Glasses

You want a self-reliant, disciplined UK: tighter borders, harder consequences, balanced books and fewer fashionable subsidies dressed up as policy. Your distinctive edge is energy sovereignty — resisting fossil-fuel taxes and green interventions while favouring the infrastructure, transport and industrial capacity that keep the country independent. You are culturally stern, economically hard-nosed and suspicious of institutions that confuse diversity or credentials with merit.

You were The Industrial Sovereigntist; you have held that line, but widened it into a more explicit politics of national control and public accountability. The new votes sharpened your hostility to uncontrolled migration, foreign influence and debt, while revealing a stubborn soft spot for social care: you backed protecting homes from care costs even as you rejected rent controls and expansive welfare.

You are broadly in step with the country on migration, university reform, debt and stronger action against serious crime, but your record is far more consistently right-wing than the average vote. You often move against the majority where state intervention is popular — opposing water-company penalties, fossil-profit taxes and climate priorities — yet you also broke with your usual instincts to support social-care reform and tax wealthy pensioners’ winter fuel payments.

Your open question is whether sovereignty means a smaller state, or a stronger one capable of building energy, transport and care without outside dependence. Your profile sharpens every time you vote; ten more votes will show whether that tension resolves into disciplined conservatism or a more interventionist national programme.

You are clearly right-wing, but your politics are more industrial and sovereign than merely culture-war: balanced books, conditional welfare, basic standards in schools, domestic energy and less faith in grand public schemes. “Better off out” and your contempt for “micky mouse degrees” point to a country that should produce, pay its way and stop apologising for its own interests.

You were The Drill-Rig Enforcer; you have broadened into The Industrial Sovereigntist. The old energy-and-potholes instinct remains, but recent votes have added fiscal discipline, flags, university restraint and resistance to wealth taxes and state-funded gender treatment—while your refusal of Channel gunboats shows sovereignty does not automatically mean military adventurism.

You usually move with the country rather than against it, siding with the UK majority on 43 of 60 recent votes with a national split. But where the nation favours green farming incentives, wealth taxes or more expansive public provision, you choose self-reliance and limits; your sharpest break is wanting North Sea drilling while rejecting compensation for communities living beside new infrastructure.

Your open question is whether this hard-edged independence can make room for practical investment: reliable energy, better transport and decent care without simply enlarging the state. Ten more votes will show whether you are becoming a full-spectrum disciplinarian or keeping the populist exceptions that make you harder to file neatly; the picture only gets truer every time you vote.

You want a Britain that pumps its own gas, builds nuclear plants, and stops apologising for it — Rosebank, fracking, no legally binding emissions target, no "no-growth wellbeing" experiments. Pair that with a justice system with real teeth (death penalty for the worst crimes, scrapped early release) and a welfare state that earns its keep, and you get a vision of self-reliance: energy security, hard borders on benefits, and a state that spends at home before abroad.

Last time you were the Gas-Fired Fortress, energy and defence your hardest edges. The gas conviction hasn't just held — it's widened into a full industrial stance: nuclear expansion, fracking, drilling, even the pothole-resurfacing vote reads as the same instinct applied to roads. The gap flagged last read is closing; transport and environment now sit unanimously right alongside energy.

You ride with the majority more often than not, but your breaks are pointed: you refused the care-service levy 53% backed, and you sided with the minority against Burnham's rearmament drive and against paying prisoners' way — proof your hard-right instinct isn't reflexive, it's selective.

Your record just got rarer and sharper — culture, tech and food are still blank. Keep voting; the next read will tell you whether the drill-rig instinct spreads there too.

You want an energy policy built on cost not carbon, a defence budget that actually meets NATO's number, and a welfare state with a brake firmly on — this is Britain-as-fortress, not Britain-as-project, and you've voted that way with almost no exceptions.

Last week you were the Grievance Realist, defined by scepticism of devolution and Burnham. That scepticism hasn't gone anywhere — you still backed Farage staying an MP after the donor row and gave him your "virtual vote" in Clacton — but this week the sharper edge is energy: you rejected the gas-to-electricity switch, community-owned energy projects, and 2030 net zero targets in one unbroken run, hardening from general grievance into a specific, fuel-and-bills conviction.

You split with the country almost exactly down the middle — siding with the national majority on precisely half your recent votes — which sounds moderate until you notice where you diverge: the country wanted heat pumps over gas boilers and a bigger social housebuilding programme; you wanted neither.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes mostly walks with you — unanimous with you against net zero councils, against the housebuilding programme, for deporting the Rochdale ringleader — but you break from your own town on the bank surcharge, where three in four locals wanted it reinstated and you said no. That's your one real dissent from home ground, and it's revealing: instinctively anti-tax even when your neighbours aren't.

You've never voted on transport, agriculture, culture or technology — a striking gap for someone this vocal on energy and tax, and one that would sharpen the fortress considerably once filled.

This is a live picture, not a verdict carved in stone — vote on transport or culture next and watch the fortress either harden or crack, because every vote you cast makes next week's read truer than this one.

You want a Britain that spends on steel, ships and soldiers before it spends on childcare vouchers and Manchester summits — a country that looks after its own indigenous concerns first and treats "levelling up" as a test to be failed by whoever's holding the title this week, Tory or Labour. Defence spending to meet the Moscow test: yes. Ed Miliband as chancellor: absolutely not.

You're not a reflexive contrarian — you sided with the national majority on two in three recent votes — but where you break, you break hard: you don't buy Andy Burnham's growth plan, his ten-year plan, or his bid to hoover power out of Whitehall, all while most of the country was still undecided or leaning his way.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes usually has your back, and on the votes that sting most — indigenous concerns, Burnham's ten-year plan, power to the regions — your area didn't just agree, it agreed unanimously. This is a profile grown from a place that feels done with being managed from elsewhere, and you're its clearest voice.

You've never voted on education, transport, agriculture or the environment — for a man this decided on welfare and defence, that's a curiously quiet flank, and it means your worldview is still missing half its furniture.

This is only 37 scored votes deep — early days, but the shape is already unmistakable. Vote on the gaps and we'll find out if the Grievance Realist holds up under pressure from the categories he's avoided.