Moondevil

You want a Britain that's armed, sovereign and unapologetic about its own people — voting for 3% GDP defence spending, against "two-tier justice," and firmly behind the idea that white Britons get a raw deal from institutions meant to serve them. But you're no standard-issue nationalist: you'd tear down the monarchy, rewild the countryside with beavers, and back a written constitution. This is a patriot who wants the state strong at the border and light on ceremony.

Last week you were "The Planning Deregulator" — thin, governance-and-economy focused, a builder's instinct. That thread has thickened into something harder: defence and rights now anchor you, and a genuine identity has emerged around grievance politics and institutional distrust, sharpened by "two-tier justice" and "second-class citizens" votes that weren't visible before.

You split almost evenly with the national mood — agreeing on defence spending and beaver reintroduction, but breaking hard from big majorities on Thatcher's regional impact and utilities privatisation, where you took the minority, defiant position.

Maldon mostly marches with you — unanimous on the monarchy, PR, and dog licensing — but the sample is thin, one vote each, so treat this as a rough echo, not a verdict.

Immigration — the defining fault line of the era — you haven't touched once, a striking gap given how loudly you speak on rights and justice. Culture, energy and housing are similarly untested.

This profile sharpens with every vote — cast a few on immigration and culture and the Ironclad Rewilder either hardens into something unmistakable, or reveals another contradiction worth naming. Come back next week; you'll be truer than you are today.

You want a Britain that builds — faster planning, faster grid, faster everything — with a light touch on capital and a firm scepticism of state largesse. Your instincts are deregulatory on the economy and governance, but not doctrinaire: you backed the wind-and-solar planning overhaul as readily as data-centre fast-tracking, suggesting your real cause is speed itself, not ideology.

You split evenly with the national mood — siding with the majority six times out of ten — but your dissents are pointed. Where 91% of the country waved through planning reform and you agreed, you also stood against the crowd on Farage's standards probe (67% wanted an inquiry, you didn't) and on faster medicine trials (66% said yes, you said no). That's not reflexive contrarianism; it's a voter picking fights selectively.

Maldon mostly mirrors your instincts — unanimous on planning speed-ups, gilt leverage rules, overseas donation caps — but it broke from you twice: your area voted against the medicine-trial fast-track and against easing the supported-housing benefit cliff edge where you took the opposite, tougher line. Small sample, but a real seam between your welfare instincts and your neighbours'.

Nine votes, one real throughline — planning and economy are decided, but immigration, defence, justice, education and a dozen others are untouched. Right now this is a profile about builders and banks; we don't yet know your Britain on borders or crime.

This is early days — a clear right lean on governance and economy, but thin elsewhere. Cast a few votes on immigration or justice and the picture sharpens fast; we'll rewrite this the moment it does.