Iobas

You are a strongly right-wing, state-first voter whose defining convictions are immigration, governance and national independence. You want the Refugee Convention replaced, indefinite leave to remain abolished and foreign nationals kept off most benefits—but your politics are not simply laissez-faire: you also favour greener limits and curbs on private power, including backing a ban on leveraged buyouts.

You have moved from The Fortified State Disciplinarian to a more explicitly sovereignty-driven hardliner: immigration has hardened into the hard right, while your constitutional instincts have softened towards a federal written settlement. Your foreign-policy record is now clearer too—prepared to arm Ukraine, but resistant to arguments that Israel or its allies should be treated as uniquely culpable.

You usually move with the national majority, but your agreement is more demanding than comfortable: most Britons may support tougher rules, yet you repeatedly want the sharper version. Your tension is telling—economically mixed and occasionally anti-private-power, while socially and institutionally uncompromising.

Your next ten votes will test whether this is becoming a fully coherent sovereignty programme or still a security-first worldview with pockets of economic dissent; each vote sharpens the picture, and the next read will be truer for it.

You want a UK that is harder to enter, harder to exploit and more willing to impose consequences: firm on immigration, defence, crime and governance, while still resisting green orthodoxies. Yet you are not a simple free-market conservative—your support for public water, curbs on leveraged buyouts and reform of the constitution gives your state-first politics an anti-private-power streak.

You have moved from The Sovereignty Enforcer to a more fortified, disciplinary version of yourself: welfare and constitutional questions have crossed firmly into the right, while your already-right positions on rights and immigration have hardened further. You are holding the old line on borders and authority, but with less patience for institutional discretion and benefit-first spending.

You usually travel with the national majority—49 of your recent votes with the UK—but your instinct is often more punitive and security-minded than the country’s broad consensus. You backed mandatory whole-life orders, compulsory community work and tighter controls on religious slaughter, while rejecting more aid, deeper Ukraine strikes and a randomly chosen Lords.

Your open question is whether this fortified state should also become more economically interventionist; ten more votes will sharpen that tension and make the picture truer.

You want a more sovereign, disciplined UK: harder borders, stronger enforcement, armed forces with a visible domestic role, and institutions that stop apologising for exercising power. Yet this is not a simple free-market right: you back public water, oppose leveraged buyouts and remain alert to housing failure, making your politics an unusual blend of national authority and economic intervention.

You have moved from The Armoured Statist to The Sovereignty Enforcer: the security-first instinct is now sharper, especially on the ECHR, migration, firearms and border protection. The old interventionist streak has not disappeared — your support for public water and restraints on corporate ownership shows it is becoming a programme, not merely a corrective.

You usually travel with the national mood, agreeing with the UK on most recorded questions, but your convictions become firmer where sovereignty and enforcement are involved. The sharp tension is that you distrust elite and metropolitan power while still wanting a stronger central state — Westminster should control borders, but voters should gain more proportional representation and the country should write its constitution.

You run with your circle on the broad right, but your distinctive edge is less market-liberal than its security language suggests: you can side with the left against concentrated corporate power while remaining uncompromising on immigration and defence. Your closest ally and biggest clash sharpen that contrast further, especially where welfare or public ownership separates you from otherwise shared national instincts.

Your next 10 votes will test whether the sovereignty enforcer becomes a settled public-power conservative or a durable economic interventionist in right-wing clothing; every vote makes the picture truer.

You want a more defended, disciplined and culturally self-confident UK: tighter immigration, tougher welfare rules, firmer institutions and a state that does not apologise for enforcing its boundaries. But you are no free-market purist; on the economy, housing and public services, you keep asking government to restrain private power and protect ordinary citizens. That makes you an armoured statist rather than a standard small-state conservative.

You have moved from The Public-Power Traditionalist to a sharper, more security-minded version of the same politics: public control is still there, but immigration, cultural cohesion and institutional authority now carry more force. Recent votes on migration caps, demographic change, intolerant ideologies and an ICE force suggest the counterweight has hardened into part of your programme.

You usually travel with the national majority — on 47 of 60 recent votes — but your agreement is not passive. You backed stronger borders and welfare cuts even when the central question was politically loaded, while opposing net-zero compulsion and rejecting a new AI likeness right: order and national control matter more to you than fashionable consensus.

Your open question is whether this becomes a coherent public-interest conservatism — markets disciplined, borders defended, institutions trusted — or simply a harder-edged right-wing worldview. Ten more votes will sharpen that answer and make the picture truer.

You want a more defended, disciplined UK: tougher on welfare, borders and institutional standards, less tolerant of cultural drift, and willing to spend heavily on national security. But this is not a simple small-state conservatism; you distrust utilities, finance and unchecked private power, favouring public control when markets fail ordinary people.

You have moved from The Armoured Collectivist to The Public-Power Traditionalist: still hard-edged on authority, identity and defence, but clearer that intervention should serve the public rather than merely restrain it. Your recent support for stopping water-company bonuses, scrutinising benefits and abolishing Holyrood sharpens the same instinct: power should be accountable, central and useful.

You usually travel with the national majority — on 45 of 60 votes with comparable data — but your instincts are more muscular than the country’s on defence, constitutional authority and cultural questions. The tension is telling: you reject a larger welfare settlement, yet support public intervention when private institutions look extractive or incompetent.

Your open question is whether economic intervention becomes a coherent public-control politics or remains the exception inside a wider right-wing worldview. Ten more votes will show whether the traditionalist in you is becoming a state-builder — and make this profile sharper still.

You want a confident, defended UK: tougher institutions, stronger armed forces, firmer borders and less patience with cultural or bureaucratic orthodoxies. Yet this is not a free-market worldview; you distrust concentrated corporate power, resist tax cuts for higher earners, favour public control of utilities and will protect the high street from warehouse economics.

A while back, you were The Fortress Traditionalist; you have not abandoned that stronghold, but you have made its economic argument sharper. The newer votes confirm the cultural and defence hard line while adding a distinctly interventionist streak: local power, public utilities, solar requirements and selective redistribution, alongside a willingness to punish serious offenders and challenge the EHRC.

You usually move with the national majority, but your reasons are harder-edged than the consensus: the UK agrees on defence, public control and criminal accountability, while you push further on identity, authority and institutional scepticism. Your most revealing break is economic—you vote right on welfare and spending discipline, but left when finance, taxation or private ownership seem to outrank ordinary life.

Your open question is whether the collectivist in you can coexist with the disciplinarian: will public power serve communities, or mainly enforce order? Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line—and make the picture truer every time you return to the ballot.

You vote for a UK that arms up, holds the line on marriage, monarchy and gender, and refuses to let fashionable causes rewrite its institutions — but you'll happily nationalise the water company on the way there. This isn't laissez-faire conservatism; it's a fortress vision, defence-first and rights-firm, with a genuinely left-leaning suspicion of finance and privatisation running underneath it.

You split almost evenly with the country — siding with the majority on defence spending and NHS reform, but standing apart on marriage equality (78% of the nation backed it, you didn't) and transgender identity, where most voters land the opposite way. You're not a contrarian by instinct; you just refuse to move on the handful of issues that matter most to you.

Early days here — no strong ally or clash has surfaced yet in the data, but your convictions on defence, rights and welfare are unanimous enough that anyone tracking you closely will find little wiggle room to argue you out of them.

Your economic votes — backing utility nationalisation, worrying about finance's grip on the country, opposing the higher-rate tax threshold rise — sit oddly against your hard-right instincts everywhere else. That's the thread worth pulling. Cast a few more votes on tax, business and energy and this profile will sharpen fast — every vote you make from here reshapes the picture, and a fresh read lands weekly.