Bigden40

You are solidly right, but not merely culturally conservative: immigration, constitutional sovereignty and economic freedom are the load-bearing beams. You would leave the ECHR, cap migration and cut working-age benefits, yet your “no” to civilian firearms shows this is order through the state, not liberty at any price.

You were The Constitutional Border Hardliner; you are holding that core identity, but sharpening it into a more complete enforcement politics — borders, deportation, defence deployment and resistance to net-zero mandates. The old suspicion of institutional overreach has become a clearer demand that the state enforce its own boundaries.

You usually move with the national majority, but your agreement is more hard-edged than the headline suggests: the UK may support tighter migration, while you want ECHR withdrawal and armed forces at the border. Your “no” on reversing international-student fees also reveals a practical streak beneath the rhetoric: sovereignty matters, but so does reducing pressure on public services.

You run with your crowd more than against it, though not in lockstep. Mark is your natural ally — especially on immigration and welfare — while elections divide you; hr97 is the sharper clash, with common ground on education and housing but a real split on personnel and the environment.

Your open question is whether this hard sovereignty settles into a coherent governing programme: tougher borders and welfare discipline, but what replaces the institutions and rules you reject? Ten more votes will sharpen that answer — and make the picture of your politics truer.

You want a firmer, more self-protective UK: lower migration, conditional welfare, disciplined schools, restrained government and rights that protect order as much as liberty. Your politics are unusually coherent on immigration, constitutional questions and individual rights, though your opposition to a legal image-and-likeness right shows you are not simply anti-regulation.

You were The Centralist Enforcer; you have hardened into a constitutional border hardliner. The old enforcement instinct remains, but the newer record is more explicit about migration, national control and suspicion that Westminster’s machinery is failing — even while you resist devolution and fixed parliamentary terms.

You usually move with the UK’s majority, but your agreement is not softness: you backed deportation, tighter migration and an inquiry into grooming gangs while rejecting net-zero acceleration and a care levy. Your sharpest tension is that you trust strong state action on borders and crime, yet questioned whether parliamentary democracy is really functioning.

Your Centre-leaning circle is to your left, and you agree with it only often enough to remain in conversation rather than lockstep. hr97 is your closest ally, especially on education and health; you still part ways on foreign policy, where your instincts are more guarded and national-minded.

Your next ten votes will test whether this is becoming a full institutional revolt or simply a tougher version of your existing conservatism; the picture gets truer every time you vote.

You want a Britain that tightens its welfare rolls, protects the pension settlement by scrapping the triple lock, and enforces the law the same way whoever's watching — no cultural carve-outs, no devolution creep, no dismantling of the Union either. It's less "small state" than "settled state": defend what exists, make claimants work for support, and don't let Holyrood or anyone else redraw the map.

Last time you were a thin-file Traditionalist Standard-Bearer, eight votes deep and mostly a hunch. Thirty-nine more votes later that hunch has hardened into something sharper: unanimous right conviction on governance, rights and health, a real fiscal-discipline streak on welfare — but also a genuine left break on tuition fees and a stray left vote on "Other" that keeps you from being a caricature.

You ride with the national majority most of the time, but you're out ahead of it on the triple lock and benefit conditionality — positions the country is still only narrowly warming to.

Against a circle that leans centre-left, you still land closest to Mark, in step on welfare and defence — yet you split from him precisely on governance and elections, the ground you feel most strongly about. hr97 clashes harder still, aligned only on health and welfare, adrift on foreign policy and economy.

You want a Britain that holds its shape — same institutions, same constitution, same social settlement — and you vote against almost anything that promises to loosen it, from proportional representation to redefining marriage. This isn't reflexive outrage; it's a conviction that stability is itself the achievement worth protecting.

On six of your ten votes you've actually sided with the national majority — you're not a permanent dissenter, just choosier about which battles are worth losing. But on the ones where you break away — marriage equality, trans rights, PR — you break decisively, while the country moves the other way by wide margins, which is where your Hard Right character really shows itself.

You opposed issuing war bonds for defence spending, a left-leaning vote sitting oddly next to your enthusiasm for hitting 3.5% GDP on defence even at the cost of other spending — you want the hardware, just not the borrowing to get there. That's the tension in an otherwise disciplined right-wing record: hawkish on ends, fiscally squeamish on means.

Ten votes and no data at all on immigration, the economy, health, housing or justice — the bread-and-butter categories that usually anchor a right-wing profile are, for you, still unwritten. Right now this reads as constitution-and-culture right; whether it's also tax-and-spend right, or welfare-brake right, is still an open question.

Eight scored votes is enough to see the shape of you, not yet enough to be sure of it — cast a few more, especially on immigration or the economy, and next week's profile will tell you something sharper than this one could.