Pretty close to where I was last time I took it.

I thought I would be closer to the center. Some of the questions were very  awkward.

I'll take the test again (I've done it before, on previous years) to see where I lie nowadays (I remember almost mirroring my economic score, between two tests (one year) before). I'll also post a commentary on some of the questions that I don't like (well, the ones that piss me off the most)

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." 

What about in the cases where, like 90% of the time, what's in the interest of the trans-national corporations IS in the interest of humanity? TNCs are wealth creators, they provide jobs for millions, are the most efficient means of production we have, and are pulling millions out of poverty every year. By responding to this question with any of the answers, I'm implying that I think that multi-nationals do not work in the interest of humanity.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Controlling inflation *IS* controlling unemployment, that is, if you want to control is sustainably.

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.

What the hell does this even mean? People earn money by providing goods or services that others demand. Just because you, the individual, do not deem someone's service to be a "contribution", society, on the whole, might.

The rich are too highly taxed.

The poor are, too.

It is important that my child's school instills religious values.

I wouldn't want my child going to a religious school, so I voted "Strongly Disagree", however this implies that I believe that all schools should be secular. This is not the case, if parents wish to send their children to a religious school, then I believe it should be up to them.

Hell, I may as well try again, too. I'll post some more questions I dislike, like Sam

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. - If I think it's wrong, then I'm not supporting it, am I? :-/

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality. - I understand that this is one of Marx's core ideas, but agreeing with it doesn't make me a Communist. In fact, he hated the idea of class distinction.

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. - Well, that's undoubtedly an advantage, but it doesn't mean that a one party state is better....

It's also missing a fair bit. Nothing on nationalisation of education and healthcare. Nothing on censorship. One question on taxation, and not really anything on public spending at all.

I seem to have moved slightly left and slightly down since last time:

Economic Left/Right: 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.31

I still think I'm further up than I should be. I felt like I was giving libertarian answers to most of those questions.

I spent a bit of time thinking about this question, and I decided that whilst one party states do take less time passing legislation, that isn't advantageous. For me, the quicker legislation can be passed, it's just inevitable that more legislation will be passed... which means more Government control in our lives.

I mean, it's notoriously much harder to get legislation through Congress than it is Parliament... and which system has resulted in more Governmental control over our lives?

Therefore, I'd say that it isn't an advantage of one-party state, but a disadvantage. Of course, the problem there lies in whether the person designing the quiz meant it in the way I took it, or meant it differently.

Also, it did make a reference to state owned healthcare, but, again, it was very poor. Something about whether if those can afford it, should be entitled to better healthcare. Which seems to be "the state already provides healthcare, should the rich be allowed to go private, if they so choose".

Here are my interpretations of the questions and why they are (mostly) not stupid questions. Note that I have not presented my personal answers to any of the questions. I think the quiz did a reasonable job at a very difficult task, although I would have appreciated a neutral answer.

I suppose I agreed because of the naive assumption that the dictator in question was benevolent and libertarian, and so on. I suppose I was just likening it to our current situation, in which Labour have spent 13 years creating an enormous mess, and even if anyone had the will to fix it (as David Cameron sort of does, in a vague way), it would be extraordinarily difficult to fix. A one-party state with good ideas could fix it in months.

Well, the very fact that it is possible to have different interpretations of some of the questions does show some of the flaws of the quiz, perhaps if there was a little question mark button next to each question which brought up a more detailed explanation of what it is asking, the quiz could improve. It's remained fairly static for quite some time, now.

Still, it's the best we have, for the moment. But, obviously, the results should be taken with a pinch of salt. Maybe just looking at the quadrant, rather than the specific location.