Well Krig given that you have an eye for extreme ideas, it's not totally surprising that you would choose the Vosem Chart. I dismiss it for a similar reason: I detest delusion and abhor the extreme.

The Vosem Chart well depicts politics in the British Commonwealth states. However beneath the veneer of liberal and conservative, there exist in full the Mitchell divisions.

Some commentary:
- Labour is historically an anti-conservative paleolibertarian movement. It represents at all times an alliance between Mitchell's Radicals, Individualists, and Communitarians. Its historical enemy is the crown and the nobility: as recently as the 1990s, Tony Blair made weakening the House of Lords a part of his election platform. Aristocracy ("rule by the best") is the natural governing style of paleoconservatives (who are better called, by the way, institutionalists), and the struggle between them and individualists at least hearkens back to Beethoven. The progressives are somewhat estranged from this alliance, as are left-libertarians. They have teamed together to form the Liberal Democrats.
- In Canada and Australia, there is no nobility, hence a left-right dichotomy emerges representing the rich vs the poor (in the aggregate). Politicians determine whether they are positivists (right) or negativist (left) at a young age, and team with people who decide similarly. The three-branch system of government also reinforces the left-right tradition. (in Europe, legislature control of executive positions necessitates the building of coalitions just to govern, thus there is no leverage on the part of the executive to say "you are with me or against me." The tradition of "loyal opposition" to a directly-elected executive keeps the two-party system healthy. As such the other parties are limited to people who are "at war within", people who basically have emotional issues towards and apparently limited capacity to take in information. "Psychotics "and "consequentialists" are the operant terms, particularly when a majority of a given information subsector reaches for compromise with its opposite and the purists find themselves left behind. Ron Paul is a case in point: a positivist who insists on turning back the social clock all the way to the late 18th century, while ignoring the irreversible changes wrought by technology. It's an absurd philosophy and as such he and other libertarians remain on the political sidelines, a media darling with no real influence. As for the anarcho-syndicalists, Ashton is one.

By the way, I'm not addressing this just to Krig. I want to make that clear. You should read my article on the political types, which descend directly from fixations on specific subelements. So to say, Mitchell's types exist because of fixations on developing certain aspects of the functions themselves, particularly at the expense of developing other such aspects. I described that in depth in the "Political type theory and Immanence thread": the priority system for the subfunctions effect the Jungian archetypes themselves.

Oh and, get a second opinion on Mitchell's work. Krig is NOT a reliable source because his sources are unreliable -- he doesn't give enough attention to their credibility; for that matter, he tends to give character flaws a pass in people if he and them are aligned in terms of personal values. Poor attention to character = poor grasp of credibility of sources.

Krig, I'm sorry I have to attack you like this, but you are using thought-terminating language and I must, I must impress that what you have offered vis-a-vis Mitchell is a misinterpretation and, alas, misinformation.

Maybe I should have just said "What Krig says is not the whole story". Maybe I'll just say that next time. ...Either way it seems to paint you with unflattering colors, but what can I do? You seem to specialize in setting up atmospheres of suspicion. You should really talk to your dual more, I think. And I should say, a dual who will challenge you, not a sycophant who casually laps up your Ti.