Rabbit

You are a rights-first democratic leftist: a more generous UK, stronger welfare, public provision, local power and enough homes for people to live decently. But this is no soft-focus idealism—you want delivery, too, backing development while rejecting the fantasy that every housing problem yields to a single fund or target; as you put it, “I wish it was” realistic.

You were The Housing Insurgent; now you are a broader Rights-First Housing Dissenter, with housing still the material spine but elections, constitutional reform and institutional rights carrying more weight. Recent votes sharpen the line: you defended the EHRC, resisted immigration reversal and backed regional power, while making one distinctly order-minded exception by permanently barring serious offenders from office.

You often stand against the national mood, especially on migration, welfare conditions, rearmament and culture-war panic, yet your record is not simply oppositional: you side with the UK on practical reforms and have matched the majority about as often as you have resisted it. Your “Dickensian” warning on schooling captures the instinct—core standards, yes; a joyless, over-managed country, no.

You run with your Centre-leaning circle more than against it, but not in lockstep. Ful_lim is your closest ally, aligned on education and personnel but divided on welfare and health; Mark is the sharpest clash, where shared economic instincts give way to splits over environment and rights.

Your open question is whether the pragmatic edge—energy, education, enforcement—becomes a coherent governing philosophy or stays a handful of exceptions. Ten more votes will test that fault line and make this living picture truer.

You are a clearly left-wing egalitarian whose real political project is material: build the homes, protect welfare, fund care and make power answerable to voters. Housing, welfare and democratic reform are not passing preferences for you; they are the architecture of a decent country, though your support for North Sea drilling, tougher school basics and some limits on progressive causes gives the picture a useful burr.

A while back, you were The Bordered Egalitarian: solidly left, but defined by a hard line at the border. You are holding steady on the big picture, but that border anxiety has softened into a broader, more eccentric pragmatism — opposing migrant militarism and religious bans while still resisting benefits for non-citizens, and sounding increasingly impatient for delivery rather than slogans: “Why can’t we make a determination and be sure?”

You split almost evenly with the UK’s majority, which makes you less a contrarian than an independent-minded left voter who refuses the fashionable package deal. You side with the country on practical reforms and order, but reject its enthusiasm for rearmament, harsher welfare conditions and a half-private NHS.

You run left of your Centre-leaning circle, agreeing often enough to belong but not enough to disappear into it. Ful_lim is your natural ally on personnel and education, though welfare and health expose the distance; Mark is the sharper clash, with common ground on economy and immigration but real separation on environment and rights.

Your next ten votes should show whether the pragmatic exceptions remain isolated or become a firmer law-and-order, energy-and-culture flank. Keep voting: each ballot sharpens this unusually specific portrait, and the next read will be truer for everything you add.

You want a Britain that taxes wealth, rebuilds the NHS and PIP system, scraps tuition fees and reforms prisons — a state that looks after its own with real conviction, not gesture. But "its own" is doing work here: you vote right on immigrant access to benefits and on police enforcing the law "even if it conflicts with certain cultural or community expectations." This isn't drift, it's a boundary — universalism at home, a fence at the edge.

Last time you were the Drilling Leveller, egalitarian but pragmatic on oil and planning. That pragmatism has faded a little — you're back opposing Rosebank-style drilling in spirit on climate targets, though you still backed the actual Rosebank vote — while the immigration exception has hardened rather than softened. The throughline survives; the delivery-first mood has cooled.

You split almost exactly down the middle with the country — 37 of 60 — which sounds centrist until you see where: you're with the crowd on nuclear power and prison reform, but alone against big majorities on the death penalty and celebrating national history, where you simply refuse the popular mood.

You agree with your followed accounts only 63% of the time in a circle that averages Centre — you're the leftward outlier in it. cpan is your rare lockstep ally; Mark, your biggest clash, shares your economics and energy instincts but loses you completely on environment and rights — proof you'll break from your own crowd before you'll break from your convictions.

Your comments already show the sharper edge behind the votes — dismissing "bloodthirsty cultists" and "biblical" moralising in the same breath you defend wealth taxes. Keep voting and next week's read gets sharper still: does the immigration exception harden further, or does it start bending back toward the egalitarian instinct underneath?

You want a Britain that taxes wealth over work, builds council homes at scale, and treats rights as non-negotiable — but you won't let net zero purism or judicial review stand between that and actual delivery: North Sea licences, faster planning, R&D poured into the universities that already win.

Last time you were the Deportation Dove — soft-hearted everywhere except the border. That fault line hasn't closed, but it's widened: the pragmatism has spread from immigration into energy and planning, where you now break right on drilling and judicial review speed while staying unanimous on rights. Same voter, sharper edges.

You're no reflexive rebel — you matched the national majority on two in three recent votes, siding with the country on Ukraine, cyber sanctions and scrapping the Lords. Where you break away, it's pointed: backing the Seventh Carbon Budget when most of Britain balked at 87% cuts.

JenJennn is your near-mirror — lockstep on rights and foreign policy. Libertas is the opposite pole: you meet only on immigration, then split hard on welfare and housing, the exact fault line running through your own politics.

Immigration and energy remain your tell — the next cycle will show whether that pragmatism creeps further into justice, or stays contained. Vote on, and the picture sharpens weekly.

You want a Britain that nationalises risk — rent controls, a workplace heat cap, energy bills rebuilt from scratch, refugee reunion routes reopened — but you don't extend that generosity to foreign nationals who offend. You're building a welfare state with a locked door, not a borderless one.

Last week you were the Safety-Net Loyalist, unanimous and thin — 8 votes, all left. You've since tripled your record to 63 scored votes, and the picture has complicated rather than softened: still clearly left on rights, housing, welfare, defence and governance, but immigration has hardened into its own clearly-right lane. The loyalty held; the edges sharpened.

You split almost evenly with the national majority — 18 of 30 recent votes — which is unusual discipline for someone this left elsewhere. You broke hard from the country on nuclear defence expansion (68% yes, you said no) and on diverse casting overriding historical accuracy (13% yes nationally, you were in that small minority), but you joined the 84% majority wanting Shabir Ahmed deported and the 74% backing the strategic defence review's warfighting reforms.

No local data exists for you at all, so there's no read on your patch yet — worth fixing. And despite 63 scored votes, you've never touched International, Business, Science or Technology; for someone this decided on rent controls and energy pricing, a total silence on business and infrastructure is a real gap.

Vote on business, technology or international questions and we'll see whether your immigration hawkishness is a boundary or the start of a wider drift rightward — every vote you cast sharpens this a little more, and next week's read will be truer than this one.

Every one of your eight scored votes has landed on the left — wealth tax yes, PIP tightening no, ADHD benefit stripping no. You're voting for a Britain that catches people before they fall: a decent-homes standard for renters, a properly funded NHS capital plan, devolution that pushes power outward. This isn't performative radicalism; it's a steady, unshowy belief that the state's job is to hold the floor up.

You split from the national mood almost as often as you join it — siding with the majority on exactly half your votes. On PIP assessments and the ADHD benefits question, the country moved firmly right of you (77% voted to strip ADHD claims; you were part of a small holdout). But on net zero, you and the nation are in near-total agreement — only a fringe wants to abandon it, and you're comfortably in that mainstream.

No local data has come through yet on your votes — so for now, Britain is the only mirror we can hold up. Once your area starts voting alongside you, this section will get sharper.

You've never voted on immigration, justice, defence or education — a striking gap for someone this decided on welfare and health. A Hard Left profile with no recorded view on crime or borders is a story half-told; those are the votes that would tell us whether your left runs deep or just runs through the welfare state.

Ten votes in and the picture is already unanimous — but thin. Cast a few more, especially in those blind spots, and this profile stops being a sketch and starts being a portrait. We'll be watching every vote you make.