NeilBullock

You are a clearly right-wing voter whose vision of the UK is harder at the border, firmer on crime and defence, and less apologetic about national identity. Yet this is not a pure small-state creed: you still favour public intervention on care, housing and parts of the economy, even while demanding welfare scrutiny and fiscal discipline; your instinct is order first, but not market worship.

You have moved from The Sovereign Statist into a more fully fortified traditionalist: immigration, military strength and cultural confidence now give your politics its backbone. The older economic contradiction remains — you would fund care and protect high streets, but reject a wealth tax and want benefits tied to legitimacy — so the hard edge has sharpened without making you economically orthodox.

You usually travel with the nation rather than against it, joining the UK majority on most of the recent questions. But your support for voiding the votes of people without jobs, abolishing the EHRC and using force against migrant crossings shows where your version of order runs ahead of the public mood; as you put it, some offenders are “monsters” who should face capital punishment.

You run with your Centre-leaning circle often enough to belong, but not passively: you agree with them two times out of three. crooner is your lockstep ally on rights and energy, while hr97 shares your defence and immigration instincts but parts company on foreign policy and the constitution.

The open question is whether your state instinct bends toward social provision or punishment as pressure rises. Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line and make this living picture truer still.

You're a monarchist who wants the state to run the water company, an NHS-abolitionist who also wants pension auto-enrolment widened for the low-paid — the throughline isn't ideology, it's ownership. Sovereignty at the top (keep the Crown, keep FPTP, no Brussels, no devolved mayors), collectivism underneath (public utilities, solar-mandated housing, defence spending without war bonds to pay for it). Constitution is where you're unshakeable; economy is where you go rogue.

Last time you were "The Skeptical Traditionalist" on a six-vote sketch — hard right, untested on immigration, economy, defence. Those gaps are filled now, and the picture complicated rather than confirmed: defence spending, you're solidly hawkish; economy, you swung hard left. You're not softer, you're just fuller — a traditionalist with a public-ownership streak nobody saw coming from six votes.

You ride with the majority more often than not — 22 of your last 30 line up with the country, on defence spending, income tax thresholds, NHS reform. But you break with the room on Thatcher's regional legacy and on funding utilities publicly at 83% national agreement — there you're not the outlier, Britain is quietly with you.

You run with crooner three votes in four — your natural ally. Migano is your opposite number, agreeing barely a third of the time; somewhere in that gap sits your economy-left, constitution-right split made flesh.

This sharpens with every ballot — cast today's and tomorrow's read gets truer, especially on where welfare and justice finally settle you.

You're voting for a Britain that slows down before it leaps: no rushed zero-carbon deadlines, no Schengen entanglements for Gibraltar, no flying taxis while broadband gets dug up unpunished. It's a cautious, sovereignty-first vision — spend on what's proven, guard what's British, and don't mistake urgency for wisdom.

On six of ten recent votes you sided with the national majority, but where you broke — renewable energy timelines, the Gibraltar customs union — you broke hard right against a country leaning the other way. You're not a contrarian by habit; you're a majority voter who simply won't follow the crowd off a cliff on Europe or net-zero.

Newcastle-under-Lyme has voted with you almost every single time here — on two-tier justice, on police reform, on rejecting the Gibraltar deal — making this less a personal quirk and more a shared local temperament. The one place you and your area split from each other is child benefit, where you said no and your solitary local respondent said yes; worth watching if the pattern holds.

Ten votes and not one on immigration, defence or the economy proper is a striking gap for someone this instinctively right-leaning — the profile currently runs on energy, justice and infrastructure alone, and that's a thin base for a "Hard Right" label to stand on.

This is early days — six scored votes is a sketch, not a portrait. Cast a few more, especially on immigration or the economy, and next week's read will start telling you something you couldn't have guessed about yourself.