Calling someone left-wing or right-wing can tell you who they usually support without telling you much about what they actually believe. We use the labels as though they answer both questions, and a lot of our worst arguments follow from that mistake.
The words still have a use. Political parties bring different interests together, and people need shorthand for where they broadly stand. Nobody should have to deliver a manifesto every time they describe their politics.
But shorthand becomes a problem when it replaces an explanation. Ask whether a proposal is sensible and someone tells you which side supports it. Ask why they oppose it and they tell you which sort of person would suggest it. The proposal itself barely gets discussed.
Several questions get squeezed into one
Arguments about wealth, tradition and individual freedom don't always produce the same alliances. Someone can favour public ownership of water and want lower immigration. Someone else can support a relatively free market while wanting much more liberal immigration rules.
There is also a difference between wanting social change and supporting individual liberty. A person calling themselves progressive may favour restrictions on expression or different treatment according to group identity. A person calling themselves conservative may be defending free speech, equality before the law and secular institutions.
Those positions have histories, and none of these disagreements began yesterday. The point is that "left" or "right" doesn't explain enough on its own. We need to ask which policy, principle or institution a person is defending.
When a label ends the conversation
I object particularly when "far-right" is used in place of an answer. The term can describe real political movements and beliefs. It can also be applied loosely to make an ordinary concern sound beyond discussion.
If someone makes a claim about immigration, policing or public spending, answer the claim. If it is racist, explain what makes it racist. The label should follow an assessment of the argument rather than spare us from making one.
Dismissing a concern doesn't make it disappear. It can convince people that the institutions asking for their trust have no intention of listening to them.
Questions I find more useful
Does a person apply their principle when it disadvantages their own side? Someone defending free speech should be willing to defend the freedom of people they dislike.
Is a claimed concern for others reflected in what someone actually does? Public declarations may be sincere, but applause isn't evidence that anyone has been helped.
Does an institution follow the rules it says it follows? Trust is difficult to maintain when people repeatedly discover that the stated standard and the actual practice are different.
Those aren't a complete political map. They are questions that tell me more than a label often does. Keep the familiar words where they help, but explain the belief behind them. I would rather know why someone thinks a thing than which team is expected to agree.