CyrusBourgogne

Strip away the noise and one thing holds: you do not want power leaving Whitehall. Four separate votes on Andy Burnham's Manchester model, regional devolution, and a No 10 unit relocating north — you said no to every single one, while the country you're voting alongside leaned yes each time. That's not incidental; it's a conviction. Around it sits a looser, more left-leaning instinct — scrutinising JD.com's subsidies, opposing a defence investment plan, rejecting public juries for asylum appeals — the profile of someone who trusts central institutions to hold the line, but wants those institutions to lean fairer, not harder.

You've gone against the national grain almost as often as you've matched it, and the pattern isn't random: every time devolution was on the ballot, you were the dissenting no in a nation inclined to say yes. On defence spending and market scrutiny, though, you land left of where Britain settled — a reformer's instinct wrapped around a centraliser's spine.

No local breakdown has landed yet for your votes — an area worth watching once your town's numbers start filling in against your consistently pro-Whitehall line.

Six scored votes is early days, and it shows: whole fields — welfare, housing, health, justice, immigration policy beyond asylum juries — remain unvoted. Governance is your one hard conviction so far; everything else is still a sketch.

This is a first read built on thin but telling data — the centraliser thread is real, but categories like welfare and housing could either confirm the pattern or complicate it. Vote on, and next week's profile gets sharper and truer to who you actually are.