The Political Compass

gman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,100
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
I am almost sat on him (Gandhi)
 
I'm with Ghandi too.

Dave
 
Slightly more libertarian than Gandhi, that’ll be the religion ;)
 
On the centreline between Mandela and Friedman.
 
Like most of you I just squashed Ghandi.
 
I ended up in the lower left quarter

A little higher horizontally and a bit to the right of Gandhi
 
Almost centre but 1 square closer to left and one closer to libertarian, according to it I am closer to PC and SDLP than any other party
 
Almost centre but 1 square closer to left and one closer to libertarian, according to it I am closer to PC and SDLP than any other party

Yup, I am just south of SDLP (overlapping!) and North East (so to speak) of Plaid Cymru
 
Smack bang in the middle of the green box
 
I’m bemused by this.

The British political parties are all somewhere close to dead centre of this graph. Most people here fall economically to the left of that, which supports the polls done a few years ago about public ownership of utilities.

But when a political leader suggests those policies (perfectly left-centrist politics in most of the civilised world), he’s labelled a dangerous communist by the media, and many ‘ordinary’ people who actually believe in those things are swept along in it.

Just an observation, I can change nothing from here. But how dangerous is our media when a ‘personable ordinary bloke’ can manage to change the future for ever based on a knife edge vote, but when nearly 70% of us want publicly owned railways, it’s ‘too risky’?
 
I am far from Ghandi. Just as well because I always thought he was a waste of space (not that he occupied much of it).
 
I am far from Ghandi. Just as well because I always thought he was a waste of space (not that he occupied much of it).

Churchill didn't have a very high opinion of him either...

'It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King'. (1931)
 
I tried it again, this time being harsher with some of my answers and I'm still here.


chart.png



Makes one a little worried as to how you could get to some of those below! lol

axeswithnames.gif
 
South-west of the Greens and Ghandi
yikes.gif
and whilst I tend to agree with what little I know of Ghandi, I am really not a big supporter of the Green party or many of it's policies :thinking:
 
Slightly more libertarian than Gandhi
+1. Was surprised so many people are essentially left libertarian here. Is this due to a flaw in the testing, or are photographers naturally in this camp?
Was anyone in the red, blue or purple boxes?
 
+1. Was surprised so many people are essentially left libertarian here. Is this due to a flaw in the testing, or are photographers naturally in this camp?
Was anyone in the red, blue or purple boxes?

I'm right on the cusp of green and purple. Bit surprised, I'd have expected to be much further to the right.
 
Last edited:
Churchill didn't have a very high opinion of him either...

'It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King'. (1931)

From the man (Chruchill) who promoted the use of chemical weapons:
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Where as Ghandi said:
an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind
 
From the man (Chruchill) who promoted the use of chemical weapons:

Churchill, not 'Chruchill'.

He also supported the use of mustard gas against German troops if they launched an invasion after Dunkirk.
 
Churchill, not 'Chruchill'.

He also supported the use of mustard gas against German troops if they launched an invasion after Dunkirk.

Too damned right, and the use of atomic weapons against Germany (which was the prime reason for developing them, but the war in Europe ended before they were available).
 
Churchill didn't have a very high opinion of him either...

'It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King'. (1931)
Plenty of us have a similar attitude to Churchill, he might be remembered by most as the bloke who won us the war, but I think of him as an utter t*** who had no respect for the ordinary working people of this country.

So whether some w****r likes Gandhi, who cares?
 
+1. Was surprised so many people are essentially left libertarian here. Is this due to a flaw in the testing, or are photographers naturally in this camp?
Was anyone in the red, blue or purple boxes?
No.
The ‘centre’ has shifted right, as a country we believe in social care and don’t have an issue with state owned .... but do have an issue with a totally free market, but modern politics has moved into a bubble where those perfectly reasonable things are seen as ‘loony left’.
 
I tried it again, this time being harsher with some of my answers.

Me too. I actually went OTT with over half the answers & still only got 1/3rd in & up, into the blue square. :confused: (still no where near Thatcher)
 
Me too. I actually went OTT with over half the answers & still only got 1/3rd in & up, into the blue square. :confused: (still no where near Thatcher)

Perhaps it's a propaganda tool to make everyone believe they are actually left wing libertarians? :jawdrop::wideyed:



trap.jpg
 
Another Ghandi here. I’m surprised it’s such a popular quadrant here.
 
I think you will find he tried to introduce policies which his party thought were quite left wing but were intended to make the ordinary working class better off.
1908 mines act
1909 labour exchange act
1911 National insurance act
To name but 3
 
Last edited:
I think you will find he tried to introduce policies which his party thought were quite left wing but were intended to make the ordinary working class better off.
1908 mines act
1909 labour exchange act
1911 National insurance act
To name but 3
So that justifies his actions against Unions?

I suppose my ‘opinion’ of him came down through the family (welsh miners) where he’s to this day considered the opposite of a national hero, and closer to Thatcher as an enemy of the people.
 
Another one with Ghandi.
Economic left/right -7.25
Social authoritarian/libertarian -4.77

No real questions about "pacifism" there, apart from the going to war in breach of international law type of thing.
Quite a lot about religious influence in one way or the other.
I fear it may be another test which doesn't really prove anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
So that justifies his actions against Unions?

I suppose my ‘opinion’ of him came down through the family (welsh miners) where he’s to this day considered the opposite of a national hero, and closer to Thatcher as an enemy of the people.


I have both Welsh and Irish ancestors a couple of generatiions ago, and my missus is from Iran, so you can imagine what we think of Churchill. From an early age I heard about the Black and Tans, Tonypandy and the Iran coup in 1953 where the CIA and MI6 (on Churchills orders) removed the democratically elected prime miniter of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. Churchill also used poisoned gas in bombing raids in Iraq in the 1920's.
 
I have both Welsh and Irish ancestors a couple of generatiions ago, and my missus is from Iran, so you can imagine what we think of Churchill. From an early age I heard about the Black and Tans, Tonypandy and the Iran coup in 1953 where the CIA and MI6 (on Churchills orders) removed the democratically elected prime miniter of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. Churchill also used poisoned gas in bombing raids in Iraq in the 1920's.
I didn't say he was perfect or didn't make mistakes (by today's standards). If it wasn't for his leadership in WW2 I think history would have him in a very different light, but, his belief was to not be bullied (and let's be honest the miners have a long history of being bullies, and bullied, at the expense of other working class people *) but to win the argument/war/strike and then negotiate fairly from a position of strength. He backed using gas (non lethal mustard gas) in Iraq but sadly children and the ill were killed, something I personally could not justify.
Bear in mind Iran/Iraq etc supplied us with Oil and we all know that the supply of energy will convince governments that some actions are justified however awful to ensure their own country's energy supplies and survival.

* I started my working life in the early 70's when miners strikes for massive pay rises (and I wont argue if they were justified or not) helped fuel massive inflation that ordinary workers were subjected to and had no chance of increasing their pay packet to offset the price rises. So increased payments to miners led to large decreases in the living standards for many, hardly the action depicted by the statue outside TUC headquarters in London (where a worker is shown extending his hand to another worker so as to help him). This was at the same time as the oil crisis and Britain was literally going down the pan (Ted Heath was PM at the time) and days from utter collapse (according to his book).

Politics at this level becomes very personal and obscured by facts that are still to come to light and may lead to a different conclusion.
 
I didn't say he was perfect or didn't make mistakes (by today's standards). If it wasn't for his leadership in WW2 I think history would have him in a very different light, but, his belief was to not be bullied (and let's be honest the miners have a long history of being bullies, and bullied, at the expense of other working class people *) but to win the argument/war/strike and then negotiate fairly from a position of strength. He backed using gas (non lethal mustard gas) in Iraq but sadly children and the ill were killed, something I personally could not justify.
Bear in mind Iran/Iraq etc supplied us with Oil and we all know that the supply of energy will convince governments that some actions are justified however awful to ensure their own country's energy supplies and survival.

* I started my working life in the early 70's when miners strikes for massive pay rises (and I wont argue if they were justified or not) helped fuel massive inflation that ordinary workers were subjected to and had no chance of increasing their pay packet to offset the price rises. So increased payments to miners led to large decreases in the living standards for many, hardly the action depicted by the statue outside TUC headquarters in London (where a worker is shown extending his hand to another worker so as to help him). This was at the same time as the oil crisis and Britain was literally going down the pan (Ted Heath was PM at the time) and days from utter collapse (according to his book).

Politics at this level becomes very personal and obscured by facts that are still to come to light and may lead to a different conclusion.

Agree, we do need to stop using todays views/morals/standards in judging past events.
 
I’m bemused by this.

The British political parties are all somewhere close to dead centre of this graph. Most people here fall economically to the left of that, which supports the polls done a few years ago about public ownership of utilities.

But when a political leader suggests those policies (perfectly left-centrist politics in most of the civilised world), he’s labelled a dangerous communist by the media, and many ‘ordinary’ people who actually believe in those things are swept along in it.

Just an observation, I can change nothing from here. But how dangerous is our media when a ‘personable ordinary bloke’ can manage to change the future for ever based on a knife edge vote, but when nearly 70% of us want publicly owned railways, it’s ‘too risky’?

Good observation, especially as the media will also then criticise our utilities being owned by French, Russians or whoever...

Maybe it was the times (the 70s being a pretty rubbish decade for work and efficiency) and strikes being the overriding factor but were the trains better back then? The jokes about trains being late have been going on for a lifetime. There were issues with public ownership (i.e. British Leyland) and the efficiency (or lack of) from the public companies but having the utilities owned by the state but managed with a private sector style with targets on being efficient way would be the ideal compromise.

Is it realistic though? What would the costs be to re-nationalise Gas, Water etc... not just in terms of the shares but also in terms of job losses?
 
If a government wanted to re-nationalise a utilty I dont see why it need not cost them a penny, they can make whatever "rules" they want, an obvious example is the pension age, when I started work it was 65, now it's not, is anyone taking the government to court over this change, no, so I dont see the shareholders of what are private utilities standing a chance of compensation should the government decide to re-nationalise. It always struck me as strange that something that was already owned by the public (in the form of a nationalised industry) could be sold to the public by the government.

Anyway, having lived and worked through the 70/80/90 etc - from my perspective/memory I can tell you the power strikes (miners and power station workers) where we had 3 days of electricity by which to work, dustmen on strike, car workers on strike etc were awful. I was fortunate I was working for a North Sea Oil engineering/design company and we were doing a 6 day working week, 3 on non North Sea and 3 on North Sea, the company did well out of it, I was a trainee, so not quite so well. we even had petrol ration coupons issued, although never used, that's how precarious our energy supplies were.

That period was awful for ordinary non-union, or small non-powerful union workers. Our salaries were eaten by inflation etc and it was no wonder when Thatcher was elected, the vast majority of people were fed up with the powerful unions trying to run the country, they were elected to run their unions, not the country, we had general elections of political parties for that. Unfortunately she went too far and we ended up with wiped out unions and we (the workers) continue to suffer because of it as we have little or no power at work now. I firmly believe in workers having rights, especially the right to strike, and perhaps a say in how a company is run and how profits are "spent".

Trains - best they ever were on my line was just before they were sold off.
 
I am Ghandi's slightly not so left cousin. :)

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18

chart
 
I didn't say he was perfect or didn't make mistakes (by today's standards). If it wasn't for his leadership in WW2 I think history would have him in a very different light, but, his belief was to not be bullied (and let's be honest the miners have a long history of being bullies, and bullied, at the expense of other working class people *) but to win the argument/war/strike and then negotiate fairly from a position of strength. He backed using gas (non lethal mustard gas) in Iraq but sadly children and the ill were killed, something I personally could not justify.
Bear in mind Iran/Iraq etc supplied us with Oil and we all know that the supply of energy will convince governments that some actions are justified however awful to ensure their own country's energy supplies and survival.

* I started my working life in the early 70's when miners strikes for massive pay rises (and I wont argue if they were justified or not) helped fuel massive inflation that ordinary workers were subjected to and had no chance of increasing their pay packet to offset the price rises. So increased payments to miners led to large decreases in the living standards for many, hardly the action depicted by the statue outside TUC headquarters in London (where a worker is shown extending his hand to another worker so as to help him). This was at the same time as the oil crisis and Britain was literally going down the pan (Ted Heath was PM at the time) and days from utter collapse (according to his book).

Politics at this level becomes very personal and obscured by facts that are still to come to light and may lead to a different conclusion.


Don't know where to start with this but here goes.
You think that the miners were "bullies" - unbelievable considering the sacrifices and hard work they did for this country.
Anyone, for any reason using poisonous gas is a war criminal.
So, you think it is OK to steal another country's natural resources, ensuring that the people of that country live in poverty? The reason you think it is OK, is because it makes our own lives more comfortable - gotcha, think I know where you are coming from there, and it isn't a healthy place.
The 1972 miner's strike lasted just over one month, and they took action because their wages had dropped well behind those in manufacturing industry, which is pretty diabolical considering what miners had to put up with.
The miner's strikes in 1984/85 happened because it was a protest against the pits being closed by Thatcher, and the subsequent thousands of job losses, totally changing many areas in industrial England and Wales.
 
Back
Top