Olfg

You want a Britain that builds tighter rules before it builds new subsidy: no to council-home expansion, no to Strategic Partnership top-ups, yes to greenbelt development when it means more homes rather than more state. Add a tightened PIP system and less judicial discretion for repeat offenders, and the throughline is a country that trusts markets and punishment more than it trusts committees.

You're no reflexive contrarian — on immigration, nuclear weapons and junk-food ads you sit with the national mood — but on housing investment you break hard from a country that voted the other way twice, and on the Falklands you sided with a tiny left-leaning minority against an overwhelming national appetite for force. That's not drift, that's a genuine independent streak underneath the right-leaning frame.

Sixteen votes, only eight with real political shape — this is still early days. You've never touched economy, immigration policy proper, education, energy or the constitution, which means the "clearly right" read rests almost entirely on housing and welfare. One vote in defence or foreign policy would tell us whether the Falklands dissent was principle or a one-off.

This is a thin but pointed record — rare in its shape, not yet rich in its detail. Cast a few more votes in the gaps above and the picture stops being a sketch and starts being a portrait; we'll be here writing the next one.