JohnFoley

You are a constitutional left radical with an unusually disciplined wallet: you favour federalism, public ownership, foreign aid and refugee protections, yet turn right on justice and economy. You want power brought closer to ordinary people, institutions made answerable and social protection preserved — but not funded by a blank cheque; as you put it, “Where is the evidence?” Your support for tougher punishment and indefinite leave restrictions is the sharp edge in an otherwise strongly egalitarian record.

A while back, you were The Constitutional Tax Heretic; now you are a broader public-power radical with a firmer law-and-order instinct. The old tension remains, but welfare has softened further left while rights have edged towards the centre: more protective of people, less willing to excuse the state’s failures.

You are neither a straightforward majority voter nor a permanent contrarian, siding with the UK on roughly three in five recent votes. The nation often follows you on practical reform, but you stand apart when it comes to refugee rights, gender identity, inheritance tax and foreign aid — where your internationalist left runs ahead of public opinion.

Your Centre-Left circle is a useful home, not a marching band: you agree with it more often than not, while your rightward economic and justice instincts keep your independence intact. You run with the crowd on public power and rights, then part company over who pays and how firmly the rules should bite.

Your full record now makes the central question unmistakable: can public power stay generous without becoming permissive or fiscally limitless? Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line into a fresh read — and every ballot will make the picture truer.

You are clearly left-wing in the shape of the country you want: more democratic, more publicly minded and less deferential to inherited power. You back proportional representation, public ownership and stronger rights, yet your economic instinct remains the dissenter’s one — asking, in your own words, where higher tax is actually being “utilised”; on justice, welfare conditions and cultural boundaries, you are noticeably harder-edged than your left flank.

A while back you were The Republican Tax Dissenter; now you look less like a constitutional protester with a tax objection and more like a full-spectrum public-power radical with a fiscal brake. Welfare has settled nearer the centre-left, while your rights outlook has edged rightward — a small hardening, not a change of allegiance.

You are no automatic contrarian: across your record, you land about as often with the UK majority as against it. But your signature breaks are clear — rejecting extra defence spending and nuclear expansion, resisting punitive immigration measures, and opposing the Home Office framing of asylum seekers as a specific threat to women, even when the national mood runs the other way.

You run broadly with your Centre-Left circle, agreeing on nearly two-thirds of shared votes, but your closest ally is robvrn: especially close on defence and rights. That pairing says something important — your leftism is not merely redistributive; it is constitutional and internationalist at its core.

Your open question is whether the fiscal brake can coexist with the larger state and stronger public institutions you want. Ten more votes will sharpen that tension into a truer portrait — every ballot makes the read more alive.

You are a strongly left voter with an unusually hard right edge on the economy: pro-public ownership, welfare, rights and constitutional reform, yet wary of tax rises, inheritance tax and unearned dependency. Your vision is a republican, decentralised and socially protective UK that expects contribution, rejects privatisation and resists both oil expansion and punitive justice; as you put it, where is the evidence higher tax helps people who “don’t work and contribute nothing”?

You were The Constitutional Egalitarian; now you are a broader democratic dissenter, sharpened by public ownership, Scottish self-government, press regulation and a willingness to question party labels. The old contradiction remains, but it has become more vivid: expansive public provision alongside gold-standard instincts and a welfare brake.

You are neither a loyal opposition voter nor a simple contrarian: the nation is only marginally more likely to agree with you than not. You broke with the majority on Scottish consent, local energy extraction, second jobs for MPs and the death penalty, while joining it on banning leveraged buyouts and taxing off-licence alcohol.

You run with your Centre-Left circle more often than not, but not in lockstep; your closest ally, robvrn, is especially aligned with you on defence and rights. Your distinctive economic suspicion gives the group a fault line: you are left on public power, but harder-edged on who should pay.

Your next ten votes will test whether the fiscal dissenter can reconcile low-tax instincts with the public services you defend. Keep voting: this picture sharpens every time, and the next read will be truer because the record keeps growing.

You want a more equal, more democratic UK: public ownership over profit, stronger welfare, proportional representation, and a constitution that puts power on firmer popular ground. Your convictions are unusually settled on defence, rights and constitutional reform — but on the economy you break right, demanding proof that higher taxes actually help people who “don’t work and contribute nothing”; that makes you less a conventional socialist than an egalitarian with a stern fiscal conscience.

You were The Liberties Holdout; now you are The Constitutional Egalitarian. The rights-first instinct remains, but it has widened into a full programme of public control, welfare protection and democratic reform, while your old party-ban tension has been joined by a sharper tax-and-spend fault line.

You are neither a habitual majoritarian nor a pure contrarian: the country has gone with you about as often as it has not. But you have stood against its strong defence instinct, rejected new oil licences and private water ownership, and backed republican, proportional and constitutional change even when the national mood was less settled.

You run with your Centre-Left circle more often than not, agreeing on nearly two-thirds of shared votes, but you are further left and more uncompromising than its average member. Your distinctive split is economic: you want generous public provision, yet distrust higher-rate tax rises unless spending visibly earns its keep.

Your next ten votes will test whether that fiscal-right exception becomes a lasting principle or gives way to the wider egalitarian vision; each new ballot will make this unusually distinctive profile sharper and truer.

Across just eight scored votes you've been unwavering: prisons should educate not just punish, care workers deserve a fair pay deal, London keeps its Mayor, and neither the burka nor mass deportation of foreign offenders gets your yes. It's a coherent, gentler vision — a Britain that invests in people rather than expelling or excluding them.

You split evenly with the national majority overall, but look closer and the pattern sharpens: on the votes where Britain moved as a landslide — deporting foreign offenders (83% yes), banning the burka (61% yes), building more nuclear defence (61% yes) — you were the holdout, voting no each time. You're not reflexively contrarian; you just don't move with a crowd on rights and security.

Here's the wrinkle: you're ready to ban extremist political parties outright, even though the country overwhelmingly rejected that idea (just 39% yes). For someone so protective of individual liberty elsewhere, it's a striking exception — protection of the state trumping protection of dissent, just this once.

You've never voted on housing, the economy, environment, education policy proper, or immigration beyond that single deportation question — for someone this decisive on rights and justice, whole flanks of the ledger are still empty.

Eight votes have already drawn a clear line — cast a few more, especially on economy or housing, and we'll see whether the Liberties Holdout holds under different pressure. Every vote you make sharpens next week's read.