I remain convinced that left-right are useless descriptors for determining political beliefs. Its main value appears to be partisan, in that the world can be divided approximately 50/50 between true believers and unbelievers. This artificial division can then be used for all manner of monolithic descriptions and projections of behaviour - not just political. The two modern political parties, Labor and Liberal, which supposedly define the left-right divide are so similar in outlook it is embarrassing. As a binary description left-right is only useful for the construction of strawmen. Is there a binary descriptor that is useful for describing political choices?
Both major parties in Australia are approximately conservative-nationalist with economic liberal policies. There are some arguments in this area, but for the most part you would need a hot butter knife to divide a line between them. The main argument from party leaders is how well their 'particular' national narrative matches their political stance and why that should inform which party you vote for.
There is consensus on most issues and the arguments over policies are rarely even one of degree and more one of semantics. The creation of an artificial and monolithic left-right in such an environment is only useful for partisan description purpose - and we already have names for the two major parties - ie ALP and Liberals.
Is there a binary description that is useful in describing political doctrine? In my opinion there is and it involves the individual and state. Notice the left-right is less about how the individual and state relate to each other and more about 'values' and other wishy washy nonsense.
The two political positions a philosophy, doctrine, etc can take is: one the individual is the dominant political entity, or two, the state is the dominant political entity. This binary choice has huge ramifications for policy, governance and political structure.
If the individual is the dominant entity this removes the ability for the state to act in many areas. For instance a state backed/enforced culture becomes meaningless. Citizenship becomes dictated by any individual being under the jurisdiction of the government - not due to accidents of birth. Liberalism, republicanism, libertarianism and progressivism at their purest are examples of this.
If the state is the dominant political entity that means all manner of discrimination and arbitrary governance can occur. For instance sedition laws are natural in this environment as the state must protect itself and its future from individuals. Habeous Corpus becomes a quaint curiosity, rights are meaningless as the individual has no 'just' place in demanding liberties. If the state is dominant, those that wield the executive are too. In this category would be statists, authoritarians, conservatives and nationalists. Without the state being dominant in certain areas of political life these political movements lose meaning.
Dividing political action in this binary manner enables political decision and policies to be easily understood. Did the executive act as if the individual was dominant or the state? Did the legislative create a bill that assumed the individual was dominant or the state?
This has more meaning than values, left, right, centre, meh, feh and all the other non-empirical and airy fairy excuses the political uses.
