Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The world according to the five tier political compass Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Bezukhov)
    If only

    I wish there was a significant party ideologically between the Lib Dems and Conservatives; I think I'd fit in there quite well.
    Just make a choic betweeen your two local candidates. I dislike my Tory MP so I'll vote Liberal.


    That said I probably identify more as a conservative voter albeit one who supports PR and an end to victimless crimes (drugs, suicide, prostitution).


    Apart from that I agree with the Tories far more than I do with the lib Dems post Brexit. I don't care overmuch about data protection and CCTV and I find a lot of the lib Dems social positions absurd or/and loathsome.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think the mistake the quiz makes is it doesn't make the distinction as to why you support your country.

    So I'd presume the reason you support the UK (as well as the bledding obvious: it's your home) is because you think it's a great place to live because of the freedoms and institutions it enjoys such as the rule of law and parliamentary democracy)-and ideally you'd like everyone to be able to enjoy these things and that ultimately they are transferable to other nations.

    So therefore you think your culture is superior (nationalist) and is transferable to others (world federalist)



    The atypical ukip voter might be seen as being in the isolationist nativist spectrum in that they are either A) think we should focus purely on bettering the UK rather than the world and improve their condition of living or/and B are extremely sceptical about the idea of a European federation (let alone a world one!) either that it's impossible or simply evil (in that states are good in themselves rather than a means to an end.


    Rakas: sorry about the late reply, the site wasn't working.

    Think I've accounted for the problem RE intervention above. Completely agree with you Regarding the UN.

    The liberal/traditionalist measure...I'm not sure. I think a more detailed version of the test should take into account why you believe certain things i.e. Such as supporting a nuclear family because evidence suggests it produces the best results or because it's in the bible. This may explain me as I'm something of a reactionary atheist!
    I generally support a nuclear family because stable family units increase the fertility rate (most likely) which increases the labour force, which increases the tax base, which increases the available military budget, which increases our ability to shape the world according to our will.

    Many people have accepted since the end of empire that the UK should do nothing and stay out of other peoples problems. I (having a paternal One Nation streak) believe that we have a moral duty to intervene and bring liberty to the world. Even if that requires military means.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    You are a: Communist Totalitarian World-Federalist Nationalist Progressive
    Collectivism score: 100%
    Authoritarianism score: 100%
    Internationalism score: 100%
    Tribalism score: 33%
    Liberalism score: 50%



    Makes little sense to me as i viewed myself as right wing. i had assumed i'd get something like Right Wing Totalitarion Interventionist Nationalist progressive rather then what i did get.

    can someone explain to me what the hell that quiz called me? XD
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think the mistake the quiz makes is it doesn't make the distinction as to why you support your country.

    So I'd presume the reason you support the UK (as well as the bledding obvious: it's your home) is because you think it's a great place to live because of the freedoms and institutions it enjoys such as the rule of law and parliamentary democracy)-and ideally you'd like everyone to be able to enjoy these things and that ultimately they are transferable to other nations.

    So therefore you think your culture is superior (nationalist) and is transferable to others (world federalist)
    Haha, that's exactly it.

    In my view the west is culturally superior to the middle east, and that the opposite view would be mistaken. But at the same time, I could imagine ways the UK could be said to be inferior to yet other places. It's not that I'm nationalist - I just care about how people are treated and don't see culture as an excuse.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    The liberal/traditionalist measure...I'm not sure. I think a more detailed version of the test should take into account why you believe certain things i.e. Such as supporting a nuclear family because evidence suggests it produces the best results or because it's in the bible. This may explain me as I'm something of a reactionary atheist!
    I also agree with you here. When given a statement like, "The decline of traditional families has caused more harm than good," there are some real social problems caused, which may or may not be worth the price of individual freedoms gained.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I generally support a nuclear family because stable family units increase the fertility rate (most likely) which increases the labour force, which increases the tax base, which increases the available military budget, which increases our ability to shape the world according to our will.

    Many people have accepted since the end of empire that the UK should do nothing and stay out of other peoples problems. I (having a paternal One Nation streak) believe that we have a moral duty to intervene and bring liberty to the world. Even if that requires military means.
    There we go on then. You view it as a means to an end not as an end in itself such as a fundamentalist ie peter Hitchens would believe. Shows how a seemingly small ethical distinction does have much wider consequences into our belief systems.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeathGuardElite)
    You are a: Communist Totalitarian World-Federalist Nationalist Progressive
    Collectivism score: 100%
    Authoritarianism score: 100%
    Internationalism score: 100%
    Tribalism score: 33%
    Liberalism score: 50%



    Makes little sense to me as i viewed myself as right wing. i had assumed i'd get something like Right Wing Totalitarion Interventionist Nationalist progressive rather then what i did get.

    can someone explain to me what the hell that quiz called me? XD
    Bit of a confusing one. In the 40K universe the Tau empire would be very close to that description!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Bit of a confusing one. In the 40K universe the Tau empire would be very close to that description!
    Lucky for me i also play the Tau then lol.
    I'm struggling to wrap my head around what it said i was though as i cant think of a irl example.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    miser


    Are you familiar with Sam Harris?

    He offers an interesting view that might explain how to view political decisions- based primarily on evidence and rationalism rather than on subjective moral grounds. There are obviously some cases where some sort if moral arguments must apply (abortion being a good one) but I think Harris's method is pretty golden.

    Let me explain.

    Whilst political outcomes and some scientific outcomes are seen as subjective in some cases there is a degree of universality e.g. Health and food etc. For instance, whilst we may disagree on the best way to lead a healthy life style we can all agree that being a heroin junkie or having AIDS is not healthy.

    Take the same line with politics. I think we can find some absolutes that we think are universally wrong whilst being open to a degree of fkexibility.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    miser

    Are you familiar with Sam Harris?

    He offers an interesting view that might explain how to view political decisions- based primarily on evidence and rationalism rather than on subjective moral grounds. There are obviously some cases where some sort if moral arguments must apply (abortion being a good one) but I think Harris's method is pretty golden.

    Let me explain.

    Whilst political outcomes and some scientific outcomes are seen as subjective in some cases there is a degree of universality e.g. Health and food etc. For instance, whilst we may disagree on the best way to lead a healthy life style we can all agree that being a heroin junkie or having AIDS is not healthy.

    Take the same line with politics. I think we can find some absolutes that we think are universally wrong whilst being open to a degree of fkexibility.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
    Yes, he's one of the few people making sane sounds on a lot of topics these days.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Just make a choic betweeen your two local candidates. I dislike my Tory MP so I'll vote Liberal.


    That said I probably identify more as a conservative voter albeit one who supports PR and an end to victimless crimes (drugs, suicide, prostitution).


    Apart from that I agree with the Tories far more than I do with the lib Dems post Brexit. I don't care overmuch about data protection and CCTV and I find a lot of the lib Dems social positions absurd or/and loathsome.
    I live in a fairly safe Tory seat, so my choice won't really matter too much (go FPTP!)

    Yeah, on many fronts I'm closer to the Conservatives than Lib Dems, and Farron in particular is a bit too left wing for me. I agree with PR though, but I think a hybrid system may not be a bad idea to preserve the constituency system (maybe 50% by FPTP, and the remaining 50% by PR). I think this is preferable to making the Lords a wholly elected chamber, to maintain the chamber's independence, well of knowledge, and so that power is still concentrated in the Commons. I think victimless crimes should also end; I'd legalise prostitution so that workers can safely do it in registered locations and be taxed (it's going to happen regardless of whether it's legal or not); I think euthanasia should be legalised; and drug addiction should be treated by rehabilitative measures to make them productive citizens again.

    I don't necessarily agree with the Lib Dems demanding a second referendum, but equally I don't agree with May taking us out of the single market, but if we are to do this, it would probably be wise to leave the customs union - at least partially - so that we may negotiate our own trade deals. I'm more inclined toward safety than data protection, but I think the requirement that ISP's hold citizen data for up to a year is actually a security hazard, and will inevitably be targeted by hackers (who could try to blackmail people with it).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Bezukhov)
    I live in a fairly safe Tory seat, so my choice won't really matter too much (go FPTP!)

    Yeah, on many fronts I'm closer to the Conservatives than Lib Dems, and Farron in particular is a bit too left wing for me. I agree with PR though, but I think a hybrid system may not be a bad idea to preserve the constituency system (maybe 50% by FPTP, and the remaining 50% by PR). I think this is preferable to making the Lords a wholly elected chamber, to maintain the chamber's independence, well of knowledge, and so that power is still concentrated in the Commons. I think victimless crimes should also end; I'd legalise prostitution so that workers can safely do it in registered locations and be taxed (it's going to happen regardless of whether it's legal or not); I think euthanasia should be legalised; and drug addiction should be treated by rehabilitative measures to make them productive citizens again.
    Yeah again pretty much agree with this. Idearly I'd halve the lords, remove hereditary peers and bishops and make it virtually undemocratic ir at least very hard to remove people unless they've broken the law.




    I don't necessarily agree with the Lib Dems demanding a second referendum, but equally I don't agree with May taking us out of the single market (but if we are to do this, it would probably be wise to leave the customs union - at least partially - so that we may negotiate our own trade deals. I'm more inclined toward safety than data protection, but I think the requirement that ISP's hold citizen data for up to a year is actually a security hazard, and will inevitably be targeted by hackers (who could try to blackmail people with it).
    I'm not going to pretend I understand all the technical details involved with storing data - but u do know a lot of people are against it in principle wheras fir me if it works I don't care.

    I think May is right to take us out of the single market. Though I like and respect people like Ken Clarke the idea that the single market was removed from the EU referendum is a bit silly. Both sides said it meant leaving. I think people voted out primarily to severely limit immigration- even if it comes to suffering slightly economically. Also more importantly we need to leave the EU properly so that if it is a disaster (and I sincerely hope it isn't) we can apportion blame suitably in later elections and rejoin our European brethren.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Yeah again pretty much agree with this. Idearly I'd halve the lords, remove hereditary peers and bishops and make it virtually undemocratic ir at least very hard to remove people unless they've broken the law.

    I'm not going to pretend I understand all the technical details involved with storing data - but u do know a lot of people are against it in principle wheras fir me if it works I don't care.

    I think May is right to take us out of the single market. Though I like and respect people like Ken Clarke the idea that the single market was removed from the EU referendum is a bit silly. Both sides said it meant leaving. I think people voted out primarily to severely limit immigration- even if it comes to suffering slightly economically. Also more importantly we need to leave the EU properly so that if it is a disaster (and I sincerely hope it isn't) we can apportion blame suitably in later elections and rejoin our European brethren.
    Yeah removing hereditary peers is necessary to ensure that entry is only permitted to the Lords on merit, and removing the bishops is another step closer to secularism. Agree with this 100%. I'd also set up an independent Lords commission, to take the appointment entirely out of party hands (unless a specific person was needed to take up a ministerial role, but this should be subject to scrutiny by the commission). This way it will truly be based upon merit, knowledge and experience, and can provide good technical scrutiny of legislation.

    I don't mind the principle too much as long as it is carried out properly. For the reason specified above, I think keeping the data for a whole year is potentially dangerous. There is also no need for organisations like the Food Standards Agency to have access to it (which they do); it should be confined pretty much to GCHQ, MI5, MI6, and perhaps police forces at high levels. If it helps to keep the country safe though then it may well be necessary, and if you have nothing to hide then there's nothing to fear, I guess (except from hackers).

    Well, I'm an empiricist before anything else, and nearly all forecasts have predicted significant economic damage if leaving the single market is handled badly. Obviously these are just forecasts and will not be 100% accurate, but they've used statistical models and are professional economists, so are far better placed than I to comment on the issue, so it would be wise to follow their advice. Yeah, I think immigration (and sovereignty - but immigration certainly among the 'less sophisticated' circles* (am I allowed to say that?!)) was the pivotal factor that won the referendum for Leave. Nevertheless, we have a strange situation where a majority want to leave the EU, but a majority may well want to remain in the single market. Some leave voters wanted this, and I imagine most remain voters (I'd consider you to be very much in the minority with wanting to leave the SM) want to stay in the SM as well. So even if immigration or sovereignty are the issues that won the referendum... in absolute numbers single market membership likely still has the majority. So what should we do? It's a very complicated question, with no real correct answer. But I think it is in the national interest to remain in the SM, so I'm not currently the biggest Theresa May fan at the moment. We'll see though. I'm hoping in the long term that we may rejoin the EU, after its reformed a bit, but maybe this is just wishful thinking.

    *If anyone reading this takes it out of context, let me explain. Firstly, I actually agree that unchecked immigration is a big issue and it's one of the things that I am grateful leaving the single market will allow us to solve. What I meant to imply was, I imagine a lot of people won't have thought much about the more intricate details of sovereignty beyond "take back control", and I think it's reasonable to suggest that many in this group will be inclined to blame a lot of their problems on immigrants, rather than underlying domestic issues. This was not a quip at leave voters, so don't spear me pls
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Bezukhov)
    Yeah removing hereditary peers is necessary to ensure that entry is only permitted to the Lords on merit, and removing the bishops is another step closer to secularism. Agree with this 100%. I'd also set up an independent Lords commission, to take the appointment entirely out of party hands (unless a specific person was needed to take up a ministerial role, but this should be subject to scrutiny by the commission). This way it will truly be based upon merit, knowledge and experience, and can provide good technical scrutiny of legislation.

    I don't mind the principle too much as long as it is carried out properly. For the reason specified above, I think keeping the data for a whole year is potentially dangerous. There is also no need for organisations like the Food Standards Agency to have access to it (which they do); it should be confined pretty much to GCHQ, MI5, MI6, and perhaps police forces at high levels. If it helps to keep the country safe though then it may well be necessary, and if you have nothing to hide then there's nothing to fear, I guess (except from hackers).
    Very interesting. Yep I'd agree with all that.

    Well, I'm an empiricist before anything else, and nearly all forecasts have predicted significant economic damage if leaving the single market is handled badly. Obviously these are just forecasts and will not be 100% accurate, but they've used statistical models and are professional economists, so are far better placed than I to comment on the issue, so it would be wise to follow their advice.
    As I think I said in my last post: I think people voted to lower immigration even at a cost to the economy- I think there are far more Remain voters who think we should just outright leave
    Thsn there are Leave voters who think we should keep free movement.

    Yeah, I think immigration (and sovereignty - but immigration certainly among the 'less sophisticated' circles* (am I allowed to say that?!)) was the pivotal factor that won the referendum for Leave. Nevertheless, we have a strange situation where a majority want to leave the EU, but a majority may well want to remain in the single market. Some leave voters wanted this, and I imagine most remain voters (I'd consider you to be very much in the minority with wanting to leave the SM) want to stay in the SM as well. So even if immigration or sovereignty are the issues that won the referendum... in absolute numbers single market membership likely still has the majority. So what should we do? It's a very complicated question, with no real correct answer. But I think it is in the national interest to remain in the SM, so I'm not currently the biggest Theresa May fan at the moment. We'll see though.
    The whole sovereignty thing in my experience generally comes from people too embarrassed to admit it's immigration.


    I'm hoping in the long term that we may rejoin the EU, after its reformed a bit, but maybe this is just wishful thinking.
    We'll have to see how things play out. I'd actually be against joining now. Certainly if things go south.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a Conservative Libertarian Non-Interventionist Reactionary. Which seems fair.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Bezukhov)
    Yeah removing hereditary peers is necessary to ensure that entry is only permitted to the Lords on merit, and removing the bishops is another step closer to secularism. Agree with this 100%. I'd also set up an independent Lords commission, to take the appointment entirely out of party hands (unless a specific person was needed to take up a ministerial role, but this should be subject to scrutiny by the commission). This way it will truly be based upon merit, knowledge and experience, and can provide good technical scrutiny of legislation.
    This is the exact House of Lords reform I've wanted for years. Top tier stuff.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Conservative Libertarian Isolationist Cosmopolitan Progressive

    Collectivism score: -67%
    Authoritarianism score: -50%
    Internationalism score: -67%
    Tribalism score: -17%
    Liberalism score: 67%
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You are a: Conservative Libertarian World-Federalist Humanist Libertine

    Collectivism score: -67%
    Authoritarianism score: -67%
    Internationalism score: 83%
    Tribalism score: -50%
    Liberalism score: 83%

    Personally, would call myself a classical liberal but whatever... anyone else get this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "Donald Trump: Conservative pro government isolationist ultranationalist fundamentalist ":lol:
    what?!
    conservative? I guess so. I'd say "right wing" is a better label because he isn't this religious anti-gay typical republican zealot.
    "pro-government" I suppose so again, but not in an overly authoritarian or anti-libertarian sense. he believes in protectionism and an actual immigration policy being enforced. I'd say that wasn't authoritarian, but in some sense it is in favour of a "strong state", not a "big state".
    "isolationist" - no. sorry, but that's just not true. he's *more* isolationist than obama, but that's not saying much
    "ultra-nationalist" - ultra-nationalism is another word for fascism. trump is not a fascist. he is a nationalist, but not an "ultra-nationalist". enforcing an immigration policy in line with your foreign policy is NOT fascism.
    "fundamentalist" - in what respect? religious? ideology? he isn't a fundamentalist anything. his principles are kind of staggered.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PurpleNerple)
    "Donald Trump: Conservative pro government isolationist ultranationalist fundamentalist ":lol:
    what?!
    conservative? I guess so. I'd say "right wing" is a better label because he isn't this religious anti-gay typical republican zealot.
    "pro-government" I suppose so again, but not in an overly authoritarian or anti-libertarian sense. he believes in protectionism and an actual immigration policy being enforced. I'd say that wasn't authoritarian, but in some sense it is in favour of a "strong state", not a "big state".
    "isolationist" - no. sorry, but that's just not true. he's *more* isolationist than obama, but that's not saying much
    "ultra-nationalist" - ultra-nationalism is another word for fascism. trump is not a fascist. he is a nationalist, but not an "ultra-nationalist". enforcing an immigration policy in line with your foreign policy is NOT fascism.
    "fundamentalist" - in what respect? religious? ideology? he isn't a fundamentalist anything. his principles are kind of staggered.
    Conservative:in terms of economics
    Pro goververnment as you say
    Isolationist: not a ultra isolationist but somebody inclined to let things go unless the US clearly benefits for it
    Ultranationalist: Overtly patriotic
    Fundamentalist: pro life, anti drugs, anti gay marriage, harbouring after better times, I imagine he's an atheist but he's more than happy to support the religious right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am:


    Left-Leaning Authoritarian Isolationist Ultranationalist Moderate

    Good or Bad???
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.