I find it useful, but I must note that I am rated as being right in the middle of everything- yet most people would describe me as being more conservative than that.

Those ‘most people’ probably know the right questions to ask.

It is better than left/right, but that is it.

Yup, it’s no better or worse than a thousand other choices for a 2 dimensional system, and it’s way less accurate than a 3 dimensional one, which is in turn way less accurate than a 10,000 dimensional one. But it’s easier to collect the data for, easier to draw a graph. But most importantly of all, it appears to leave an entire quadrant of the graph to ACT/Libertarian types, which is why they always bring it up. They always seem so mystified that it’s a sparsely populated quadrant, when there is so much political real estate waiting to be reaped. Could that be why the one-dimensional model was such a hit in the first place?

Like I say, there’s a danger in staring at graphs too much. The mind can start to turn it into a battlefield, and if you’re planning your move into the Green space, for instance, you better be sure you’re not thinking Alpha Centauri is near to every other galaxy in Alpha Centauri’s direction, all the way to the other end of the universe. Or you’ll be waiting a long time for your support to turn up.

National should move to the centre economically. Maori party should also move more to the centre economically and further south (see stance on party pills). I’d say labour should move Further north (more authoritarian than nats) due to supporting party pill ban and regulations of freedom of speech in the EFB.
Progs should be more authoritarian due to stance on BZP.

NZ First just wear a blindfold and stick whereever you like on there, because noone really has a clue where they stand depending on the day of the week.

“Act probably used to be a lot more socially liberal, but in recent years they’ve been chasing the votes of NZ First’s (and National’s old) constituency, and hence Act is now fairly conservative on things like law and order, defence, civil rights, etc.”

I’d say ACT used to chase the votes of NZ First with Newman et all. Now they are a lot more socially liberal, with law and order focusing on REAL crime, civil rights (freedom of speech, self ownership, equality before the law) etc.

I don’t agree with the placement of the parties on this site

How did Labour get to be on the right? National needs to be further to the left to give ACT and its flat tax rates, limited social welfare etc. more room on the right.

Also, I don’t agree with the placement of the parties on this site:
http://politicalcompass.org/nz2005

There is no way that National is more authoritarian than Labour when they’re trying to push through the EFB – the most restrictive legislation in NZ’s history.

Maybe you overestimate it. I think it takes quite a lot of training and conditioning to see the world that way, and further conditioning to get your head around the newer model. Prior to understanding either model, I would suggest most people attempt to fit all/ their opinions to a candidate. At least all the ones that matter to them. Since there is only a small selection of candidates, the fit will be poor, but people will take the one that is the least uncomfortable.

So, yes it’s an improvement upon 1 dimension, but it’s waaaay short of reality. It’s a massive simplification to categorize people entirely in 2 dimensions. It was for that reason that I find the Maori Party very hard to predict. From what I can tell, they would be scattered all over the political compass – it just doesn’t matter that much to them. What matters to them is Maori issues, for which you don’t have a dimension, and if you did it would also be a massive simplification.

Act probably used to be a lot more socially liberal, but in recent years they’ve been chasing the votes of NZ First’s (and National’s old) constituency, and hence Act is now fairly conservative on things like law and order, defence, civil rights, etc.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

The emergence of growing debate around social issues such as law and order policy, Treaty of Waitangi policy, drug reform, and environmental policy reflects a move towards political conflict occurring primarily over non-economic, non-materialist issues. This is interesting, because throughout the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand politics have been overwhelmingly characterised by materialism, with political debate being dominated by traditional economic-class issues like unemployment, the provision of health and education, and increasing inequality. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s successful parties (and the then fast-rising new parties such as Act, the Alliance, and NZ First) concentrated their campaigns and general marketing on materialist issues.

By the time of the 2002 general election, ‘postmaterialist’ issues dominated the campaign, as most political parties ran campaigns that centred on societal issues. In particular, it is indicative that New Zealand First’s much-heralded three major issues of the 2002 election – immigration, crime, and the Treaty of Waitangi – were all non-economic issues. Act, likewise, also placed non-economic issues – namely law and order and the Treaty – at the centre of its campaign. On the so-called ‘left’ the adherence to the postmaterialist dimension has mainly been around issues such as the environment, anti-smacking, anti-smoking, identity politics, prostituion reform, anti-GM, Treaty settlements, anti-nuclear, civil unions etc.

In recent elections nearly all the parties have adopted hard-line law and order policies. In particular, it seems all the parties of the centre and centre-right have been attempting to outbid each other in order to differentiate themselves as the party of law and order. National, Act and New Zealand First all took harder lines on crime in 2002 than previously. Yet much of their rhetoric was stronger than their policies. In government, Labour has entered the competition to be the most hardline on law and order. It has shown little differentiation with the parties of the right, and in office, initiated legislation to lengthen sentences for serious crimes of violence.

The emergence of contentious social issues since the late-1990s suggests that the postmaterialist consensus that had been developing earlier in the 1990s has been breaking down, especially due to a concerted effort by conservative parties to differentiate themselves from the parties inhabiting the centre. It seems that because the new political centre is mostly based around the economic, third way consensus, any parties that wish to differentiate themselves must find other non-economic points of difference. In the past, when polarisation on the main socio-economic spectrum was greater, the parties could afford to move into a consensus on social issues, but once the spread on the socio-economic scale shrunk, polarisation on postmaterialist issues was triggered. Most parties have chosen societal issues and positions on ‘identity politics’ as a way of asserting points of difference. This is especially the case for parties of the right in opposition, as they cannot make any progress by emphasising their centrist economic policies since the parties to their left have already claimed the economic centre as their own. Instead, the parties of the right offer a move to more conservative social stances to complement their orthodox economic orientation. Because the party was increasingly similar to Labour in economic policy, National had to find other non-economic issues in which to differentiate itself, leading to socially conservative policies on issues like law and order and immigration. But essentially, National found it impossible to contest the middle ground in a way that is sufficiently differentiated from Labour’s approach without scaring off moderate voters. Hence we now have a parliamentary battle over non-economic issues – some of which are very important.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

US Primaries 2007: http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007
NZ Parties 2005: http://politicalcompass.org/nz2005

The National Party is roughly as conservative as McCain and Giuliani? I think not! Maybe you do think so.

ACT – 2 MPs (entire caucus)
National – 2 MPs
Labour – 1 MP (Helen Clark)
Greens – 4 MPs
Maori – 0
UF – 0
NZ1 – 0
Independents – 0

In that context, I think Labour (proposing and supporting this legislation) should be shown as more socially liberal than they are (it shows them as roughly neutral) and National (opposing as individuals via a conscience vote, unlikely to repeal as a party) should be shown as roughly neutral (it shows them as quite conservative).

I can’t assert that my perception is definitely more valid than yours because it’s just a perception. But, I *think* it is

In any case, the actual mapping of parties on the spectrum is even more of a nonsense than for individuals because it’s a subjective exercise to map observable manifestos and actual action to the beliefs-type questions used to plot the graph + parties (especially the ‘big tent’ ones) are a cloud of individuals with varying positions (as you allude to).