‹
Economy and redistribution
76
vs. you
›
The stance leans toward higher redistribution and broader public services, even when that means a heavier tax load.
Position 8: Broader public services even with higher taxes — a stronger social safety net and more accessible care and schooling paid for by heavier taxation.
More
The upside is that access to good care and education depends less on how much someone earns. Higher taxes, however, weigh on workers and firms, which may pass part of the cost into prices or wages. In practice this could mean shorter waits to see a doctor, smaller school classes or cheaper nurseries.
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
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
96
vs. you
›
The stance pushes for faster emissions cuts even when that raises energy prices in the short run.
Position 10: Maximum pace of emissions cuts — a fast exit from fossil sources and hard standards, even if household bills rise sharply short-term.
More
This approach treats climate change as the greatest long-term risk, one that needs action as soon as possible. In cities it would mean restricting cars, banning new fossil-fuel boilers, and large-scale installation of renewables. To keep the change socially bearable, compensation for poorer households is usually part of the plan; otherwise backlash and energy poverty loom.
Short-term price and slower change
Faster emissions cuts
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
European integration
79
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
60
vs. you
›
Stronger collective defence and higher spending already outrank holding back on the military.
Position 6: Stronger collective defence — higher spending, joint purchases with allies, less holding back on the military.
More
Buying together with allies can lower prices and make shared training easier, but it also means depending on joint decisions and suppliers. A larger defence budget has to come from somewhere — higher revenue, borrowing or savings elsewhere. This position usually also backs closer ties with the domestic defence industry and involving local firms in contracts.
Lower military commitments and spending
Stronger collective defence and higher spending
Change on this axis since 22 Sep 2026
‹
Migration and integration
71
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
78
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
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
