Nik

You vote for an expansive, interventionist UK: protect benefits, fund care, empower unions, reform the Lords and make institutions answer to ordinary people. But you are no doctrinaire statist—your support for a mixed NHS, North Sea drilling and early-stage investment shows a practical streak beneath the egalitarian core.

The Fortress Leveller has become The Union Egalitarian: the welfare-and-housing core is holding firm, but your politics now look more explicitly organised around workplace power, electoral reform and institutional accountability. Your right-leaning breaks remain real—especially on immigration, business, energy and some cultural questions—but they have not pulled the centre of gravity rightward.

You are a genuine half-against-the-grain voter, siding with the UK majority about as often as not. You resist the country’s appetite for rearmament, benefit restrictions and smaller university ambitions, yet occasionally join its tougher instincts on drugs, gender medicine and the limits of public provision.

You run with your left-leaning circle more than against it, agreeing on roughly two-thirds of shared votes. Ueva is your closest ally—lockstep on constitution and economy, but divided on immigration and defence—while ThisisKaj is the sharper clash, despite common ground on parties and employment.

The open question is whether your hard-edged views on identity and markets stay as a contained exception or start reshaping your left economics. Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line—and make the whole picture truer.

You want a Britain that redistributes ruthlessly at home — rent controls, a housing floor, nationalised utilities funded by pension consolidation, free university — while drawing a hard line at the border: no benefits for non-citizens, yes to the burka ban, yes to national service. It's not incoherence; it's a welfare state you think only works if it's bounded.

Last time you were the Leveller Dissenter, with immigration flagged as an unsettled question you hadn't fully resolved. It's resolved now — clearly right on immigration, clearly right on business, leaning right on foreign policy — while the levelling core (donation caps, housing floor, anti-inequality instinct) hasn't budged an inch. The dissent didn't fade, it hardened into a second identity.

You split almost exactly down the middle with the country — siding with the majority on barely half your recent votes — which is rarer than it sounds for someone this clearly left; you're with the nation on drilling licences and national service, against it on tuition fees and the digital services tax.

You run with your crowd two votes in three. Ueva is your closest ally — lockstep on the constitution and economy, apart on defence — while ThisisKaj, despite huge overlap, keeps clashing with you on welfare and transport.

The immigration break is now a fixture, not a wobble — vote on, and next week's read will test whether it keeps hardening or pulls back toward the leveller core.

You want a Britain where the rules of power are policed as fiercely as the economy — proportional fairness in housing, in donations, in who gets called a "second class citizen" — and inequality itself is treated as democracy's chief threat.

Last time you were the Ballot-Box Leveller, all donation caps and rent controls. That core hasn't moved — but the immigration and business breaks have sharpened into something harder to ignore: you're now flatly against the "tax favours wealth" consensus and firmly for new gas licences, even as you stay dovish on extra defence billions.

You're no reflexive contrarian — 17 of your last 30 votes matched the national mood — but where you split, it's pointed: no to more defence spending while Britain said yes by two-to-one, no to abolishing the monarchy against a near-even nation, no to scrapping the two-child cap when most said scrap it.

You run with your crowd two-thirds of the time — tightest with Ueva, loosest with ThisisKaj — but your immigration and business heresies are yours alone, not inherited from anyone you follow.

The immigration-business fault line is still open — vote through it, and tomorrow's read gets sharper still.

Your convictions cluster hardest not around tax-and-spend but around the machinery of fairness itself: cap the donations, ban the extremist parties, force landlords into the Decent Homes Standard, control the rents. This is institutional-left Britain — clean politics and secure housing as the precondition for everything else — even as you break right on Business, happy to let pension funds and gig-economy checks serve delivery rather than dogma.

Last week you were the Growth-First Leftist, chasing planning reform and delivery speed. That thread has cooled; this week's votes pull toward institutions and housing rights — donation caps, party bans, rent controls — a shift from "build fast" to "build fair, and police the rules of the game."

You split almost evenly with the country, siding with the majority barely half the time. You broke hard from the grain on banning extremist parties (the nation said no, 65-35) and on the wealth tax (you voted no while most of Britain said yes) — proof your left isn't reflexive.

Every vote in Glasgow South data comes from a lone respondent, so it mirrors you almost perfectly — thin evidence, but worth watching as more locals weigh in.

You've never voted on Employment, Transport, Agriculture or Technology — a real gap in an otherwise textured record.

Cast a few votes in those blank categories and this picture sharpens fast — every vote you add makes next week's read truer than this one.

You're clearly left across the board — unanimous on rights, environment, elections, the constitution — but your left isn't the redistributive kind; it's the delivery kind. You want wind farms and nuclear approved faster, planning pre-application time slashed, pharma trials fast-tracked, UKRI protected — a state that acts rather than deliberates, wrapped in progressive instincts on donations, monarchy and pride.

Last week you were the Devolutionist, defined by ripping power from Westminster. That instinct hasn't vanished, but it's been overtaken this week by a sharper theme: you're now voting for speed and construction — planning reform, energy infrastructure, medicine trials — even where it means agreeing with the right on Business. The regional-power story is still there; the growth-first story is now louder.

You're mostly in step with the country — siding with the national majority on 23 of your last 30 scored votes — but you break hard from Britain on Andy Burnham's "good growth" plan, where the nation overwhelmingly disagreed and you didn't blink.

Glasgow South moves with you almost everywhere — near-unanimous locally on planning reform, donations caps, childcare expansion — making you less an outlier at home than a fairly faithful vote for your constituency's instincts.

You've never voted on Employment, Transport, Agriculture or Technology — odd gaps for someone this invested in how Britain builds and grows. Cast a few there and the "growth-first leftist" read gets a lot more concrete.

This profile sharpens every time you vote — fill in Transport or Technology next and we'll see whether your appetite for speed survives contact with the messier trade-offs, then write you a fresher, truer read next week.

Your throughline isn't tax-and-spend, it's geography: Burnham's Manchester model, a written constitution, abolishing the monarchy, a No.10 unit outside London — you vote, again and again, to break the capital's grip. This is a left worldview built on devolution first, redistribution second.

You sided with the national majority on most votes, but where you break is telling — Britain rejected an English regions "blueprint" and Burnham's 10-year plan while you backed both; you're more committed to the devolution project than the country at large.

Glasgow South barely disagrees with you — you matched your area on nearly everything, including unanimous support for regional power grabs and public control of Thames Water. The one crack: you split down the middle with your area on North Sea drilling, your Business-right streak showing through even on home turf.

For someone this vocal on constitutional structure, you've never voted on Justice, Defence, Welfare or Health — the actual delivery categories behind the devolution you champion. That's the gap between the architecture you want and the services it's meant to run.

This is a clear early sketch — left on governance, surprisingly pro-business on trade and industry — and it'll only get sharper. Cast a few votes on welfare or justice and we'll see whether your devolutionism holds up once it meets the state's harder edges.