Pothas
Well-known member
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
Definitely getting older......
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Political Compass Test
- Thread starter Neil Pickup
- Start date
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
Definitely getting older......
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
US politics is so odd though in that it depends so much more on who the candidate is. The centre there is further right than it is in the UK so potential Democratic candidates range from people like Elizabeth Warren (socialist) to Hillary Clinton (would probably join the Tories if she was British), and the libertarian movement has meant Republicans have some libertarianish candidates like Rand Paul who want to free people imprisoned for non-violent drug crimes and scale back interventionist foreign policies ideas while maintaining a hard-right economic philosophy, as well as standard religious conservatives like Santorum who I'm pretty sure we'd both avoid like the plague.
If you actually got a Hillary v Rand election (which is unlikely, tbf) election, the Republicans would arguably be the more socially liberal of the two parties.
Last edited:
Uppercut
Well-known member
The Libertarian candidates are also really severe on Economics though. The only combinations are right-wing Econ+social conservative and social liberal+ ultra-right-ideologue-Econ. I think I could go with a candidate with standard Republican Economics (say John McCain) if they wanted to end the drugs war. AFAIK no one like that exists yet, though.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah no-one could get through the primaries like that. Even Rand Paul, despite being able to happily pander to the base on most economic issue, has to mince his positions on things like crime and foreign policy for the purposes of the primaries.. and he still has very little actually chance of winning the nomination.
I'm kind of struggling to think of where such a person would even end up in the US political system tbh. They'd disagree with establishment Democrats on pretty much everything and they'd be way too centrist for the actual Libertarian Party, so they'd probably end up on the libertarianish wing of the Republican Party.. but they'd basically have their career capped at being a staffer. Closest example I can think of is Ashley Bell, who climbed the ranks of the Democrats before tossing in his lot in 2005 and now works for Rand Paul.
Cabinet96
Global Moderator
Economic Left/Right: -1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
Picture from my one a couple years ago doesn't load but reckon is was probably a tad further to the left.
Edit: Furball's trick worked. Was:
Economic Left/Right: 2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:-4.31
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
Picture from my one a couple years ago doesn't load but reckon is was probably a tad further to the left.
Edit: Furball's trick worked. Was:
Economic Left/Right: 2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian:-4.31
Last edited:
I was on a zero hours contract back in 2004.
Was in the Meetings and Events department at the Radisson, and the contract made sense because of the cyclical nature of the work; the department only had 5 or 6 full time members of staff because during the quiet periods (January and July in particular) there was literally no work at times, or what little there was got shared out amongst the full time guys. Rest of the time the department head would work out what staffing levels he'd need based on what functions we had booked in and would then phone round everyone in the department and offer you shifts for the week.
Was also on one at the Hilton which was disgraceful as we were rota'd on and ny department needed staffed 24/7; putting us on zero hours was just so that the company could save a bit of cash by not paying us sick pay etc, which never endeared them to me. It did work out to my advantage though as my notice period was 24 hours verbal notice, which I exploited when my current employer came calling at short notice. My manager even had the cheek to complain about the lack of notice I'd given him, and was told in no uncertain terms that he should have had me on a proper contract.
In summary, they're fine under certain limited circumstances but the way they were utilised by the Hilton, and the way Sports Direct use them should be made illegal. The whole point of a zero hours contract is that it's meant to offer the employee some flexibility; if your employees are on a rota then they should have a proper contract and the benefits that brings.
wellAlbidarned
Well-known member
Economic Left/Right: -99.99
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -99.99
i think i broke it
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -99.99
i think i broke it
morgieb
Well-known member
he trolling obv.
wellAlbidarned
Well-known member
answered yes to "Is phlegm a gullible ****?"
Flem274*
123/5
WAC. you're a student and a rocker. you would be the kind of **** to have some crazy opinion.
fredfertang
Well-known member
Nothing wrong with zero hours contracts as an idea, but like every other aspect of the master and servant relationship they need to be regulated if they are not simply to become an abuse that allows employers to circumvent the Employment rights that successive Labour governments have established, despite the best efforts of the Tories to dismantle them - neither the Tories nor UKIP will change anything if left to their own devices which is why, despite the fact I give Cameron and Osborne enormous credit for turning the economy round, I desperately want to see them in opposition come 8th May
Last edited:
Ikki
Well-known member
Not sure where I was last time as I just posted a screenshot which doesn't exist anymore.
This time:
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
I think the questions are a bit weird for me. I'm still more or less libertarian in my ideals, although maybe less strict WRT ways of getting there that I might not have agreed with before. Still, on the whole, I'd still stick more or less to the same things.
I'm not sure how they interpret certain questions or what they're asking for sometimes. For example:
-The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
I'd say that is yes and no at the same time. People might interpret someone who puts "strongly agree" as someone who is laissez faire economically and is simply thinking about productivity. However, you can have the same exact mindset and go "strongly disagree". Who can say what influences may be better or greater in terms of actually helping a person obtain a job or help them become people who help humanity? Maybe it's an art class - that prima facie doesn't help a person, e.g., construct a motor - which helps in an indirect way to influence/inspire someone to create something totally revolutionary?
This time:
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
I think the questions are a bit weird for me. I'm still more or less libertarian in my ideals, although maybe less strict WRT ways of getting there that I might not have agreed with before. Still, on the whole, I'd still stick more or less to the same things.
I'm not sure how they interpret certain questions or what they're asking for sometimes. For example:
-The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
I'd say that is yes and no at the same time. People might interpret someone who puts "strongly agree" as someone who is laissez faire economically and is simply thinking about productivity. However, you can have the same exact mindset and go "strongly disagree". Who can say what influences may be better or greater in terms of actually helping a person obtain a job or help them become people who help humanity? Maybe it's an art class - that prima facie doesn't help a person, e.g., construct a motor - which helps in an indirect way to influence/inspire someone to create something totally revolutionary?
Last edited:
Anil
Well-known member
got it that's what i thought...conservatism means very different things over here...
Tom Halsey
Well-known member
Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 3.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
A bit more libertarian than I expected. I think I've always been always been in the bottom right quadrant (unless I took the test 10 years ago or something), but I've moved further away from 0 on both axes. Surprises me as I thought if anything I'd moved in the other direction.
Economic Left/Right: 3.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.05
A bit more libertarian than I expected. I think I've always been always been in the bottom right quadrant (unless I took the test 10 years ago or something), but I've moved further away from 0 on both axes. Surprises me as I thought if anything I'd moved in the other direction.
Fusion
Global Moderator
Now:
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
Can't really explain the dramatic economic views shift in just 3 year's time, but I'm not surprised to find myself even further entrenched on the Libertarian Left scale.