Artikel5

You are a Centre-Right voter with an unusual split-screen politics: uncompromising on immigration, rights, health and welfare discipline, yet clearly left on the economy, education, employment and foreign policy. You want the state to protect public services and national capacity, but not to become permissive or culturally directionless — a social-democratic instinct inside a fortified political shell.

You were the Ironclad Egalitarian; you have not abandoned the economy-left streak, but you have sharpened the fortress around it. Recent votes make you more visibly defence-first and immigration-hardline, while your support for HS2 and regional devolution shows the old egalitarian impulse is still alive rather than merely inherited.

You usually travel with the UK’s majority, agreeing with the nation on 43 of 60 recent votes, but your distinctive breaks are revealing: you reject mass council-housebuilding and easier development while still backing infrastructure and public capacity. You are not simply anti-state; you want a state that builds strategically, controls the border and spends with discipline.

You run broadly with your Centre-Right circle, agreeing on two votes in three, and lewism is your closest ally. You are in lockstep with lewism on immigration and education, but part ways on employment and the less easily classified questions; there is no named biggest clash in your circle data.

Your live question is whether the economy-left streak becomes a settled programme or remains the humane exception inside a tougher worldview. Ten more votes will sharpen that answer — and make the picture truer than any label can be today.

You want a Britain that's hard on the outside and communal within it — gunboats in the Channel, unanimous right on immigration and rights, yet a state that owns infrastructure and funds public goods without flinching from the bill; drilling the North Sea while still voting to redesign the Lords along population lines.

Last read you were the Fortress Collectivist — border-hard, economy-left, and unapologetic about both. Nothing has softened: if anything the fortress has thickened, with health and rights now voting unanimously right alongside immigration, while economy, constitution, foreign policy and education stay stubbornly left — the same shape, drawn in firmer ink.

You're rarely an outlier — siding with the national majority on five of your last six recorded votes, happily backing bill discounts and drilling alongside most of the country. Your break comes on the wealth tax, where you voted no against a nation that leaned yes — the one place your fiscal caution outran the room.

You run with your crowd two-thirds of the time, and lockstep with lewism on immigration and rights — the causes you're most convicted on. But you part ways on employment and other matters, the same fault line as always: security you agree on, economics you don't.

You want a Britain that owns its pipes and pylons but guards its door — public utilities under state control, immigration cut hard, the ECHR gone, and rights read narrowly rather than generously. It's not fence-sitting; it's a fortress economy, walled from outside pressure and run, inside, on collectivist lines.

Last week you were the Nationalist Collectivist, defined by the border-vs-bank-surcharge tension. That identity hasn't softened — if anything it's sharpened: rights, housing and immigration are now your hardest, most unanimous convictions, while education, constitution and foreign policy pull firmly left. The throughline has gone from "roughly this shape" to unmistakably this shape.

You ran with the national majority on three in four recent votes — scrapping net zero, keeping nuclear weapons, cutting immigration, you're mainstream Britain. But you split from it on London's mayoralty (you'd abolish it against the grain) and on council housebuilding, where the country wants more state homes and you don't.

You track your five followed accounts two-thirds of the time — closer to peter_snafu, your steadiest ally at nearly four-in-five agreement, than to binyu, your clearest clash, with whom you barely clear half. That gap suggests your circle's tolerance for you runs out exactly where your economics turns collectivist and theirs doesn't.

Ninety-eight scored votes in and the fortress-collectivist shape keeps hardening rather than blurring — the next vote that tests whether "public ownership" survives contact with a genuinely tough welfare or crime call will tell us if the collectivist half is conviction or just contrarianism. Cast it, and the picture gets truer.

You're a state-builder with two very different blueprints: on the economy you want the banks squeezed and utilities un-privatised, but on rights, immigration and law you want the state hard and unapologetic — deportations enforced, two-tier justice called out, borders tight. It's not confusion, it's a coherent worldview: strength at the border and the barracks, redistribution at the Treasury.

Last week you were the Armed Industrialist — tanks and turbines, hawkish and interventionist. That pairing hasn't dissolved so much as sharpened into something more pointed: the "left on economy, right on rights and immigration" tension you carried has become your defining trait, not a side note, and the education/constitution votes confirm a genuine leftward institutional streak sitting inside a rights-and-borders hardliner.

You split almost exactly down the middle with the national majority — siding on defence spending and utilities failure, breaking hard on planning reform, energy switching and the small-company tax gap, where you'd rather leave things be than trust either state enforcement or free-market fixes to work cleanly.

No local data at all yet, and whole fields — housing beyond planning, justice beyond the culture-war votes, crime, transport, infrastructure — remain untested. Your two-tier-justice and grooming-gang votes suggest strong justice instincts; you just haven't been asked enough justice questions to prove it.

This is a sharp early shape, not a finished picture — cast a few more votes on justice, crime and housing and we'll know whether the collectivist economics survive contact with harder questions about who the state protects, and this profile will be rewritten fresh next week to tell you.

You're not a fence-sitter so much as someone running two convictions in parallel: the state should build things — energy, industry, defence capacity — and the state should also toughen up welfare and immigration rules. Your Britain rearms, reindustrialises, and expects more from people in return for support; you voted defence spending to nearly £80bn, backed the Global Combat Air Programme, wanted welfare tied to work, and still thinks it's not too late to reindustrialise. That's a coherent state-builder's vision, even if it doesn't sit tidily on the left-right shelf.

Last week you were "The Structural Rebel" — an anti-monarchy, pro-devolution constitutional radical with too thin a record to say more. That thread has thinned further while a sharper one emerged: defence-hawk convictions now sit hard right, economy and energy hard left, and welfare has swung firmly rightward too. The open question from last week — would welfare and tax generalise your left lean — has been answered: no, they didn't.

You're rarely an outlier — siding with the national majority on 18 of your last 23 votes — but you broke from it on Reform UK's danger (you said no, most said yes) and on right-wing media's influence (you shrugged where the country worried). You're a majority voter with a couple of pointed exceptions.

No local data exists to place you against your own patch, and entire categories — health, housing, justice, transport, culture — remain untouched. For someone this decided on defence and industry, crime and justice are the obvious next test.

Cast a few votes on justice or health and this profile stops guessing at the edges of your worldview — it starts confirming them. Every vote you add makes next week's read a truer mirror than this one.

Your only two politically scored votes both leaned left on energy and utilities — public control of Thames Water, scepticism of North Sea drilling — but the real thread running through all ten votes is structural: you want power and money pulled out of Westminster and the south-east and spread thin. Abolish the monarchy, write a constitution, devolve to the regions, admit the country is too London-centric — this is a voter who thinks the machinery of the state, not just its policies, needs rebuilding.

You're no outlier — you sided with the national majority on every single vote you've cast, which for a self-styled structural radical is a nice contradiction: your appetite for constitutional upheaval turns out to be the consensus view, not the fringe one. Even on the monarchy and the written constitution, where you might expect to be a lone voice, two-thirds of the country was standing right beside you.

No local data yet on any of your votes — an open question rather than an absence, and worth watching once your area starts showing its hand.

You've voted on the constitution, the crown, and devolution, but never once on immigration, welfare, crime, health or education — the bread-and-butter issues that usually reveal whether structural radicalism comes with a left or right economic core. Right now you're an architect without a manifesto on the things that actually run people's daily lives.

Two scored votes is a whisper, not a verdict — this profile will sharpen fast the moment you vote on welfare, immigration, or tax, and we'll be back next week to tell you what it's starting to say.