Estella

You are a hard-right voter with unusually settled convictions on immigration, rights, welfare and energy: the state should enforce boundaries, protect inherited freedoms and stop treating adults like dependants. Your environmental instinct runs in a different direction from much of your politics — “more solar panels from China” is not, to you, a serious answer — and your objection is practical rather than fashionable.

You have moved from The Green-Edged Rights Disciplinarian to a sharper Carbon-Sceptic Disciplinarian: broadly the same worldview, now pushed further right on foreign policy, welfare, governance and the constitution. Recent votes add a more explicit defence-and-order edge, from volunteering for military service to scrapping non-crime hate incidents and keeping Palestine Action proscribed.

You usually travel with the national majority, though your instincts are often more forceful than the country’s: the UK agreed with you on most recent votes, including several questions on immigration, crime and institutional authority. Where you depart, it is typically towards restraint — rejecting universal free meals, basic income and marijuana legalisation — rather than towards a softer or more expansive state.

Your circle is only a loose home: it averages Centre-Right, but you agree with it less than half the time. A1R is your clear ally, agreeing with you on nearly three-quarters of shared votes; your record suggests you are not following a crowd so much as testing whether it has the nerve to match your convictions.

Your open thread is whether environmental scepticism remains your distinctive dissent from the right, or gets absorbed into your wider tax-and-order worldview. Ten more votes will unlock a fresh read, and the picture will keep sharpening each time you return to the ballot.

You want a more sovereign, orderly UK: tighter borders, fewer welfare loopholes, lower and fairer taxation, stronger punishment, and wider room for uncensored speech. Yet your rightward instinct is not blind to practical reality: on energy, you distrust “solar panels from China” and still refuse to treat every green objection as foolish.

A while back you were The Green-Edged Border Disciplinarian; now you have become sharper on rights, governance and immigration without losing the green edge. Repealing the Online Safety Act fits your belief that freedom means tolerating views you dislike, while your refugee, demographic and transgender-rights votes show a harder cultural perimeter.

You usually move with the national majority, but your reasons are often more ideological: you backed replacing the Refugee Convention and opposed tax rises for local government even as the country broadly rejected that position. Your tension is clear—socially uncompromising, economically disciplinary, but environmentally more sceptical of the right’s easy answers.

Your five-account circle sits around Centre-Right, but you are not much of a joiner: you agree with it on fewer than half of shared votes. A1R is the exception and your closest ally, yet the wider gap suggests you are more settled on borders, rights and welfare than the crowd you follow.

Your next ten votes will test whether the green restraint still checks your harder instincts—or whether the disciplinarian finally wins; every vote makes the picture truer.

You want a UK that is sovereign, economically firm and unapologetic about enforcing its rules: tighter borders, less welfare dependency, stronger policing and fewer constitutional concessions. Yet you are not a simple culture warrior; your left-leaning environmental votes suggest practical stewardship matters to you, even when it complicates the right-wing answer. As you put it, welfare could still support people “if we weren’t supporting people arriving” — a hard line with a social bargain underneath.

A while back, you were The Green-Edged Disciplinarian; you have not abandoned that practical environmental check, but you have sharpened into a harder border and sovereignty voter. Immigration has moved into the hard-right camp, while your rejection of a federal constitution, foreign benefits and indefinite leave to remain shows the perimeter tightening.

You usually travel with the UK’s majority, but your instincts are more severe than the national mood on immigration, rights, welfare and punishment. The striking exception is the monarchy: you voted for an elected head of state from “pure dislike of Charles”, siding with the left for intensely personal reasons rather than republican doctrine.

Your circle averages Centre Right, but you are hardly running in lockstep: you agree with it less than half the time. A1R is the clear ally, yet your record suggests an independent, sharper-edged voter who follows conviction more than tribe.

Your next ten votes will test whether the green conscience still restrains the border hardliner, and whether your new foreign-policy instincts settle into a pattern. Keep voting: the picture sharpens with every ballot, and the next read will make the tension truer.

You want a self-governing UK with sealed borders, conditional welfare, lower taxes and punishment that does not flinch: mandatory whole-life orders, military help at borders, even the death penalty for child murderers. But this is not simple reaction; your record protects a practical environmental conscience, making you suspicious of the “green agenda” while still backing environmental improvement when it serves the country rather than ideology.

You have moved from The Ecological Border Enforcer to a more severe, sovereignty-first disciplinarian: welfare, justice and constitutional positions have all hardened, while governance has softened slightly from clearly right to centre-right. The open question is no longer whether you care about the environment, but whether that instinct can survive your escalating law-and-order politics.

You usually travel with the national majority, but your convictions are sharper than the average vote: the UK may agree on reforming poor local government, while you want the wider system made answerable. On immigration and culture, your language is especially uncompromising — “cultures are different” is not a caveat to you, but part of the warning.

You follow a centre-right crowd but run surprisingly against it, agreeing on fewer than half of shared votes; A1R is the notable exception and your closest ally. You are not merely echoing your circle’s politics — you are its harder edge, with a greener conscience and a more punitive instinct.

This read finally has your whole record behind it; your next ten votes will test whether the green thread holds or yields to sovereignty and order, sharpening the picture again.

You have moved from The Green-Conservative Enforcer to something more uncompromising: a sovereignty-first hardliner whose strongest convictions now sit around immigration, rights and economic discipline. The language has sharpened too — “no illegal migrants”, leaving the ECHR, firearms for self-defence — but the green streak remains, making you an enforcer with an unexpected conservation instinct.

You usually travel with the national majority, but your instincts are harder-edged than the country’s average: you backed leaving the ECHR, armed border checks and civilian self-defence even when the UK was less persuaded. Your real fear is a state that is strict with the traceable taxpayer yet permissive towards disorder — “anarchy tyranny”, as you put it — and that tension explains both your anti-red-tape politics and your demand for authority.

Your Centre-Right circle is not really your tribe: you agree with it on fewer than half of shared votes. You are more forceful on borders, punishment and institutional control, while your environmental and public-service instincts pull you somewhere your followers may not expect.

The open question is whether your conservationism can survive your appetite for enforcement and growth: the next ten votes will test whether it is a principle or an exception. Keep voting and this picture will sharpen — not by smoothing out the contradiction, but by showing which side of you ultimately leads.

You are solidly right, but not a simple free-market absolutist. You defend property and resist wealth taxes, yet protect old homes, back environmental payments when “family farmers” lead them, and reject turning the NHS half-private: your instinct is enforcement with stewardship, not change for its own sake.

You have moved on from The Landlord-Taxing Hardliner into a Green-Conservative Enforcer: still severe on benefits, crime, immigration and constitutional drift, but sharper about conservation, local knowledge and the limits of market logic. The newer record softens your economic edge in places—supporting a National Care Service levy and rejecting demolition—without loosening your grip on borders or social order.

You usually stand with the national majority, but your convictions run hotter than the country’s on immigration, rights, welfare and punishment. You are not merely following the crowd: navy boats in the Channel, harder benefit conditions and opposition to gender-care funding reveal a distinctly uncompromising core.

Your Centre-Right circle is not really your tribe: you agree with it less than half the time, suggesting you run ahead of its caution on borders, discipline and institutional authority. No named closest ally or clash is available, but the pattern is clear—you are the circle’s enforcer, with an unexpected green and heritage-minded brake.

Your open question is whether “tax capital, punish people” becomes a settled creed or gives way to a cleaner conservative economics. Ten more votes will sharpen that tension—and make the whole picture truer.

You want a Britain that punishes hard, pays for itself, and stops asking who's to blame for the welfare bill — bring back capital punishment, suspend claimants for review, integrate tax and benefits, deport foreign offenders fast. But you're no free-market purist: you'd tax student landlords, back nationalising British Steel, and cheer capping the gas-set electricity price. Your Britain disciplines people, not markets.

Last time you were "The Sentencing Hardliner" — punishment-first, with a stray council-house streak. That housing streak hasn't faded; it's hardened into something broader: a real appetite for taxing wealth and property (landlords, utilities) even as your justice and welfare instincts have only sharpened. You're less a hardliner with one soft spot now, more a right-winger who's decided some things — housing, energy pricing — simply shouldn't run on pure market logic.

You're mostly in step with the country — siding with the majority on 42 of 58 recent votes — but where you break, it's pointed: against closer EU ties, against more Holyrood powers, for axing the Scottish Parliament outright, well past where most voters are prepared to go.

You follow a Centre-Right crowd but only agree with them 42% of the time — you're not running with your pack, you're running past it, harder on punishment and welfare than the company you keep.

Your record's sharpening fast — the housing-left thread is now a real second convictions, not noise. Keep voting and next week's read will tell you whether it settles into a pattern or gets swallowed by the hard right.

You want a Britain that locks its borders, empties judicial discretion out of the courtroom, and builds nuclear power stations instead of solar subsidies — a state that punishes hard, defends itself without apology, and stops pretending every problem needs a committee. You'd bring back the death penalty, strip judges of sentencing leeway, and tighten PIP without blinking. This is order-first conservatism with real teeth.

You split almost evenly with the national mood — not a contrarian, but not a follower either. Where Britain overwhelmingly wanted judicial review reform to speed up housing, you voted no; where the country cheered heat pumps and time-of-use tariffs, you didn't buy it. Your dissent isn't performative — it's specific, usually where "reform" smells like more bureaucracy.

No local data has come through yet, so we can't tell you if your street agrees — early days, but worth watching once it does.

You've voted eighteen scored ballots deep on rights, justice, and energy, but never once on immigration policy detail, foreign policy, or the economy proper — striking, given how hard-edged your instincts are everywhere else. A voter this decided on sentencing and borders leaving immigration untouched is the one gap worth closing.

This is an early but sharp sketch — the death penalty, ECHR exit, and judicial toughness already tell a clear story. Cast a few more votes, especially in that immigration gap, and next week's read will cut even closer to the bone.