[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

John, please - don't you go Hugh on me!

I don't think it's necessarily useful to benchmark the features of one side but not the other. So I'll have a go from left to right, but essentially in my head (economically) it's a sliding scale of the role of the state from full control of almost everything (Soviet model) to controlling the bare minimum (defence spending, basic infrastructure) with all previous functions of the state privatised or simply not done. In absolute terms on the extreme right economically, this probably isn't seen anywhere as even the most 'small state' right wing politicians recognise the value of education as babysitting, or a basic level of social security for pensioners/disabled).

On the sliding scale there's debate about the role of the state in carrying out a vast range of economic activity as a direct supplier/consumer and employer with the ability to influence markets significantly by, or declining to, spend. Left wing more often correlates with higher spending, citing the value in the outputs that the state can achieve with economies of scale that the private sector simply cannot.

On the right it's lower tax, less public services with the private sector filling (and charging for) the void. Even where the state has to intervene in the market it's often through regulating the private sector, or subsidising it, rather than taking direct control.

Few people view these as absolutes with a one size fits all approach across the board. However, a non-exhaustive list would be the role of the state (if any) in funding or regulating private companies in healthcare, social care, housing, higher/further education, public transport services and infrastructure, energy, telecommunications, water infrastructure. Without taking the time to weight them if someone thinks the state should be extremely active as an economic actor in all of those that would place them further to the left and none of those other than light touch (or no) regulation that would be further to the right.

Socially I think it get's more complex than portrayed - I think some on the right when they are losing the economic argument like to weaponise social issues whereas. Others on the right would be absolute in their view of a person's right to a private life and what they do (and who they do it with) within the law isn't anything to do with the state. The trans issue is more complex given the amounts of public money seemingly going to charities to push the message and ultimately medication/surgery on the NHS is a cost which brings in the question of whether it's a lifestyle choice or a medical need.

Nationalism is more frequently associated with the right socially, as is anti-immigration. That's not to say everyone on the right (and no-one on the left) holds those views. Right wing economics relies the world over upon immigration to drive down costs (or up efficiencies in the private sector.