not a tool.
Position 3: Balance still leads; one or two necessary infrastructure repairs can fit, but not new large spending programmes.
More
You distinguish between spending that cannot wait and spending that can. A bridge at risk of collapse or a leaking school roof gets fixed, a new stadium or bypass does not. This saves money, but it can mean investment goes only into patching things up, leaving no room for broader modernisation.
Priority on a balanced budget
Investment and spending even at a deficit
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Housing
24
vs. you
›
The answer is sought more in private building and looser rules than in state construction or rent controls.
Position 2: More private construction — faster permits for projects, less rent regulation, and fewer state-built flats.
More
Shorter permitting would benefit developers and buyers alike, since long procedures add cost to every flat. Tenants, however, would have less protection, and the council would sell land rather than build on it. This approach bets that more supply will gradually make housing cheaper, though that can take time and not everyone will be able to afford it.
Private construction and looser rules
Public construction and market regulation
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Climate and energy
48
vs. you
›
Energy price still weighs more than accelerated emissions cuts, but goals are not shelved entirely.
Position 5: Energy price and emissions goals balance — a gradual fossil phase-out without cheap-energy-at-all-costs or a rapid price spike.
More
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 change
Faster emissions cuts
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
European integration
75
vs. you
›
Shared EU decision-making already weighs more; national opt-outs are not the main priority.
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
87
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward markedly stronger collective defence and higher military spending.
Position 9: Defence is a clear budget priority: markedly higher spending, joint purchases, and willingness for stronger alliance commitments.
More
Putting defence first spills into other areas: faster permits for military construction, support for the arms industry and more focus on resilient infrastructure. Security, defence firms and garrison regions benefit; other ministries pay, as their budgets grow more slowly. Overpriced contracts are a risk if oversight is weak.
Lower military commitments and spending
Stronger collective defence and higher spending
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Migration and integration
30
vs. you
›
Managed admission with an emphasis on limits — integration yes, but without a clear opening of entry.
Position 3: Managed admission with limits; language courses yes, but without a clear opening of entry or higher quotas.
More
Arrivals would follow the needs of the economy and the capacity of towns, for example only for occupations with long-term shortages. The upside is predictability for authorities and cities; the downside is slower filling of vacancies. Integration would rest mainly on a duty to learn the language and respect the rules, with state support limited to courses.
Restrictive admission of foreigners
More open admission with integration support
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Social values
35
vs. you
›
Tradition still leads, but limited shifts in individual rights are not ruled out.
Position 4: The traditional frame remains, yet you allow limited rights for couples or minorities without remaking whole institutions.
More
The distinction between marriage and other unions would remain, but practical inequalities could shrink, for example in joint care for a partner's child. Affected couples gain more certainty; for supporters of tradition it matters that the definition of family itself stays. Similarly, it would mean careful steps against discrimination without sweeping new laws.
Traditional rules and institutions
Greater individual autonomy and equal rights
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Education
93
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward strong public schooling and equal access as the main line of education policy.
Position 9: Public schooling and equal access lead: heavier support for weaker regions and pupils; private and selective paths step back.
More
In practice this would mean targeted funding for schools in deprived areas or regions losing teachers, and a bigger state role in running schools. It can help children who today often start at a disadvantage; supporters of choice may fear less diversity and flexibility. It often comes with tighter conditions for public funding of private schools.
Smaller state role, selectivity, and private alternatives
Strong public schooling and equal access
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
