Churchyyfuf

You're a state-first traditionalist: keep public utilities public, keep the NHS whole, back striking GPs, back early prisoner release over punitive lock-up, back paternity leave and PIP reform. Your Britain is one where the state owns the pipes and the safety net, and where growth doesn't come at the cost of business bills being quietly subsidised by everyone else — you rejected that trade twice.

You're split down the middle with the country — on with the majority about as often as against it — but your disagreements aren't random. On early prisoner release you sided with a small minority (29% yes) against a nation that mostly wants it stopped, and on energy policy reform to cut business costs you again broke hard from an 89% majority. When Britain drifts pragmatic on cost-cutting, you drift toward principle.

You voted yes on proscribing Iran's IRGC and yes on Russia sanctions — hawkish, security-first calls that sit oddly against your welfare-and-ownership instincts. It's not incoherence so much as a state-power streak: you trust the state to nationalise the grid and to name its enemies abroad.

You've never voted on housing, education, constitution or culture — odd gaps for someone this committed to public provision, since housing especially is where your ownership instincts would show teeth.

Thirteen scored votes is enough to see the shape, not yet enough to call you legendary in conviction — every vote you cast sharpens this picture, and next week's read will tell you whether that Iran vote was a one-off or the start of a harder edge.