‹
Economy and redistribution
no data
vs. you
›
No confident score for this axis yet — that is missing data, not the middle of the scale.
Position 5: Lower taxes and broader services balance for you — some money stays with people, some funds accessible public services, without an extreme either way.
More
In practice this means looking for a compromise on each budget line: cutting a tax here, keeping a proven service there. This approach is often politically workable, but it requires constantly revisiting what the state should and should not pay for. The result is usually gradual adjustment to circumstances rather than sweeping reform.
Lower taxes, less redistribution
Higher redistribution, broader public services
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
‹
Public finance
no data
vs. you
›
No confident score for this axis yet — that is missing data, not the middle of the scale.
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 27 Sep 2026
‹
Housing
no data
vs. you
›
No confident score for this axis yet — that is missing data, not the middle of the scale.
Position 5: Private and public paths complement each other — developer projects and municipal flats, without strong rent caps or full laisser-faire.
More
In practice new neighbourhoods might be built by developers, with the council reserving some flats for teachers, nurses or young families. The upside is having several tools at once; the downside is slower decision-making and disputes over who should build how much. This view usually goes with close cooperation between the city and investors.
Private construction and looser rules
Public construction and market regulation
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
‹
Climate and energy
47
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 27 Sep 2026
‹
European integration
44
vs. you
›
Membership is taken as given, but on important matters national room still beats deeper integration.
Position 4: You treat the Union as a frame; on new shared policies you want a national brake, not automatic deeper decision-making in Brussels.
More
Existing cooperation is fine, but you want to judge each further step on its own merits. The upside is control over the pace of change; the downside is a slower EU response in crises that call for quick joint action. In practice it can mean insisting on unanimity in new areas and a strong role for national parliaments.
More decision-making at national level
More shared decision-making in the EU
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
‹
Defence and security
46
vs. you
›
Commitments stay relatively modest; raising defence spending is treated cautiously.
Position 5: Mid-level commitments and spending — the army works and alliances hold, without cutting to the bone or jumping to 2% of GDP at all costs.
More
Defence competes for money with other ministries, and its share is set by a long-term plan rather than the mood of the moment. The upside is stability for both the military and civilian investment; the cost is that no side of the debate gets everything. In practice this means gradually replacing equipment while keeping up spending on schools, healthcare and transport.
Lower military commitments and spending
Stronger collective defence and higher spending
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
‹
Migration and integration
47
vs. you
›
Managed admission with an emphasis on limits — integration yes, but without a clear opening of entry.
Position 5: Managed admission with a middle openness — clear entry rules and integration support, without full closure or wide opening.
More
This approach usually rests on a clear mix of rights and duties — permits based on labour-market needs, alongside courses and advice. The upside is predictability for employers and towns; the cost is that people wanting a stricter regime and those wanting a looser one both stay partly dissatisfied. It often includes efforts to speed up official procedures.
Restrictive admission of foreigners
More open admission with integration support
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
‹
Social values
no data
vs. you
›
No confident score for this axis yet — that is missing data, not the middle of the scale.
Position 5: Tradition and individual autonomy balance — limited rights expansion yes, without tearing down traditional institutions or jumping to maximum freedom.
More
You tend to decide case by case: where a change solves a concrete problem you support it, where it would alter the symbolic basis of institutions you hold back. The upside is less polarisation; the cost is compromises that fully satisfy no side. In practice this might mean extending the rights of registered partners without necessarily changing marriage.
Traditional rules and institutions
Greater individual autonomy and equal rights
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
‹
Education
no data
vs. you
›
No confident score for this axis yet — that is missing data, not the middle of the scale.
Position 5: Public schooling and private alternatives complement each other — choice and basic equal access, without extreme selectivity or flat levelling.
More
Decisions would often be pragmatic: build public schools where places are short, and don't block alternatives where there is interest. The upside is variety without big swings; the cost is a compromise that may satisfy neither supporters of selection nor supporters of full equality. In a big city this may mean new municipal schools running alongside private projects.
Smaller state role, selectivity, and private alternatives
Strong public schooling and equal access
Change on this axis since 27 Sep 2026
