NottsOxon

Governance, welfare and housing votes read like a manifesto: tax wealth not work, fund social security by fixing jobs and housing rather than punishing claimants, nationalise steel from foreign owners. You want a Britain that redistributes downward and refuses to let "hard choices" mean squeezing the poorest — but you pair that with a hard-nosed insistence on sovereign defence, wanting Britain to hold its own nuclear deterrent rather than lean on Washington.

Last time you were the Wealth Insurgent, flagged for reconciling economic radicalism with a hawkish defence streak — that thread hasn't closed, it's hardened. You're now voting against US tanker bases in Bulgaria as readily as you vote for taxing million-pound assets, so the "insurgent" has grown teeth: anti-establishment at home, wary of foreign entanglement abroad.

You split almost evenly with the national mood — backing British Steel's nationalisation and scrapping digital ID alongside the crowd — but you break hard on justice and civil liberties, opposing whole-life sentences and MPs' second jobs bans that huge majorities support, holding a firmer left line than the country seems to want.

You and your one followed voice, northern_lass_91, agree less than half the time — allies more in spirit than in vote, splitting notably on governance, the very territory where your convictions run deepest. You're not running with a pack; you're mostly running on your own reading of the ledger.

Every vote you cast sharpens this picture — keep going, and next week's read will know you better than this one does.

You want a Britain where wealth answers to democracy, not the other way round — triple lock kept, minimum wage untouchable, CEOs told hundreds-to-one pay ratios are indefensible. This isn't soft social liberalism; it's a hard economic egalitarianism, "the richest have more than their fair share" isn't a maybe for you, it's a starting premise.

You're split down the middle with the country — sixteen of thirty votes align — but the disagreements are pointed, not random. Where the nation wanted tougher sentencing for foreign nationals, integration tests, and the death penalty back, you said no every time; where most Brits called Reform a fringe curiosity, you called it a danger. You're not contrarian for its own sake — you're consistently to the left of the room on justice and identity, even as you break right to demand more defence spending against Moscow.

Rushcliffe backs you almost unanimously — solar subsidies, wealth taxes, federal devolution, paternity leave, all matched vote-for-vote. But your patch deserted you on the sharper stuff: it wanted the death penalty gone too, but also wanted tougher sentencing for foreign criminals and doubted Islam needs no reform — exactly where you held the harder left line alone.

You've never voted on health, education, culture or technology — odd gaps for someone this decided on economics and welfare. An NHS-abolition vote you did cast tells us little; a Health-category vote proper would sharpen the picture considerably.

This is a strong first read off 28 scored votes, but it's still a sketch of a much fuller portrait. Vote on the categories you've skipped and we'll rebuild this every week — sharper, truer, more unmistakably you.