‹
Economy and redistribution
72
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
74
vs. you
›
Investment and spending weigh more; a deficit is an acceptable price for concrete goals.
Position 7: You treat the deficit as the price of concrete goals: schools, rail or defence now, even if debt rises short-term.
More
In this case the state borrows for things meant to last decades, so future users share the repayment. The upside is faster improvement in services; the downside is growing interest costs that may later squeeze other spending. This view usually goes with an emphasis on long-term investment planning.
Priority on a balanced budget
Investment and spending even at a deficit
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Housing
97
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
91
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
91
vs. you
›
The stance rests on deeper shared decision-making in the EU rather than national autonomy.
Position 9: You want more decisions at EU level: common policies and fewer national brakes on tax, migration and security.
More
This view rests on the belief that smaller countries have more influence in Europe as part of a strong whole than on their own. It would mean strengthening the European Parliament and the Commission and weakening the veto. The risk is that some voters may see decision-making as distant and feel they have less control over it.
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
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
90
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward greater individual autonomy and equal rights over protecting traditional institutions.
Position 9: Individual autonomy leads: broad equal rights, less protection of traditional marriage forms or church influence in public policy.
More
The state should be neutral toward beliefs and lifestyles and should not favour any form of partnership. People outside the traditional frame would gain the same options as others; religious communities and traditionally minded people would lose some public support or symbolic recognition. It often comes with reviewing church funding and an emphasis on secular public institutions.
Traditional rules and institutions
Greater individual autonomy and equal rights
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Education
98
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
